Would it ever get built with out some financial risk? If, as the article indicates, the sales are "about 200" out of 490, that does not seem that good for all the agressive marketing and publicty (pro & con). And is this likely before the contruction loan is granted (possible investor units held that go back on market)?

Many projects, larger and smaller, have started far later and are cruising at a far better pace on sales. Now granted some of these are under construction, but per other sites like Yo, here are some numbers:

Printers Corner 69% U/C
Vetro 53% U/C
Aqua 87% U/C
340 on the Park, Related Midwest's 62-story tower Lakeshore East - 99%
Waterview Tower, which, at 90 stories 60%
550 St. Clair. 85%
One Museum Park -95% Sold U/C
One Museum Park - West Tower - 75% U/C
1400 Museum Park - 88% U/C
Marquee - 1445 S. Michigan - 87% U/C
Six North Michigan - 30% (and they have not yet opened sales center) U/C
Michigan Avenue Tower II - 85% - U/C
Vision on State - sold out - built
2100 South Indiana 15% - sold - launched 6 weeks ago
1600 Museum Park 60%+U/C

Hey Erm,

Just wondering...where can you find these numbers? I've purchased a unit at 2100 South Indiana and was told the loft structure is about 55% sold and the adjoining condo tower is about 25%. That was 3 weeks ago. I'd like to believe what I was told, but I am skeptical.

The developers have reasonable investment-backed expectations for the project.

That's the test for a "regulatory taking," not a vested right. In Illinois, the vested right test is "a substantial change of position, expenditures or incurrence of obligations made in good faith by an innocent party under a building permit or in reliance upon the probability of its issuance." Holland & Knight have on their website a good overview of the vested rights doctrine in Illinois. (http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?IssueID=612&Article=3253)

I went yesterday to get a copy of the actual ordinance Fioretti introduced. It simply repeals the PD and restores DX-5 zoning for the parcel. So I'm not sure where the Crain's reporter got the idea of a 225-foot height limit.

That's the test for a "regulatory taking," not a vested right. In Illinois, the vested right test is "a substantial change of position, expenditures or incurrence of obligations made in good faith by an innocent party under a building permit or in reliance upon the probability of its issuance." Holland & Knight have on their website a good overview of the vested rights doctrine in Illinois. (http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?IssueID=612&Article=3253)

I went yesterday to get a copy of the actual ordinance Fioretti introduced. It simply repeals the PD and restores DX-5 zoning for the parcel. So I'm not sure where the Crain's reporter got the idea of a 225-foot height limit.

Wasn't it upped to DX-7 due to bonuses? The contribution the developer stated he'd be giving to Glessner House and Affordable Housing will now be reduced.

That's the test for a "regulatory taking," not a vested right. In Illinois, the vested right test is "a substantial change of position, expenditures or incurrence of obligations made in good faith by an innocent party under a building permit or in reliance upon the probability of its issuance." Holland & Knight have on their website a good overview of the vested rights doctrine in Illinois. (http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newsletters.asp?IssueID=612&Article=3253)

I went yesterday to get a copy of the actual ordinance Fioretti introduced. It simply repeals the PD and restores DX-5 zoning for the parcel. So I'm not sure where the Crain's reporter got the idea of a 225-foot height limit.

Well-stated. The key issue is vested right. An argument could be made, however, that the dissolution of the PD constitutes a regularory taking. It probably wouldn't stick, but if this ends up in court you can bet the developers will file a claim for regulatory taking.

Setting that aside, it seems the developers of X/O complaints would pass the test for a vested right claim. They reasonably relied to their detriment on the previous ordinance: millions in sales have already been agreed upon as well as large sums in soft costs.

My larger point - Fioretti understands all this. I believe his opposition is political move, and a savvy one at that.

I don't understand the question. The Adopt-a-Landmark and Affordable Housing contributions were offered to get an increase in density under the PD. They can't be used as-of-right.

I don't understand the question. The Adopt-a-Landmark and Affordable Housing contributions were offered to get an increase in density under the PD. They can't be used as-of-right.


That's my point. If this property is forceably downzowned to the DX-5 zoning, then the developers within their right could pull all that funding that was going to support Adopt-a-Landmark and Affordable Housing. Those 2 entities will suffer. I'm just wondering if people have thought about that.

I don't understand the question. The Adopt-a-Landmark and Affordable Housing contributions were offered to get an increase in density under the PD. They can't be used as-of-right.

No they can't, but that was put into the PD. $699,899 will be given each to Affordable Housing and the Glesner House in excahnge for the FAR increase to a 7. It should be noted that the property in question was originally zoned DX-7 while Frankel and Giles was in negotations to purchase the property, but it was downzoned by Heithcock, likley for NIMBY pandering. So, in actuality X/O was NOT an increase in the original zoning, but rather what it has been since the zoning re-write become official in November 2004. Its the same FAR, but instead the city will be recieving two cash payments to bring the zoning back to what it originally was.

I understand Glessner House is in desperate financial straits. It wouldn't surprise me to see Fioretti pressured with claims that it won't survive unless Kargil is allowed to buy an indulgence.

..

Pressured by Kargil. You don't think they'll spread panic over this issue?

I guess I've never heard anyone from PDNA mention views. Can you offer a citation?

..

And it's important not to let the developer set this up as a false choice between accepting X/O on this site or losing Glessner House.

And it's important not to let the developer set this up as a false choice between accepting X/O on this site or losing Glessner House.

I don't think we're in danger of losing Glessner House, seeing as it is actually"within the boundaries of the Prairie Avenue Historic District".

They could however lose much needed funding.

I don't mean literally losing the building. But suppose the Glessner House Foundation says "without the Kargil money we can't repair the roof and we'll have to close as a house museum and we'll have to sell the building to a bed & breakfast operator." That puts PDNA in a tough position, I think.

As to the boundaries of the district, way back when Prairie Avenue was made a district, the landmarks commission felt it did not have the power to include vacant lots and noncontributing structures, so the district had to be drawn to weave in and out among the remaining houses. Thus there was nothing to keep the ugly-ass DCFS building from stinking up the southwest corner of the district. Under today's landmarks ordinance, districts are drawn more logically to include vacant lots in between and nearby, so that insensitive infill can be controlled.

^ All useless and silly speculation actually. The issue here is a move to repeal an approved PD (due in fact to NIMBY-pandering, but it actually doesn't matter what the motivating factor was) that will undoubtedly be overturned in court - if in fact it gets that far. All the other talk of political games involving Glessner House and such are just those - political games. What we have here is Kargil Development in the right corner, and Aldermen Fioretti and the NIMBY group PDNA in the wrong corner. It's a majority of people that truly believe in the future of the South Loop vs. those misguided few NIMBYs that are hopelessly forever stuck in its past...

By the way - I'm now in the camp that says this is just a shrewd political move by Fioretti - he's picking a fight he fully knows he is incapable of winning, and then can place the ultimate "blame" elsewhere when X/O begins construction....in the meantime he's picked a very high-profile instance to heavily pander to a very vocal group of hardcore NIMBYs...

And it's important not to let the developer set this up as a false choice between accepting X/O on this site or losing Glessner House.


That's exactly right - this would indeed be a false choice. Prairie Avenue has every to get the best of both worlds here - the X/O development as planned and the restoration of Glessner House...

I don't mean literally losing the building. But suppose the Glessner House Foundation says "without the Kargil money we can't repair the roof and we'll have to close as a house museum and we'll have to sell the building to a bed & breakfast operator." That puts PDNA in a tough position, I think.

As to the boundaries of the district, way back when Prairie Avenue was made a district, the landmarks commission felt it did not have the power to include vacant lots and noncontributing structures, so the district had to be drawn to weave in and out among the remaining houses. Thus there was nothing to keep the ugly-ass DCFS building from stinking up the southwest corner of the district. Under today's landmarks ordinance, districts are drawn more logically to include vacant lots in between and nearby, so that insensitive infill can be controlled.

Vacant lots and noncontributing structures should NOT be part of landmark districts. So Landmarks in this case was right not to include them. If Landmarks in recent years has more frequently included such parcels in new landmark districts, this would absolutely be a mistake and they are headed in the wrong direction. This is all part of the backward-looking philosophy of certain people that are basically neighborhood character preservation fundamentalists. It's the wrong approach in nearly every instance. Even the Chicago Journal, with a rather spotted history on neighborhood character/new development issues, finally seems to have come around and seen the light on this topic...

Here is a thought. Since the PNDA has got such a hard on about XO and Glessner House now says that with the XO $$ they can't redo the roof. Why not assess every condo in the PNDA a special assessment to cover the cost of the Glessner. I mean it was their association that got us to this point and we all know that the PNDA speaks for every condo owner in the District.

Those here sure like to throw around the label as if PDNA does nothing else but oppose towers in the South Loop. XO was a single tower project they have opposed. Drive east on Roosevelt over the river and all you see on the horizon is cranes. Towers are going up all over, and PDNA has not objected to any of them, and in fact has supported many projects.

XO is a unique project in many respects. Its location for one. Its developer for another. The fact is that at the community meeting at Glessner house last fall the community members there soundly opposed it. After that meeting Alderman Haithcock, clearly in the pocket of Giles SAID SHE WOULD NOT LET THE PROJECT GO FORWARD WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. It was then approved with zero changes. No traffic study was ever done in connection with the building. The immediate area never received assurances that the sewer system in the area, which has backed up and caused issues in many developments in the surrounding area, could handle the development. Haithcock lied to the community about XO not being on the agenda for approval, and then later lied that she did not support the project. During the campaign on 3 separate occassions she stated that even though the project had gained approval she was not going to allow building permits to be issued without substantial changes. So the aldermanic "pandering" that is oft repeated here began with Haithcock, although she just pandered with lies instead of action.

PDNA has opposed this project for a whole host of reasons and on behalf of the larger community as well. But in their opposition they have always said they didn't oppose the towers per se, just the location of this one. To call PDNA a NIMBY organization and to label it opposed to any tower development in the area is to distort the facts and create a smear campaign. Yes they do oppose XO, but that is a unique project with a unique set of issues and history and community opposition.

^ Fair enough. But then you guys asked for cul-de-sacs, and thereby lost all credibility in my book..

^ Fair enough. But then you guys asked for cul-de-sacs, and thereby lost all credibility in my book..

You are more fair than most here, but let me explain a bit. What occurred was a request for traffic calming measures as Calumet heads into 18th street. Anyone who observes this area knows there will be traffic related injuries or deaths soon without something being done. The City decided to open the improved lakefront access there with an overpass, but does nothing to prevent double sided street parking in the area. To compound this bikes have to go up on the sidewalks, because there is as high curb where the overpass of the RR tacks heads down. On top of the increasing traffic flows from development and the opening of Museum tower 1, McCormick traffic mainly cabs have decided that a good cut through is to come off Martin Luther King onto Calumet and then run 18th street to Indiana or Michigan. These cabs speed, don't typically stop at the single stop sign at 18th and Prairie and there have been many near misses of bikes, pedestrians, dogs, and autos. Super impose on this situation the 1660 S. Museum tower, another high rise on Calumet, and XO projections that have that traffic exiting and entering in obscured by parked cars alleyways and even you might see the wisdom in doing something about the traffic pattern. A cul de sac on calumet was one idea -- mainly because traffic is already blocked in the south bound lane so it is partially off the grid already, and something needs to be done to force the cabs to flow the way they should -- on the main north south arteries as opposed to cutting around calumet and then 18th.

I know in Printer's row they have pushed traffic calming for years, and they have a stop signs everywhere. I don't see them being blasted here. PDNA is a punching bag here because it took on GSLA as a less than representative group for a specific area, and then certainly worked hard to oppose XO. But to call it NIMBY or label it anti development, anti density or anti tower is just not consistent with the facts.

Those here sure like to throw around the label as if PDNA does nothing else but oppose towers in the South Loop. XO was a single tower project they have opposed. Drive east on Roosevelt over the river and all you see on the horizon is cranes. Towers are going up all over, and PDNA has not objected to any of them, and in fact has supported many projects.

Well of course you have. It's not in the "Prairie District" and the traffic and density wouldn't really affect PDNA directly on the streets where they live.

XO is a unique project in many respects. Its location for one. Its developer for another. The fact is that at the community meeting at Glessner house last fall the community members there soundly opposed it. After that meeting Alderman Haithcock, clearly in the pocket of Giles SAID SHE WOULD NOT LET THE PROJECT GO FORWARD WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. It was then approved with zero changes. No traffic study was ever done in connection with the building. The immediate area never received assurances that the sewer system in the area, which has backed up and caused issues in many developments in the surrounding area, could handle the development. Haithcock lied to the community about XO not being on the agenda for approval, and then later lied that she did not support the project. During the campaign on 3 separate occassions she stated that even though the project had gained approval she was not going to allow building permits to be issued without substantial changes. So the aldermanic "pandering" that is oft repeated here began with Haithcock, although she just pandered with lies instead of action.

The problem is that all this opposition at last falls community meeting was after the fact. The PD had already been been approved by the Plan commission, Zoning and the City Council. The sewers should have been replace a decade ago before any new development occured in the area in the first place, so PDNA should also be having issues with the developers of their new townhomes and condo towers. Whether Haithcock lies about the project beiong on the agenda is a moot point seeing as the agenda is public information in the first place. How stupid was it for you all not to check? What type of "substantial changes" could have been made then that you think will be made in the future without a lawsuit? All approvals had already gone through.

PDNA has opposed this project for a whole host of reasons and on behalf of the larger community as well. But in their opposition they have always said they didn't oppose the towers per se, just the location of this one. To call PDNA a NIMBY organization and to label it opposed to any tower development in the area is to distort the facts and create a smear campaign. Yes they do oppose XO, but that is a unique project with a unique set of issues and history and community opposition.

Those reason have yet to be made clear. Why oppose this development when other nearby developments aren't being harped on? The location is a bullshit reason when nothing was said about Prairie district Tower or 1600 Museum Park. NIMBY organization clearly defined PDNA, and everyone here, yourself included knows that.

Those here sure like to throw around the label (edit: NIMBY) as if PDNA does nothing else but oppose towers in the South Loop....Drive east on Roosevelt over the river and all you see on the horizon is cranes. Towers are going up all over, and PDNA has not objected to any of them, and in fact has supported many projects.

You're right: It's not that you guys oppose all towers, it's that you fetishistically seem to have a thing for stubby, concrete towers that block more sun from the sidewalk than thin, lithe towers do.

You're right, then, that NIMBY doesn't quite capture it:

It's not "Not(hing) in My Backyard."

It's more like STIMBY: "Stubby Towers in My Backyard...Please, may I have another?"

I honestly don't get it.

All useless and silly speculation actually. . .[the rezoning] will undoubtedly be overturned in court
Based on what specific Illinois case law? Or would you be engaging in "useless and silly speculation?"

Those here sure like to throw around the label as if PDNA does nothing else but oppose towers in the South Loop. XO was a single tower project they have opposed.

The only other tower proposal in your backyard, The Rokas Tower, is also opposed by the PDNA. So, your facts are incorrect.

Based on what specific Illinois case law? Or would you be engaging in "useless and silly speculation?"

As I mentioned earlier:

[T]he developers of X/O complaints would pass the test for a vested right claim. They reasonably relied to their detriment on the previous ordinance: millions in sales have already been agreed upon as well as large sums in soft costs.

But since you requested case law, look no further than your buddies at holland & knight:

Furniture LLC v. City of Chicago
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2004/1stDistrict/October/Html/1023874.htm

1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Lori T. Healy
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/illinoisstatecases/sc/2006/102093.pdf

As I mentioned earlier:



But since you requested case law, look no further than your buddies at holland & knight:

Furniture LLC v. City of Chicago
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2004/1stDistrict/October/Html/1023874.htm

^ I'm not an attorney, but gleaming this particular case, the plaintiff in this case did not even appear to have started sales on his development when it went to court. Compare this to the X/O development, where hundreds of millions of dollars are already at stake.

Based on what specific Illinois case law? Or would you be engaging in "useless and silly speculation?"

^ Mr D, you really don't want X/O to happen, do you? Why are you so against all these projects?

Can you not just give in to the LOVE?

You've been here and at SSP for several months and you still seem unphased. Not a single "ooooh, I like that", or "wow, that looks incredible". No offense, but is there even the slightest right-brained, aesthetic, "jeepers that's cool" side to you at all, or are you really just all about spouting facts and information like a machine?

By all means, this is not meant to be insulting. You have never been rude to anyone, whereas plenty of us have been rude to you.

But the truth is, pretty much every single one of us on this site loves highrises, cities, and....yeah, TALL as hell buildings. How can absolutely none of this have rubbed off on you yet? What's with the resistance? In case you haven't gotten this yet, most of us are not visiting this site to constantly hear sobering tales about regulations against buildings taller than such and such height, etc.

Mr Downtown, if you can't get excited about a highrise building, then maybe you just don't belong at a website named SkyscraperCity.com. Because in the end, your point of view, while perfectly valid, will always be in the minority around here. Think about it.

you really don't want X/O to happen, do you?

Actually, I think X/O is really cool-looking, and was even better before putting in a silly "park." I'd love to see it happen on a different site.

I'm thrilled by Aqua and the Spire (though I liked some of the earlier versions better). I like 30 East Oak and Trump and Sky 55 and Hyatt Center. I'll probably like 900 South Clark and Burnham Pointe and Vetro, and think I'll admire Waterview and 300 North LaSalle. I'm not as crazy about 340 on the Park and Legacy as some of you seem to be. Considered solely as buildings without context, I admire the design of both Spertus and Park Michigan.

But my background is in city planning and I consider myself a preservationist. So I believe strongly in following the rules, and I have a healthy suspicion of developers who want to buy restricted property and immediately change the rules. So I opposed Legacy and Spertus for being inappropriate in the landmark districts where they were sited, and I oppose Park Michigan, X/O, and Chicago Childrens Museum in Grant Park for not complying with the rules that apply to their sites.

And as we discussed in the Skylines vs. Streetscapes thread, I love vibrant cities more than tall buildings just because they're tall. This is SkyscraperCity, not SkyscrapersInaVacuum.

As for the current X/O issue, I actually don't have a strong personal opinion. I think it was improper to approve X/O for that site, but once the PD was approved I'm not sure it's fair (or legal) to withdraw it. Most frustrating of all is that all this could be easily avoided if Chicago would actually do some planning and then pay attention to it, with zoning that actually complies with a comprehensive plan (as is required in virtually every other state). Instead, we fight over every site, one at a time, as if it were Hamburger Hill. Neighbors get angry, aldermen get chewed up, and lawyers get rich.

if you can't get excited about a highrise building, then maybe you just don't belong.

Si bananas tripudio requiris . . . circumspice.

Mr. Downtown - do you also oppose Harriet Tubman and her life work in the 19th century of freeing hundreds of slaves, since she "broke the rules"?

Actually, I think X/O is really cool-looking, and was even better before putting in a silly "park." I'd love to see it happen on a different site.

I'm thrilled by Aqua and the Spire (though I liked some of the earlier versions better). I like 30 East Oak and Trump and Sky 55 and Hyatt Center. I'll probably like 900 South Clark and Burnham Pointe and Vetro, and think I'll admire Waterview and 300 North LaSalle. I'm not as crazy about 340 on the Park and Legacy as some of you seem to be. Considered solely as buildings without context, I admire the design of both Spertus and Park Michigan.

But my background is in city planning and I consider myself a preservationist. So I believe strongly in following the rules, and I have a healthy suspicion of developers who want to buy restricted property and immediately change the rules. So I opposed Legacy and Spertus for being inappropriate in the landmark districts where they were sited, and I oppose Park Michigan, X/O, and Chicago Childrens Museum in Grant Park for not complying with the rules that apply to their sites.

And as we discussed in the Skylines vs. Streetscapes thread, I love vibrant cities more than tall buildings just because they're tall. This is SkyscraperCity, not SkyscrapersInaVacuum.

As for the current X/O issue, I actually don't have a strong personal opinion. I think it was improper to approve X/O for that site, but once the PD was approved I'm not sure it's fair (or legal) to withdraw it. Most frustrating of all is that all this could be easily avoided if Chicago would actually do some planning and then pay attention to it, with zoning that actually complies with a comprehensive plan (as is required in virtually every other state). Instead, we fight over every site, one at a time, as if it were Hamburger Hill. Neighbors get angry, aldermen get chewed up, and lawyers get rich.



Si bananas tripudio requiris . . . circumspice.



I think the issue here is that you do not seem to appreciate how varying styles and scale actually enhance neighborhoods, including those that are
in or near landmark districts. Some people seem to hold this outdated view - that creating something new and different in a certain neighborhood or historically important district somehow detracts from the neighborhood character or prevailing scale or deisgn. The new, more refined and sophisticated thinking among professional planners (my own background is in urban planning, my passion architecture and my profession real estate) is that respectful contrast is much more appropriate than crude mimicry. It's about diversity in the streetscape and on the skyline. No new structure should be designed to pretend it is part of a bygone era, even if it is adjacent to structures that are legitimately from said era. And of course tall and thin is just common sense - more air, light openess etc all the way down to the street. You're insistance on abiding to the strictest interpretation of what you call rules (in reality they're guidelines open to review on a project by project basis) is bizarre and frankly a little hard-headed. X/O, Park Michigan, Legacy each overwhelmingly enhance their neighborhood/landmark district in part because of the very reason that they are different but high quality design - it's this sort of interesting and respectful contrast in scale and design that serves the district well. For the opposite - to see what crude mimicry can do to harm a district, all one needs to do is look at the ridiculous-looking, obviously fake historical townhomes on Prairie and Prairie District Tower. That's poor planning, poor urban design - and the streetscape and the skyline suffer for it, both becoming more banal, lacking in authenticity, in importance of place, in diversity. If I could sum it up in one word - that would be it - diversity. In design - on the street - on the skyline (as well as many other aspects of life) diversity is what makes the difference. X/O, Park Michigan, Legacy, etc are all quite appropriate from neighborhood character, urban planning and design perspectives for the exact sites they have been planned for (and also not in violation of any laws for that matter)

Actually, I think X/O is really cool-looking, and was even better before putting in a silly "park." I'd love to see it happen on a different site.

I'm thrilled by Aqua and the Spire (though I liked some of the earlier versions better). I like 30 East Oak and Trump and Sky 55 and Hyatt Center. I'll probably like 900 South Clark and Burnham Pointe and Vetro, and think I'll admire Waterview and 300 North LaSalle. I'm not as crazy about 340 on the Park and Legacy as some of you seem to be. Considered solely as buildings without context, I admire the design of both Spertus and Park Michigan.

But my background is in city planning and I consider myself a preservationist. So I believe strongly in following the rules, and I have a healthy suspicion of developers who want to buy restricted property and immediately change the rules. So I opposed Legacy and Spertus for being inappropriate in the landmark districts where they were sited, and I oppose Park Michigan, X/O, and Chicago Childrens Museum in Grant Park for not complying with the rules that apply to their sites.

And as we discussed in the Skylines vs. Streetscapes thread, I love vibrant cities more than tall buildings just because they're tall. This is SkyscraperCity, not SkyscrapersInaVacuum.

As for the current X/O issue, I actually don't have a strong personal opinion. I think it was improper to approve X/O for that site, but once the PD was approved I'm not sure it's fair (or legal) to withdraw it. Most frustrating of all is that all this could be easily avoided if Chicago would actually do some planning and then pay attention to it, with zoning that actually complies with a comprehensive plan (as is required in virtually every other state). Instead, we fight over every site, one at a time, as if it were Hamburger Hill. Neighbors get angry, aldermen get chewed up, and lawyers get rich.



Si bananas tripudio requiris . . . circumspice.

Did you always follow the rules while growing up and as a man? Please be honest, don't you believe that some rules were made to be broken?

Have you ever jay-walked or done 40 in a 35?

Have you ever gone swimming before 1-hour?

The Southloop Plan was/is flawed. It doesn't allow the city to grow enough and flex.

You opposed Sperts? But why? Why should we build late 19th and early 20th Century styled building in the 21st Century? What exactly was there to preserve there or in the case of X/O?

How can we build landmarks of the future, if we can't get out of the past?

^ Yes - good point bringing up Spertus. This is perhaps the ultimate test if you really "get it". Spertus is a gem - in its setting. It is a fantastic addition to the streetwall and totally belongs there. People who say "I like the buiding, but not where they put it" are just not catching on. You do not enhance or respect what is already in an historically important district (or your own new project for that matter) by attempting to pretend you have always been there. Rather, truly contributing and enhancing a landmark district entails adding another true landmark for the future, representative of this point in time. This is a more sophisticated and appropriate approach to preserving and enhancing landmark districts and "neighborhood character". The future of landmark districts is much more important than the past could ever be - let's make sure our present day contributions to them address this.

So I opposed Legacy and Spertus for being inappropriate in the landmark districts where they were sited, and I oppose Park Michigan, X/O, and Chicago Childrens Museum in Grant Park for not complying with the rules that apply to their sites.

^ So modern buildings have no place next to historic ones? Let me ask you this. Are you really, really sure that you actually believe this dictum towards development? I think anybody with a whisp of aesthetic sense can walk through the Loop and see that the juxtaposition of truly historic buildings with modern ones works quite well. And even if you have a different opinion about that, it certainly doesn't justify creating what appears to be an all-encompassing rule against it.

I for one would like to know what kind of structure you would have rather seen at the Spertus site. Keep in mind that nobody is building the kinds of structures that characterize the Chicago of 1925 any more. That being said, are you suggesting that something along the lines of a shorter version of the Elysian would have more suitable?

the juxtaposition of truly historic buildings with modern ones works quite well

I do not argue with this at all--except for small, rare landmark districts.

Landmark districts, which are only a tiny portion of the city, are places that we have set aside as so cohesive that they are special to us--precisely for their cohesiveness. What we are ceremoniously setting aside are small portions of the city that are not like the city as a whole. So making them like the rest of the city detracts from them. We should expect new infill to be respectful and deferential, to use the same design vocabulary and materials and massing. This is not the place for look-at-me architecture.

Does this mean second-rate imitations or bad postmodernism? Of course not. What's the main difference between the crappy stuff in the 1700 block of Prairie and the handsome, almost seamless infill in the 1800 block? The good stuff was in the district and closely reviewed by the Landmarks staff; the schlock is what the developer wanted to build (I assure you, no "NIMBYs" or community plans influenced the design of either block). The new Berlin (especially the government quarter) is full of buildings of our time that nonetheless respect and repair the fabric of a 19th century city.

I think of landmark districts as sort of the national parks of cities. They are rare places we are preserving for posterity precisely because we think they are worthwhile in their own right. They are not places we are trying to "improve."

Comments on Spertus in the Michigan Avenue Landmark District thread. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=14557471&postcount=9)

I do not argue with this at all--except for small, rare landmark districts.

Landmark districts, which are only a tiny portion of the city, are places that we have set aside as so cohesive that they are special to us--precisely for their cohesiveness. What we are ceremoniously setting aside are small portions of the city that are not like the city as a whole. So making them like the rest of the city detracts from them. We should expect new infill to be respectful and deferential, to use the same design vocabulary and materials and massing. This is not the place for look-at-me architecture.

Does this mean second-rate imitations or bad postmodernism? Of course not. What's the main difference between the crappy stuff in the 1700 block of Prairie and the handsome, almost seamless infill in the 1800 block? The good stuff was in the district and closely reviewed by the Landmarks staff; the schlock is what the developer wanted to build (I assure you, no "NIMBYs" or community plans influenced the design of either block). The new Berlin (especially the government quarter) is full of buildings of our time that nonetheless respect and repair the fabric of a 19th century city.

I think of landmark districts as sort of the national parks of cities. They are rare places we are preserving for posterity precisely because we think they are worthwhile in their own right. They are not places we are trying to "improve."

Comments on Spertus in the Michigan Avenue Landmark District thread.

^ I will keep this response relevant to this thread by noting that this discussion certainly pertains to X/O's "belonging" to a landmarked district, and I argue that the Prarie Landmark District seems to have been created prematurely, and X/O is not out of character with its environment largely because its environment has yet to be created.

Name another landmarked district in Chicago where the majority of structures were created in the past 5 years. It almost seems as if some people took advantage of the presence of a few old houses to create a self-fulfilling "landmarked district" despite the fact that nothing of the sort existed. Landmarked districts are supposed to grow organically.

I doubt that Motor Row, or Wicker Park, or Pilsen (now THAT'S a district that deserves landmarking, far more than Prarie Avenue does) were built by people who anticipated that some day their neighborhood would be landmarked and, "by golly, we better not disturb the character of what we're putting up." They were built to suit a time and purpose. Yet this Prarie Avenue thing, well, it just seems a bit overcontrived.

Let me give you the ultimate example to fully illustrate my point, Mr D. A certain number of facades and original buildings that existed in Maxwell St were preserved in the University Village development. Despite this, few would dispute that the character of Maxwell St is long gone and the vast, vast majority of University Village is new & completely different from what was there before (even though new construction has sought to mimic a more traditional Chicago neigbhorhood). Now how would a rational guy respond if these UVA people began touting themselves as a "historic, landmarked Maxwell St district"? And what if they used their "historic district" argument to oppose development around them? Wouldn't that seem just a little bit silly? Wouldn't it seem like an excuse to simply oppose development on whatever grounds they can get their hands on?

Well, that's how this whole Prarie Avenue "historic district" thing plays out in my head.

X/O is not in the Prairie Avenue landmark district. Neither is the lovely DCFS building. To protect the district from another disaster like DCFS looming over Clarke House, the Near South Community Plan prescribed "low-rise structures . . . for the immediate Prairie Avenue area, with a gradual transition to the higher-rise residential and mixed-use buildings in surrounding blocks. Building materials and styles that are compatible with the historic character of Prairie Avenue should be used."

That seems like textbook urban design theory with which no one could seriously argue.

Building materials and styles that are compatible with the historic character of Prairie Avenue should be used."

^ I question the existence of the above. And that's what my entire last post was about. A contrived "historic district" that simply does not exist.

As I said before, calling PD an "historic district" is just as arbitrary as saying the same about University Village. If UVA residents opposed a glass and steel structure on such grounds, most people would chuckle. Likewise, I'm chuckling at this "historic" Prarie District concept right now, because I don't really see on what basis it exists.

X/O is not in the Prairie Avenue landmark district. Neither is the lovely DCFS building. To protect the district from another disaster like DCFS looming over Clarke House, the Near South Community Plan prescribed "low-rise structures . . . for the immediate Prairie Avenue area, with a gradual transition to the higher-rise residential and mixed-use buildings in surrounding blocks. Building materials and styles that are compatible with the historic character of Prairie Avenue should be used."

That seems like textbook urban design theory with which no one could seriously argue.

Sure you can argue with it, because not all things are learned from text books. Somethings are learned off the streets, and that can be the better of the 2 sources of information.

The DCFS Building isn't aesthetically pleasing and doesn't contribute anything to the area. X/O is totally opposite.

The Near South Community Plan isn't helping, it's hindering. The plan might have"prescribed "low-rise structures . . . for the immediate Prairie Avenue area, with a gradual transition to the higher-rise residential and mixed-use buildings in surrounding blocks", but most people feel that the plan is a misdiagnosis.

^^ and, the larger Prairie Ave District already contains 5 towers that are finished or under construction that make an immediate jump from townhome scale to high-rise with no mid-rises in between. That IS the existing fabric of the neighborhood. So then, like The Rokas Tower, the argument becomes: Does a 250' tower really have a significantly different impact on the new townhomes on the 1800 block of Prairie vs. a 450'? No, of course not....but a significatly different bulk/massing would.

I think this Prairie ave district is practically non-existent, there are unfortunately only 5 historical homes - which by all means should be preserved. And I admit I do like the 1800 block of new townhomes a lot more than those a bit north. But come on, its all concentrated in a tiny area. I walk through it everyday, and barely notice it.

Anyways, a small group of people living in an area thats about 2 square blocks (and thats generous) should not dictate development of the entire surrounding neighborhood. They want to keep tall buildings out of this two square block area, fine, most would agree. But like slooparch said, theres a bunch of tall buildings in the immediate vicinity already. There is no way in hell a seamless transition could be made to this district anymore, and it doesnt need it anyway. And I still dont understand why the shitty existing warehouse building could somehow fit in better with this 'district' than a tall graceful tower like X/O that will add property value and much needed foot traffic to a nice looking, but boring residential area. And the Rokas tower would be put in a place where there is currently some crappy storage facitilities, and an old church. I dont see much historic stuff over there worth preserving. And what character are they talking about? Its all a joke.

The arguments against these developments just dont make any sense to me, especially not at this point with all types of buildings thrown up already.

Can't we talk about something fun, like how Chicago Spire is going to have to move 700 initial units at 1200 bucks/sf before they can even start the superstructure in a market that's basically dead and will be because it's oversaturated...???

South Loops needs variety in housing

Am I missing something? There are three types of housing in the South Loop: town-homes, lofts and condos, everything else is just a shade of grey. I live in a town-home and my windows will face directly at the proposed X/O towers. If they are 30 stories or 45 stories is immaterial from the street level...
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=3274&TM=43343.43

South Loops needs variety in housing

Am I missing something? There are three types of housing in the South Loop: town-homes, lofts and condos, everything else is just a shade of grey. I live in a town-home and my windows will face directly at the proposed X/O towers. If they are 30 stories or 45 stories is immaterial from the street level...
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=3274&TM=43343.43
^^ ^^ Saw that. How did they get away with not putting their name on the letter to the Editor? BVA?

^^ ^^ Saw that. How did they get away with not putting their name on the letter to the Editor? BVA?

maybe he/she is afraid of the PDNA NIMBYS :)

maybe he/she is afraid of the PDNA NIMBYS :)

Oh yeah, I'm sure they're terrified

^^ Oh yeah, I'm sure they're terrified^^

Bvictor, BVA, makes you say Hmmmmmmmmmm.

It's interesting how the Prairie Ave NIMBYS would rather endulge in personal attacks and rewrite history rather then take on he Chicago Journal editorial board that reflected the community consensus and supports the project...:ohno:

X/O approved without community support

This message is in response to the article entitled "Ordinance could downsize X/O" that ran in the July 26 issue.

Steven Ward of the Greater South Loop Association is covering up the facts or simply naive as to how this project was initially approved. His comment indicating that there was no opposition from residents present at the meetings is simply wrong.

On March 18, 2006, the GSLA held a meeting in which this project was first proposed. Very little notice was given to the Prairie Avenue residents who are most directly affected by this inappropriate project. Of the approximate fifteen attendees present-six of which were Prairie Avenue residents-five of them spoke out against the project.

On June 5, 2006, former Alderman Madeline Haithcock set up a meeting with specific regard to the X/O project; approximately 90 to 100 residents were present. The majority in attendance was from the Prairie District area and the vast majority was opposed to this project for numerous reasons. Jeff Key, former president of GSLA, was in attendance that day and witnessed the outcry of opposition.

While Ms. Haithcock's staff was advising the community the project is in limbo until the developer makes major changes to his plans her office stated, "There may not be need for another meeting until there are some updated plans." In addition, the Department of Planning was telling the community that the project's approval was not on the agenda month after month.

Come August 2006, this project as previously presented was approved by the Alderman, GSLA and Near South Planning Board, although officially not on the original agenda.

I applaud the current Alderman, Bob Fioretti, who was voted in by the majority (66%) of 2nd Ward residents and the Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance (PDNA) who is represented by an overwhelming majority of association leaders in the district for sticking up for what is right for the residents of the South Loop, specifically the Prairie Avenue residents in this case.

We need more South Loop residents to stand behind them on key issues, especially, as it relates to how we decide to develop our neighborhoods. The needs of the people who live here have to be kept the top priority.

This situation makes me question who the GSLA represents. It appears they do not represent the residents of Prairie District and I wonder if they really represent the rest of the South Loop, as they claim. Does Mr. Ward understand the concept of a community group? Clearly, he doesn't.

I encourage other residents of the South Loop to form community groups so their interests may be represented properly. Otherwise, the GSLA will continue approving projects without regard for infrastructure, congestion, parking, character within neighborhoods, or concern for those of us who must live in the South Loop.

Mark Kieras
Prairie Avenue Resident

It's interesting how the Prairie Ave NIMBYS would rather endulge in personal attacks and rewrite history rather then take on he Chicago Journal editorial board that reflected the community consensus and supports the project...:ohno:


Journal Editorial Board? Who makes that up? Hayley Graham is essentially charged with creating all the content other than the guest contributors. So because she prints an editorial in support of XO that equates with community support?

On community consensus what is your factual basis that the surrounding community favored XO? When Haithcock called for a show of hands from neighbborhood residents at the Glessner House meeting there was overwhelming opposition. So much so that she stated that evening that she would not allow the proposal to be on the agenda until substantial changes to the design were made and traffic and infrastructure issues had further study. Of course she then supported the project without living up to these promises.

During the aldermanic election Haithcock understood the community opposition to the project. She went so far as to lie and state that she did not support the project but couldn't do anything about it, being only one vote on a matter the COUNCIL wanted. When that lie was exposed she stated publicly in three different forums that she would not allow XO to go forward by preventing them from getting permits. All of this anti Fioretti on XO is funny from the perspective of how could he do such a switch on XO after the election -- in reality all he is doing is carrying out Haithcock's promises/rhetoric from her campaign.

Set aside the NIMBY name calling and the personal attacks to focus on the single issue as to whether there is community support for XO. From the surrounding residents, the answer is clearly no. Now, you can take a position that no tower would ever get built if those in its shadow can veto it, or that the community as you define it has a majority that support XO, those can be debated here. But to say if the Journal has an editorial in favor of a building that equals majority community support, that's a bit of a stretch. Also interesting in that many here who favor density were taking the Journal to task for being a NIMBY publication over McGrath's, certainly if they oppose a building you wouldn't be proclaiming them as the voice that ought to be followed because they speak for the community.

Explain how a show of hands at a given meeting proves one way or the other what the mood of the community is. The truth is without a scientific poll we probably don't know what the level of support is, but it certainly tends to be the case that those in opposition are louder than those in favor. There's not as much reason to speak up if what's being proposed is acceptable to you. I live at 18th and Indiana and will stare right at these towers and I am 100% in support of them, but I wasn't at the meetings.

But isn't the bottom line that at this point that the project has been approved and the developer has surely incurred significant cost and expense? Can't you see that Fioretti is pandering to you when he advances this proposed rezoning since he surely knows that it will go nowhere? By the way, do you really think it's worth your tax dollars and mine to fight the lawsuit that would inevitably result from this?

..

^^ ^^ ^^
I agree a show of hands isn't scientific. Especially when meetings are held by groups that take donations and/or have within their board of directors developers associated with the project at issue. Certainly I am aware that developers often pack (invite) friendly voices to these meetings attending under the guise of being part of the community. But because of those things I don't find persuasive that those against are always louder at these meetings than those in favor.

The Chicago political system favors volunteer, area based advisory councils who will be exposed to plans directly effecting them and obtaining their input. One of the battlegrounds between PDNA and GSLA is that GSLA wasn't representative of Prairie District residents and while they were fine being the voice for Printer's Row or developments on Clark they had no business blessing a building here. GSLA would correctly point out that the project came to them, there was no advisory council specifically for the prairie area and they did in fact hold a forum a block away from where XO was to be built. So they both have positions of merit. At this point I think PDNA is more representative of the Prairie area than GSLA, and it is now recognized by the city as a group to be brought into the process.

There will not be voting or scientific polls on this stuff. There will be awareness and campaigns by those who are active in the area, and those with financial interests in projects. And there will be judgments by politicians as to where the community stands. Yes, the loudest will typically be served. Whether they are the true majority or not.

As to Fioretti, did you vote for him? He campaigned on more community input into proposed developments and he is fulfilling that promise. As to tax dollars, where is the lawsuit? Let's first see what happens here before you invoke that argument.

I can gurauntee you that the GSLA has put a lot more effort over the last 9 years in assuring that the Prairie District maintains what ever historical qualities and human scale then you or the PDNA can ever dream of.

Read my previous posts to understand the extent of the efforts the GSLA has made in 'your' neighborhood.

I can gurauntee you that the GSLA has put a lot more effort over the last 9 years in assuring that the Prairie District maintains what ever historical qualities and human scale then you or the PDNA can ever dream of.

Read my previous posts to understand the extent of the efforts the GSLA has made in 'your' neighborhood.:ohno: :ohno: :ohno:

I have read your prior posts and there can be no argument that GSLA has done much more over the years than people who hadn't moved to the area yet or organizations that hadn't come into existence. I can't imagine you believe people are taking issue with that.

But you have to make terms with the fact that residents are now here, many of them politically active, and they have formed their own organizations to provide for their input and voice in what goes on in their backyard. GSLA should welcome the help instead of the personal attacks and vitriol, just as PDNA and the residents should recognize the prior efforts of GSLA. It boggles my mind that different groups made up mainly of people volunteering their time want to waste that time throwing bricks at each other. Figure out a way to help each other and move on. Just because you did more in the past doesn't mean you have some sort of vested right to speak on behalf of the community now.

^^ First off, the only name calling I’ve heard lately is coming from PDNA . NIMBY is an acronym which I believe aptly describes a community group that has opposed every development proposal in their neighborhood.

The GSLA appears to represent a very large, if not majority opinion, of the residents within the Prairie Avenue District. As witnessed just by the members of this forum, and by letters to the editor to the local papers, there is no reason to assume that the PDNA is truly representative of the district.

Does this mean that they shouldn’t exist and the GSLA shouldn’t support their existence? Of course not. I believe the GSLA has collaborated with and supported other community group endeavors (such as the South Loop Neighbors).

Most importantly, just because the GSLA covers a larger geographical area does not invalidate it from representing its members, or its agenda, within the smaller neighborhood. Yes, both community groups can and should represent its member’s opinions. I would think that any objective observer would have to agree that what happens in one part of the south loop can have significant affects on the quality of life throughout the larger community. That is precisely the global perspective that I understand gave start to that community group to begin with.

Do you really believe that the PDNA alone has sole right to dictate community opinion on the fate of the Prairie Ave District? Do you not acknowledge that the residents of the blocks and neighborhoods surrounding the two block historic district, the professionals within the DOP, the urban planners and consultants hired by the city with our tax dollars do not also have a legitimate voice?

^^ ^^
You tend to speak around the arguments and not to them. But I will try a last time.

GSLA does not speak for the majority of Prairie Avenue residents. The fact that you (GSLA board or member) and some other anonymous person also connected to GSLA were either interviewed or got a letter to the editor of the Journal printed doesn't prove majority support, just as Kieras' letter is not definitive that opponents have majority support.

As to sentiment on this forum, come on this is a forum for skyscraper lovers, opposing voices here to XO have been banned. Hardly a place to look for a representative sampling.

My position which you ignore is that the sentiment of the residents is against XO is evidenced not only by the most recent community meeting, but also by the fact that the last two elected 2nd ward alderman -- Haithcock and Fioretti have looked to denial of permits to forestall the development based on their evaluation of community sentiment. No one here has ever addressed in all of their Fioretti bashing that Haithcock was the first 2nd ward alderman to promise the community she would stop XO as presently configured in response to community desires.

As to GSLA's support of other community organizations, South Loop Neighbors and GSLA share or at least have shared board members so that is not surprising. What is surprising is the level of conflict between GSLA and PDNA, surely you aren't saying that GSLA welcomed PDNA into the fraternity of community based organizations. The other issue you refuse to address is the developer financial support and influence within GSLA, which tends to raise a conflict of interest on being the voice of the community.

As to voice certainly there are a variety of voices to be heard from. And each has to be ready to defend their perspective not only from a block perspective but from larger perspectives such as the south loop and even the city as a whole. PDNA was born out of a frustration of having "outsiders" to the actual neighborhood putting the stamp of neighborhood approval on projects within the Prairie District. PDNA has a very limited charter area. I think it is certainly legitimate for them to have a seat at the table when projects are being discussed in that area, and for the argument that the community has already given their support to a project through GSLA to no longer be operative.

There is no issue that GSLA is a force and an influential voice on South Loop development issues, the dispute as I see it is that GSLA needs to speak from it's larger perspective as to what they believe is good for the south loop as a whole, and refrain from stating they speak for the residents of the Prairie District. Quit attacking PDNA as a rival, give it the breathing room it needs to become the community voice for the area of its charter, hell join it and influence it if you think it is so off base, all the while knowing GSLA can offer a different view (such as NIMBY whining should never be followed) from a different perspective and base.

:)

I don't know about other readers on this thread, but I have had more than enough of the neverending battle of the GSLA vs. PDNA. Agree to disagree, or MOVE ON!

The rest of us readers/posters are interested in more productive topics than your turf wars.

I agree wholeheartedly. I never understood why the PDNA folks came on this forum to begin with. I apologize for falling victim to their misrepresentations of community sentiment and support and trying to set the record straight. I know of residents within the district that support X/O that have tried to join this psuedo-community group only to be shut out due to non-agreement with the two most outspoken members of their board.

I will make a solemn promise never to respond to PDNA antics from this point on....please hold me to it!:)

I agree wholeheartedly. I never understood why the PDNA folks came on this forum to begin with. I apologize for falling victim to their misrepresentations of community sentiment and support and trying to set the record straight. I know of residents within the district that support X/O that have tried to join this psuedo-community group only to be shut out due to non-agreement with the two most outspoken members of their board.

I will make a solemn promise never to respond to PDNA antics from this point on....please hold me to it!:)


Subject was dead here sloop until you first reprinted the pro XO articles from the Journal and then more recently posted the Kieras letter here so you could get in a few more digs on PDNA. Hardly PDNA coming in here and you responding to their antics -- it is the other way around.

Some productive steps would include letting Fioretti know he's on some bullshit trying to downzone this project, and in thinking that the PDNA somehow represents all the views of people that surround the Prairie ave district.

Some productive steps would include letting Fioretti know he's on some bullshit trying to downzone this project, and in thinking that the PDNA somehow represents all the views of people that surround the Prairie ave district.

This can be done by writing well worded comprehensive arguments in support of this project and send it to Alderman Fioretti, Chicago Journal, Chicago Sun-Times, Crain's Chicago Business, and other effluent city departments.

XO is dead. Financing was via Countrywide; they've pulled out for a number of reasons:

1) pending downzoning (they don't want to be involved with any legal uncertainty),
2) slow sales (a month ago, the fraction of units sold was about a third),
3) armageddon in credit markets,
4) Coutrywide's particular woes (they are pulling financing all over and will likely go bankrupt).

Unfortunately, that financing was sort of a package deal -- taking with it many of their other projects (including some financing for the parcel south of River City). Overall, F&G are spread thin; they hold an ungodly amount of unlet commercial space. I'd hazard that they might even go into bankruptcy.

Where will this leave all these projects? People who've "bought"? No idea; we're entering uncharted territory.

..

Very interesting. Thanks for that unique bit of inside info, and welcome to the forum.

Thanks for the welcome! Hopefully, the other signature projects in the area don't go likewise.


What do you mean by "the property South of River City"? Do you mean between Wells and the river? That is owned by Cacciatore, I thought. Or did you mean to say "North" of River City, what we call Franklin Point? (F&G does have an interest in that parcel)

Please tell us more about X/O too.

Oops, north, sorry. My understanding is that Countrywide was between a third and a half of the financing for that parcel's development. So they'll need to find some new money -- a tough proposition currently. But I'd bet they (or a successor) will be able to do it.

Don't know a lot more about XO per se; just that a new backer will be needed. And the one-third sold figure... well, that's an odd story. Someone in sales let that slip at a dinner party when he confused me with someone else. Everything else I know is old news: alderman dead-set on F&G paying for sewer upgrades and traffic study, denies request to expand the parking block base. That and the usual PDNA piffle and complaining.

F&G seem to have hit a string of bad luck lately. Of course, Frankel's project (Lakeside Lofts) doesn't seem to be going anywhere lately either. And 1555 S Wabash, Glashaus, and a few others will likely join the dead pool.

Thanks for the welcome! Hopefully, the other signature projects in the area don't go likewise.



Oops, north, sorry. My understanding is that Countrywide was between a third and a half of the financing for that parcel's development. So they'll need to find some new money -- a tough proposition currently. But I'd bet they (or a successor) will be able to do it.

Don't know a lot more about XO per se; just that a new backer will be needed. And the one-third sold figure... well, that's an odd story. Someone in sales let that slip at a dinner party when he confused me with someone else. Everything else I know is old news: alderman dead-set on F&G paying for sewer upgrades and traffic study, denies request to expand the parking block base. That and the usual PDNA piffle and complaining.

F&G seem to have hit a string of bad luck lately. Of course, Frankel's project (Lakeside Lofts) doesn't seem to be going anywhere lately either. And 1555 S Wabash, Glashaus, and a few others will likely join the dead pool.

^ Interesting. Welcome to the forums.

If all this is true, then the South Loop is sort of tanking, isn't it? Perhaps people just aren't ready for south of Roosevelt (SoRo)

..

Thanks for the welcome! Hopefully, the other signature projects in the area don't go likewise.



Oops, north, sorry. My understanding is that Countrywide was between a third and a half of the financing for that parcel's development. So they'll need to find some new money -- a tough proposition currently. But I'd bet they (or a successor) will be able to do it.

Don't know a lot more about XO per se; just that a new backer will be needed. And the one-third sold figure... well, that's an odd story. Someone in sales let that slip at a dinner party when he confused me with someone else. Everything else I know is old news: alderman dead-set on F&G paying for sewer upgrades and traffic study, denies request to expand the parking block base. That and the usual PDNA piffle and complaining.

F&G seem to have hit a string of bad luck lately. Of course, Frankel's project (Lakeside Lofts) doesn't seem to be going anywhere lately either. And 1555 S Wabash, Glashaus, and a few others will likely join the dead pool.


What are your sources of information? Yes, credit in general is tight, but for you to make these claims of particular projects dead or dying is quite a jump that will require some sourcing, further detail and explanation for them to have any credibility...

What are your sources of information? Yes, credit in general is tight, but for you to make these claims of particular projects dead or dying is quite a jump that will require some sourcing, further detail and explanation for them to have any credibility...

I heard a phone call I shouldn't have. One of the Giles brothers was asking Countrywide to meet so they could renegotiate or somehow resuscitate the deal. That meeting was supposed to have happened yesterday. At the time when the meeting was scheduled, however, one of the brothers instead met with staff.

As for the connection to other projects, that was something I'd heard from other developers. Their claim was that XO by itself was too small to interest a large financer. Therefore, it had been bundled with other projects, the parcel on the river in particular. (Which would be reasonable behavior for many REITs and also for Countrywide since they have historically been very aggressive.)

Credit is tight in general -- and worse for housing ventures. Go read the WSJ: Countrywide debt is now rated junk; bankruptcy protection on Countrywide debt was trading at 315bp. That's insanity; the market's pricing their bonds as though they will be bankrupt soon. So saying "credit is tight in general" doesn't acknowledge the magnitude of the problem.

I didn't mention specific problems at the other projects I mentioned because I don't know of any. But Lakeside Lofts ceased construction work a few months ago and I haven't seen anything restart in that time. And after real estate bubbles pop and the markeet pulls credit, anything not in the ground is far less likely to happen. (Hence the idea of a dead pool -- since those buildings aren't certain of failure, just likely.)

^^ Interesting. Still, I'm wary of so many coincidences at once - the mistaken identity at the dinner party, the overhearing of a telephone conversation - are you sure you don't run Whole Foods? ;)

I'm sorry but could someone fill me in on the discussion here? I back read a little, but is there big opposition to these towers? and why?

(however looks like the building is dead)

Some residents of nearby blocks objected to X/O as out of keeping with the historic character of the adjacent Prairie Avenue Historic District, and as incompatible with the 2004 Near South Community Plan, which does not anticipate tall buildings on that site. Some of them feel they were misled by the former alderman and feel they were not properly represented by the Greater South Loop Association, so they formed a new organization, the Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance.

Architecture fans on this forum admire the design of the buildings and dismiss the neighbors' objections.

Interesting. Still, I'm wary of so many coincidences at once - the mistaken identity at the dinner party, the overhearing of a telephone conversation - are you sure you don't run Whole Foods? ;)

Oh, the timing wasn't close. The one-third thing was over a month ago; the phone conversation was Friday. I think the lack of discretion is more surprising. Maybe I'm a really private person; but, I never have business conversations within earshot of others.

Heh! I like the Rahodeb reference. Too bad I have nothing to tout (except Chicago, natch). I'd love to see a nice hotel with a lounge/restaurant/wine bar on that parcel (something like the SoHo Grand). Or even townhouses. Anything other than what's there now.

Architecture fans on this forum admire the design of the buildings and dismiss the neighbors' objections.

I wouldn't go that far. It's a nice design; but, I *hate* the parking block base. I really wish that had been put underground -- or just given a similarly fresh design. Architecturally, that part stinks.

As for the neighbors' concerns, the sewer problems in the area are real; but, any development will have to handle that. The 'look and feel' complaint is the most unenforceable garbage I've ever heard. Even a stroll along Astor St (cue the angel choir) will show similar juxtapositions.

^^ Interesting. Still, I'm wary of so many coincidences at once - the mistaken identity at the dinner party, the overhearing of a telephone conversation - are you sure you don't run Whole Foods? ;)

And it's an even greater coincidence is that his first post on SSC ever, which was a day ago, made a bold and bizzare that the X/O project is dead (he also claimed that 1550 South Wabash is probably dead too - even though construction has already begun).

I could be wrong, but my guess is that this guy is a member of the PDNA (perhaps even one of the two PDNA guys who post on this thread, and got a second account). He's pretending to claim that he actually likes the project, but that it won't make it because of financing reasons. His thinking is that way, all the level-headed people on this site who support X/O won't spend any more time writing letters to Fioretti in support of this project or doing anything else to further X/O's cause - as they would assume that it would just be a waste of their time anyway if the project is going to die because of financing.

XO is dead. Financing was via Countrywide; they've pulled out for a number of reasons:

1) pending downzoning (they don't want to be involved with any legal uncertainty),
2) slow sales (a month ago, the fraction of units sold was about a third),
3) armageddon in credit markets,
4) Coutrywide's particular woes (they are pulling financing all over and will likely go bankrupt).

Unfortunately, that financing was sort of a package deal -- taking with it many of their other projects (including some financing for the parcel south of River City). Overall, F&G are spread thin; they hold an ungodly amount of unlet commercial space. I'd hazard that they might even go into bankruptcy.

Where will this leave all these projects? People who've "bought"? No idea; we're entering uncharted territory.

So deciding to not to with a particular lender equates to a project being "dead"? Rather, I would guess you claimed that "XO is dead" so that your BS story would have a lot more shock value and get many more people's attention.

Also, I could be mistaken but X/O didn't have financing in place with Countrywide, or any other lender for that matter. Most developments typically don't secure financing until they are at 50% in terms of sales (if not more) so that they can gain more favorable terms in their loans...and that they don't secure financing until they are just about ready to begin construction (this seems to be the case in just about every project and it makes sense....why would you secure financing 6 months before construction is to begin when you could do that 6 months later when you have made more sales and thus will get better loan terms?). X/O's officials have stated that construction won't begin on the first tower until this winter....I doubt that they had financing with Countrywide or anyone else, contrary to what you said.

Regardless, your whole story with all of its inaccuracies, coindicences, overhearing phone calls that you shouldn't have, and then making your very first post on SSC claiming that "XO is dead" yesterday (even though supposedly they are only not getting financing from Countrywide - even if true by no means that XO is dead) reeks of BS.

Also, I could be mistaken but X/O didn't have financing in place with Countrywide, or any other lender for that matter. Most developments typically don't secure financing until they are at 50% in terms of sales (if not more) so that they can gain more favorable terms in their loans...and that they don't secure financing until they are just about ready to begin construction (this seems to be the case in just about every project and it makes sense....why would you secure financing 6 months before construction is to begin when you could do that 6 months later when you have made more sales and thus will get better loan terms?). X/O's officials have stated that construction won't begin on the first tower until this winter....I doubt that they had financing with Countrywide or anyone else, contrary to what you said.

I don't anything about the deal terms for X/O, but that is an excellent point about timing. That story about Countrywide does not seem to make a lot sense. If anything, all they would need is a bridge loan, and even in these jacked up markets, you can get a reasonable term sheet. But even then, they should not need that type of funding until they are ready to start construction.

Some residents of nearby blocks objected to X/O as out of keeping with the historic character of the adjacent Prairie Avenue Historic District, and as incompatible with the 2004 Near South Community Plan, which does not anticipate tall buildings on that site. Some of them feel they were misled by the former alderman and feel they were not properly represented by the Greater South Loop Association, so they formed a new organization, the Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance.

Architecture fans on this forum admire the design of the buildings and dismiss the neighbors' objections.


It's not just fans of quality architecture who are pushing for it. It is also those who truly want to respect districts of historic character and proponents of quality urban planning and design. You continue to have difficulty with issues dealing with historic character (and of course continued misinterpretation of neighborhood plans...)

I'm no PDNA mole, believe me. I live here in South Loop; but, I've been sorely disappointed with the PDNA. They can't seem to come up with anything other than esthetic complaints. That doesn't cut the mustard. So while I believe firmly in their right to organize expression of their opinions, I also believe that they're unprofessional, lacking in polish, and woefully unable to use the opportunities given to them. Had they really known what they were doing, they could have seized power via the courts and killed XO long ago. Instead, they circulate petitions begging the people in power to throw them a crumb. Lame.

As for overhearing development plans in the South Loop, come down here and go to the few nice restaurants. You won't need long before somebody airs their public laundry. A year ago, I heard a guy nearly give away his development plan at the bar in Cuatro. The South Loop just isn't that big a place -- especially with developers being a large part of the clientele at nicer establishments.

Now as for 1555 S. Wabash (which one of you referrred to as 1550): I certainly did not say that it is dead. Rather, I stated that one might take bets as to its eventual demise. (i.e. a dead pool) Construction has started and stopped a few times and, last I looked, they'd done nothing more than grade the land. That's no commitment. I'm skeptical of anyone who isn't pouring concrete right now. Does that make me a pessimist? Sure. But a pessimist is different than a fool. And saying I'm in with the PDNA is putting me in the latter camp rather than the former.

..

..

PDNA moles? Hardly. A mole infiltrates a group in order to gain confidential information that will be revealed to the group's detriment later. This is a public bulletin board. Unless you guys are sharing secret developer/architect handshakes and rituals via PMs it would be difficult to be a mole here. Stick with PDNA douche bags.:banana:

Large condo developments do rely on "pre-construction" financing for architect fees, sales center development, sales staff and project managers salaries.

For sure. But those fees are fraction of hard costs and could easily be covered by bridge/mezz/whatever-you-want-to-call-it financing. These types of loans are always expensive; meaning the current problems in the credit markets do not exacerbate pricing on these aggressive loans. Furthermore, mezzanine is not determined by presale, or is by a much smaller fraction than permanent/large loan would be, but instead drawn against the developers credit.

Again, I have no inside info; I am just raising questions about the validity of this rumor that the debt markets have screwed X/O.

Again, I have no inside info; I am just raising questions about the validity of this rumor that the debt markets have screwed X/O.

Not to mention, why would that guy only post on the X/O thread, claiming that the project is dead. According to SSP, there are 92 proposed buildings in Chicago that are greater or equal to 12 stories high. Why didn't this guy go into any of the other proposed building threads and claim that those projects are "dead" as well? I don't see why the current condition of the debt markets would make it any more likely that X/O won't get built as opposed to any other proposed building in Chicago.

Not to mention, why would that guy only post on the X/O thread, claiming that the project is dead. According to SSP, there are 92 proposed buildings in Chicago that are greater or equal to 12 stories high. Why didn't this guy go into any of the other proposed building threads and claim that those projects are "dead" as well? I don't see why the current condition of the debt markets would make it any more likely that X/O won't get built as opposed to any other proposed building in Chicago.


I'm skeptical of anyone who isn't pouring concrete right now.

I guess that covers my suspecting other buildings will also die.

Why not post about those developments? Because I don't run into those developers casually. The current condition of debt markets is that for these more illiquid loans, there ISN'T a market. As in 'no bids'. Most banks don't have infinite balance sheet; they depend on securitization to free up capital and make more loans. As that gets difficult, they pull back on some loans.

Clearly, 315bp over Libor for a CDS doesn't mean anything to you; so, let me put it this way: I cannot recall seeing a financial company quoted over 200bp that avoided bankruptcy. Ergo, I would not hold my breath on any project they are financing. A bridge loan could help; but, many of the banks that make those have subprime losses and are being told by risk management to get out of loans, not in.

This is how credit squeezes go. Read up on what happened in Japan, or anywhere else after a boom. The results are very painful for a half-year or more. Go read pages 27-28 of Kindleberger's _Manias, Panics, and Crashes_; it will sound very familiar.

I wish the admins would quit locking this thread.

Anyway...

Prairie Avenue History Tours

A Guided Tour of Chicago's Original Gold Coast

Led by William Tyre

Prairie Avenue, between 16th and 22nd streets reigned as Chicago's premier residential street during the last three decades of the 19th-century. By the early 1890s, over 75 millionaires resided there, including Marshall Field, Phillip Armour and George Pullman. This tour will transport you back to an era when grand mansions and elegant dinner parties were the order of the day. Learn about the business and personal lives of Chicago's most influential citizens and the neighborhood they called home.

Tour Highlights

Exterior Tour of the 11 surviving residences, 9 of which are Chicago Landmarks.

For more information visit
http://www.glessnerhouse.org/programs.html

View vintage photos of the homes which have been lost.

Interior tour of the last surviving mansions on adjacent Calumet Aveneue, recently restored to its Second Empire grandeur and now functioning as a boutique hotel.

Interior tour of the Second Presbyterian Church, featuring nine Tiffany stained glass windows and an extraordinary Arts and Crafts interior designed by

Howard Van Doren Shaw with murals by Frederic Clay Bartlett.

^^ thaks for the link, I'll be making a day of it.

Updates? I dont like going a week w/o X/O news. :)

This is directly from the agenda for tomorrow (thurs.) morning's Chicago City Council Committee on Zoning meeting in council chambers at 10am:

No. A-7235 (2nd Ward) Ordinance Referred (7-19-07)
To classify as DX-5 Downtown Mixed-Use District, instead of Residential Planned Development No. 1033, the area bounded by

A line 547.13 feet north of and parallel to East 18th Street; South Prairie Avenue; East 18th Street; and the alley next west of and parallel to South Prairie Avenue

(Map 4-E) 1712 South Prairie Avenue


First of all, I can't believe this actually made it on the agenda. Second, how does everybody like the fact that Little Bobbie Fioretti has decided to risk tens of millions of our tax dollars on a sure-lose lawsuit? He's a Loser, with a big L....

From an email I received...

XO to be Down Zoned ???
73 Story Building Coming to Central Station ???[/

Thursday, October 25 at 10 AM


The City Council's Committee on Zoning will be meeting at City Hall, located at 121 North LaSalle Street, in Room 201-A. The Committee on Zoning, which is chaired by Alderman William Banks, votes upon proposed zoning changes, which then go before the full City Council for final approval. There are two ordinances that are of great concern to many South Loop residents that were originally scheduled to be heard by the Committee at the October 25 meeting.

The first ordinance would down zone the XO Development at 1712 South Prairie Avenue to the originally allowable height for that location before XO was approved by the City Council last year. The second ordinance would increase the height of the third "Grant Park South Wall" building at the southwest corner of Roosevelt and Indiana by 100 feet, or approximately 10 stories. Both ordinances were introduced by 2nd Ward Alderman Bob Fioretti.

According to a staff person with the Committee, both of these ordinances are going to be deferred and will not be heard at the October 25 meeting. According to the Committee agenda (attached below) however, both of these ordinances are still showing as being on the schedule.

Regarding ordinances that are scheduled to be heard by the Committee on Zoning, interested parties wishing to testify either for or against a proposed ordinance may do so by signing in at the beginning of the meeting.

For more information on the meeting, visit www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/agendas/zoning102507.pdf
For a link to a recent article on XO, visit http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?post_date=2007-07-20&id=25726

This has been deferred until November 20th. We'll see what happens.

I like the towers but the bases are really ugly.

I love Fioretti's last quote in that article:

“I’m not one that likes to see litigation,” he says, “but I think that everybody believes that this is an inappropriate structure at this location.”

Really? Everybody? What a douche.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=26919

PDNA thought the developer would bow to Fioretti and the Zoning Dept.:

Developers of condo project sue alderman

By Alby Gallun
Oct. 26, 2007
(Crain’s) — The developers of a South Loop condominium project have gone to court to block a zoning change by Alderman Robert Fioretti that would shrink the 490-unit development, which some neighbors have criticized as too large.


Kargil's X/O Condominums project
Affiliates of Kargil Development LLC have sued the 2nd Ward alderman, arguing that his proposal to change the zoning for the property at 1712 S. Prairie Ave. is illegal and comes too late. Though the City Council last year approved a project with two towers — one about 450 feet tall and the other 310 feet — the change would cut their height to a maximum of 225 feet, forcing Kargil to remove about 100 condos from the development, called the X/O Condominiums.

“I believe this a clear abuse of aldermanic power,” says Kargil Principal Keith Giles. If the measure stands, “it would be a horrible precedent.”

Mr. Fioretti’s office said it would issue a statement on the lawsuit later Friday.

The alderman, whose ward includes the project, introduced the zoning change in July, but on Thursday he asked the City Council’s Committee on Zoning to postpone consideration of the proposal, a sign that he knows he doesn’t have the votes to pass the measure, Mr. Giles says. Contending that the delay has fueled uncertainty about the project, Kargil wants a judge to stop the alderman from delaying the vote.

Related story: Proposed zoning change threatens South Loop project

The lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in Cook County Circuit Court, also goes a step further and asks a judge to rule that the proposed zoning change is illegal. Courts have generally ruled for developers in similar cases if the developers can establish that that they spent a significant amount of money on a project before the city passed more restrictive zoning.

Mr. Giles argues that he has a strong case, noting that Kargil has already spent more than $28 million on the development, a figure that includes bank debt, marketing costs and land acquisition costs.

Yet amid the uncertainty, sales at the development have been stuck at about 200 units since July.

“His filing of this ordinance has caused us harm in the marketplace,” Mr. Giles says. “People don’t understand the situation and have been reluctant to buy from us. Our competitors are using this against us.”

Two neighborhood groups support the XO project, which was designed by renowned Chicago architect Lucien Lagrange. But a third group formed to oppose the project, contending that its two glass towers don’t fit with the neighborhood. The development would sit across the street from the landmark Glessner House in the Prairie Avenue Historic District.

This should be fun to watch. Let's see what Fioretti says and does next.

I was also taking photos in Daniel Webster Park at 14th and Indiana/Prairie taking a few photos and I ran into a few "persons" from PDNA who were attempting to collect signatures to support the alderman in the downzoning of the X/O site.

Hopefully they're unsuccessful.

They can petition away, but it's up to the courts at this point

I was also taking photos in Daniel Webster Park at 14th and Indiana/Prairie taking a few photos and I ran into a few "persons" from PDNA who were attempting to collect signatures to support the alderman in the downzoning of the X/O site.

Hopefully they're unsuccessful.


You should have snatched that petition and run like the wind.

A dude from PDNA came over by my building too, and I said to him, "Oh, those X/O buildings? Those are really cool lookin'! " And I walked away. I hope they're unsuccessful as well. Those buildings are so neat and progressive- they're works of art, and exactly what this part of town needs. Pile driving would be music to my ears, especially since PDNA living there would have to put up with it. :okay:

I'm puzzled what they think a petition will accomplish at this point.

I'm puzzled what they think a petition will accomplish at this point.

I guess they're just trying to drum up as much support as possible for their cause.

A last ditch desperate attempt.

A last ditch desperate attempt.

PDNA is sophisticated enough to know they won't have any legal effect.

One of their positions is that the 2 community organizations that blessed the project, which Giles points out in every statement, don't represent the Prairie District residents. Signatures are in one way a test of whether PDNA's position is embraced by the surrounding neighbors and also of their political power.

They will also be useful in terms of gauging organizing and output capabilities. It is fine to say you speak for the neighborhood, but it is another thing to live up to your self-anointed status.

Hey, has ERMDIEGO served enough of a sentence in purgatory to be allowed back to the forum or is the banned status permanent?:ohno:

It might be more effective if they would actually run for the GSLA board and set policy, instead of complaining about it afterward.

Hey, has ERMDIEGO served enough of a sentence in purgatory to be allowed back to the forum or is the banned status permanent?:ohno:

^ I don't think he should ever be allowed back. If some of you have witnessed his childish behavior at YoChicago ever since the banning, you'll know that some people never change

Signatures are in one way a test of whether PDNA's position is embraced by the surrounding neighbors and also of their political power.

^ Uhh, no. Signatures are BS. We all know that, and I'm sure Alderman Fioretti is intelligent enough to know how little actual value they hold.

If my neighbors come to me about some issue that I could care less about, waving some petition but approaching me in a friendly enough manner, I'll probably sign it. Most people would.

The vast, vast majority of those signees won't be particularly angered, nor will they punish Fioretti by not voting for him in the next election, if he approves X/O. Petitions are virtually worthless

^ Uhh, no. Signatures are BS. We all know that, and I'm sure Alderman Fioretti is intelligent enough to know how little actual value they hold.

The vast, vast majority of those signees won't be particularly angered, nor will they punish Fioretti by not voting for him in the next election, if he approves X/O. Petitions are virtually worthless

You miss the point. If you get a thousand signatures opposing XO it is highly likely that the majority of them are meaningless in terms of people who are outraged about XO or even that if XO is built they would hold it against Fioretti come voting time. We can agree on that but it doesn't take away from my post.

If you have 1000 signatures from nearby residents you can use that in your public pronouncements -- "look at all the opposition." It also demonstrates something very important to politicians about PDNA, that they can go out and get somethign accomplished. Every person running in the upcoming primary had to file petitions and they are a pain in the ass. A group that can get out and colect signatures is a beneficial ally to any politician.

Legally the signatures are meaningless. Politically they can become meaningful.

XO will eventually happen anyway. I'm just going to ignore any negative implications/chatter, and blissfullly await the day ground is broken for this great development. Hopefully, the base can be changed though b/c it's absolutely awful- one of the worst I've seen.

One of their positions is that the 2 community organizations that blessed the project, which Giles points out in every statement, don't represent the Prairie District residents. Signatures are in one way a test of whether PDNA's position is embraced by the surrounding neighbors and also of their political power.


Mr. Downtown is right, you should get involved in the GSLA because it does indeed represent Priaire Avenue, it just doesn't represent every NIMBY concern...as witnessed by how many local residents are on this thread, were approached by PDNA and refused to sign....

Interestingly, I heard through the grapevine that the PDNA is now supporting the Rokas development at Prairie and 21st after initially opposing it...what changed? I understand that one of the board members was promised business by the developer...

Hopefully, the base can be changed though b/c it's absolutely awful- one of the worst I've seen.

Agree 100%

Mr. Downtown is right, you should get involved in the GSLA because it does indeed represent Priaire Avenue, it just doesn't represent every NIMBY concern...as witnessed by how many local residents are on this thread, were approached by PDNA and refused to sign....

Interestingly, I heard through the grapevine that the PDNA is now supporting the Rokas development at Prairie and 21st after initially opposing it...what changed? I understand that one of the board members was promised business by the developer...

But if you are right involvement in GSLA would not be effective in promoting their agenda. They want to have influence on a more limited geographic scale than GSLA, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Interesting grapevine on Rokas. The chatter is out there we will have to wait to see if accurate.

The alderman has withdrawn his proposed ordinance. XO now has all required support from the city.

I don't know - I'd like to see some validation too. That seems almost too good to be true. As much as I'd like to see X/O built, I want some proof that Fioretti has backed off.

I don't know - I'd like to see some validation too. That seems almost too good to be true. As much as I'd like to see X/O built, I want some proof that Fioretti has backed off.

I've heard this as well. I plan on going to the zoning meeting tomorrow, so I will report the results back here.

I don't think that Migra should have been banned so easily. He hasn't really done anything yet to warrent it. Also, even if he was ED, I found the guy hilarious even if he was an ass. He made me more determined to fight to get this tower built.

The resolution for downzoning has been pulled. There may be other legal battles ahead for the project, but likely the biggest hurdle remains sales.

^It was all Fioretti just pandering to the PDNA crowd anyway. There was no way they were going to win and he knew it, but now hes going to say "Well, guys I tried". Just him trying to solidify the NIMBY vote for next election, its still a little scary actually.

The sales I heard went very well for the first tower, and the second towers sales may have been struggling a bit due to the air of uncertainty caused by the potential downzoning. This news may solidify this project, and regain interest from buyers. Its is a good looking project afterall.

BTW, I also agree that Migra/ErmDiego should be allowed on the forum. Even though most of us disagree with what he's saying, at least we will understand the nimby point of view a little better. Just having a different point of view is no reason to ban someone (unless he was being flat out disrespectful). Plus, I also find his statements to be pretty amusing as well. But, obviously the mods make the call on that one.

The resolution for downzoning has been pulled. There may be other legal battles ahead for the project, but likely the biggest hurdle remains sales.


Your right, sales will obviously be their number one priority, but I'm curious as to what basis you think other legal battles lie ahead?

Not sure you can brush it off as pandering. he made an effort, apparently could not get enough Alderman to vote in favor of his resolution and so pulled it. How is that pandering?

Pandering is what Haithcock did, took money from the developers, wrote a letter in support of the project and helped it get it's zoning and then tell various audiences she would stop the project before planning department approval and then afterwards say she would hold Giles permits, all with no intention of taking any such action.

I would call it representing a constituency consistent with campaign pledges.

Not sure you can brush it off as pandering. he made an effort, apparently could not get enough Alderman to vote in favor of his resolution and so pulled it. How is that pandering?

Pandering is what Haithcock did, took money from the developers, wrote a letter in support of the project and helped it get it's zoning and then tell various audiences she would stop the project before planning department approval and then afterwards say she would hold Giles permits, all with no intention of taking any such action.

I would call it representing a constituency consistent with campaign pledges.

What Fioretti did was obviously pandering, and obviously more along the lines of pandering than anything Haithcock did. Not to say Haithcock was any better - she simply was in bed with the developers and accepted a lot of bribes.

You can call what Fioretti did "representing a constituency consistent with campaign pledges". Most of us on here know better and would call it "Fioretti pandered by making campaign pledges he knew were not realistic but which would win him votes as he could say he "tried"". Face it, you got duped.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-071120fioretti-high-rise,0,3016035.story?coll=chi_tab04_layout

Alderman backs off fight on South Loop high rise
By Susan Diesenhouse | Tribune staff reporter
12:18 PM CST, November 20, 2007

First-term Alderman Robert Fioretti has backed-off his effort to block the development of a $240 million condominium high rise in the South Loop.

Little Bobbie Fioretti just got a big time wake up call. Welcome to the City Dat Works. So I wonder who made the call to back off and what he ended up getting for it. You know darn well this had a price.

Little Bobbie Fioretti just got a big time wake up call. Welcome to the City Dat Works. So I wonder who made the call to back off and what he ended up getting for it. You know darn well this had a price.

I don't think he had the votes to get the zoning changed.

BTW, I also agree that Migra/ErmDiego should be allowed on the forum. Even though most of us disagree with what he's saying, at least we will understand the nimby point of view a little better. Just having a different point of view is no reason to ban someone (unless he was being flat out disrespectful). Plus, I also find his statements to be pretty amusing as well. But, obviously the mods make the call on that one.

^ There's amusing, and then there's adolescent name-calling, sometimes with sexual undertones. The former, regardless of a person's opinion, is acceptable; the latter isn't. I applaud the mods on their decision

but I'm curious as to what basis you think other legal battles lie ahead?

^ There doesn't have to be any "basis". If you can pull it out of your rear end and wave it in the air, Fioretti will likely use it as another illegal excuse to stall the project

What Fioretti did was obviously pandering, and obviously more along the lines of pandering than anything Haithcock did. Not to say Haithcock was any better - she simply was in bed with the developers and accepted a lot of bribes.

You can call what Fioretti did "representing a constituency consistent with campaign pledges". Most of us on here know better and would call it "Fioretti pandered by making campaign pledges he knew were not realistic but which would win him votes as he could say he "tried"". Face it, you got duped.


Not sure where your disconnect is. Haithcock spouted promises in her campaign to stop XO by refusing to issue Giles building permits when she knew she would never live up to that promise. I guess maybe you are right she didn't pander she lied.

Fioretti told supporters he would try and stop XO but it would be an uphill struggle with a less than fair chance of success. His ordinance needed the support of his council mates and that support wasn't there at this point. No one was "duped." I fully understand the all for density viewpoint of this board that for many here results in character attacks belittling any that might oppose density for density's sake.

The high general quality of discussion and information here is diminished by this as well as the "little Bobbie" cracks, etc. I don't recall seeing any attacks on Haithcock's character or her intelligence or her fitness to be an alderman when clearly she lacked ability for the position and did next to nothing except take bribes from developers to do their bidding. It is boggling to me that just because any developer could buy the cooperation of Haithcock she is apparently preferred here over an Alderman who is making sure there are public forums, discussion and community input on proposed developments.

Personally, XO was not my battle cry nor did it have anything to do with supporting Fioretti, but clearly you assume it was. You also assume his supporters all now believe they were duped. Wrong again. The engaged folks are wise to the ways of Chicago and knew the opportunity from the resolution to downzone was limited and chancy.

Not sure where your disconnect is. Haithcock spouted promises in her campaign to stop XO by refusing to issue Giles building permits when she knew she would never live up to that promise. I guess maybe you are right she didn't pander she lied.

Fioretti told supporters he would try and stop XO but it would be an uphill struggle with a less than fair chance of success. His ordinance needed the support of his council mates and that support wasn't there at this point. No one was "duped." I fully understand the all for density viewpoint of this board that for many here results in character attacks belittling any that might oppose density for density's sake.

The high general quality of discussion and information here is diminished by this as well as the "little Bobbie" cracks, etc. I don't recall seeing any attacks on Haithcock's character or her intelligence or her fitness to be an alderman when clearly she lacked ability for the position and did next to nothing except take bribes from developers to do their bidding. It is boggling to me that just because any developer could buy the cooperation of Haithcock she is apparently preferred here over an Alderman who is making sure there are public forums, discussion and community input on proposed developments.

Personally, XO was not my battle cry nor did it have anything to do with supporting Fioretti, but clearly you assume it was. You also assume his supporters all now believe they were duped. Wrong again. The engaged folks are wise to the ways of Chicago and knew the opportunity from the resolution to downzone was limited and chancy.


Here's the thing though - unless you have specific credible evidence that Haithcock accepted bribes from a developer, how is accepting campaign donations from developers who are active in your ward any different than, say, accepting campaign donations from unions that are active in your ward, or business groups that are active in your ward, or issue advocacy groups that are active in your ward, or residential associations that are active in your ward, or any number of other "constituencies" (read: special interest groups) that are active in your ward? The simple and correct answer is that it's not.

In addition to needing support from his council mates, he also needed support from the law, which he didn't have (otherwise he would have risked millions of taxpayer dollars in a lawsuit - taxpayers, by the way, are not a special interest group by definition - rather, they are indeed the public-at-large itself). It's this wild arrogance (shades of Blago, anyone?) and abuse of his legal powers that are most alarming (what foolhardy move will he try next? - I sense he's the type who will make a career out of attempting to creatively interpret laws). Haithcock was clearly a dud as alderman, but Fioretti is shaping up to potentially be something much more dangerous....

Also, it's safe to say the majority of us here don't advocate for density for density's sake. We advocate for density because it makes for sound public policy, from economic, social and enviornmental vantage points.

Not sure where your disconnect is. Haithcock spouted promises in her campaign to stop XO by refusing to issue Giles building permits when she knew she would never live up to that promise. I guess maybe you are right she didn't pander she lied.

Fioretti told supporters he would try and stop XO but it would be an uphill struggle with a less than fair chance of success. His ordinance needed the support of his council mates and that support wasn't there at this point. No one was "duped." I fully understand the all for density viewpoint of this board that for many here results in character attacks belittling any that might oppose density for density's sake.

The high general quality of discussion and information here is diminished by this as well as the "little Bobbie" cracks, etc. I don't recall seeing any attacks on Haithcock's character or her intelligence or her fitness to be an alderman when clearly she lacked ability for the position and did next to nothing except take bribes from developers to do their bidding. It is boggling to me that just because any developer could buy the cooperation of Haithcock she is apparently preferred here over an Alderman who is making sure there are public forums, discussion and community input on proposed developments.

Personally, XO was not my battle cry nor did it have anything to do with supporting Fioretti, but clearly you assume it was. You also assume his supporters all now believe they were duped. Wrong again. The engaged folks are wise to the ways of Chicago and knew the opportunity from the resolution to downzone was limited and chancy.

The problem is that there was no reason why there should have been an attempt to downzone the property in the first place after it was already approved.

Maybe the former alderman took "contributions" from developers, but how is that any different than taking contributions from lawyers who represent developers?

The problem is that there was no reason why there should have been an attempt to downzone the property in the first place after it was already approved.

Maybe the former alderman took "contributions" from developers, but how is that any different than taking contributions from lawyers who represent developers?

Best quote I ever heard from a developer on Haithcock was "Hell, she's one of the easy ones to work with, just find out how big she wants the check to be and you can get anything approved."

There are multiple differences and both of you know what they are. I'll give you two. First, the contributions should not be a quid pro quo for approval. Approval should be merit based on what it brings to the ward. Second, the contributions should be used for the proper purposes, not to fund family member ghost payrolls.

Finally, the largest attorney contributors to this alderman have not been lawyers who represent developers. The very largest is a personal injury attorney.

Best quote I ever heard from a developer on Haithcock was "Hell, she's one of the easy ones to work with, just find out how big she wants the check to be and you can get anything approved."

There are multiple differences and both of you know what they are. I'll give you two. First, the contributions should not be a quid pro quo for approval. Approval should be merit based on what it brings to the ward. Second, the contributions should be used for the proper purposes, not to fund family member ghost payrolls.

I agree on this part, but a project shouldn't be "denied" of "downzoned" just because the neighbors all of a sudden don't want it. They don't seem to have a problem living in their new towntownhouses or condo towers. Things shouldn't be denied because of neighborhood selfishness, ignorance and stupidity.

Your right, sales will obviously be their number one priority, but I'm curious as to what basis you think other legal battles lie ahead?

I'm not saying Prairie Avenue is one of them, but I believe several of the PDNA types contend there was actually something illegal about the approval of X/O. There's obviously no substance to it, and I think that most of them realize any lawsuit would quickly get tossed...

I agree on this part, but a project shouldn't be "denied" of "downzoned" just because the neighbors all of a sudden don't want it. They don't seem to have a problem living in their new towntownhouses or condo towers. Things shouldn't be denied because of neighborhood selfishness, ignorance and stupidity.

It is like whack a mole here, every time the argument is taken out a new one comes up. Look Victor, there is no need to clutter here with a re-hash, but there was a valid rationale to seek to reverse the upzoning under Haithcock.

Best quote I ever heard from a developer on Haithcock was "Hell, she's one of the easy ones to work with, just find out how big she wants the check to be and you can get anything approved."

There are multiple differences and both of you know what they are. I'll give you two. First, the contributions should not be a quid pro quo for approval. Approval should be merit based on what it brings to the ward. Second, the contributions should be used for the proper purposes, not to fund family member ghost payrolls.

Finally, the largest attorney contributors to this alderman have not been lawyers who represent developers. The very largest is a personal injury attorney.


A quid pro quo system would obviously be wrong. Again, do you have specific evidence that quid pro quo was in-place. Clearly you suspect it was, but do you have specific evidence?

It is like whack a mole here, every time the argument is taken out a new one comes up. Look Victor, there is no need to clutter here with a re-hash, but there was a valid rationale to seek to reverse the upzoning under Haithcock.


Wouldn't you agree that a valid rationale for seeking a reversal would need at the very least a legal basis?

Just having a different point of view is no reason to ban someone

Of course not. If that were the case, Mr. Downtown would have been banned a long time ago for some of his contrarian views. ErmDiego was banned not for his opinions but the way in which he expressed them. He also re-registered two additional accounts, which is per se a bannable offense.

Of course not. If that were the case, Mr. Downtown would have been banned a long time ago for some of his contrarian views. ErmDiego was banned not for his opinions but the way in which he expressed them. He also re-registered two additional accounts, which is per se a bannable offense.

Two additional accounts? That's pretty funny. Maybe I'll do that. I can have an argument with myself.

"You're full of it!"

"No I'm not."

"Yes you are."

OK, back to being serious. In my opinion, that sort of fraud deserves a permanent ban.

Best quote I ever heard from a developer on Haithcock was "Hell, she's one of the easy ones to work with, just find out how big she wants the check to be and you can get anything approved."

There are multiple differences and both of you know what they are. I'll give you two. First, the contributions should not be a quid pro quo for approval. Approval should be merit based on what it brings to the ward.

"Merit" according to whom? An approval process led by neighbors would result in no development. An approval process led by the alderman would just make it more political, which would lead to hindered development.

Haithcock was terrible as alderman. But Fioretti has not proven to be better or worse at this point. Wasting time dickering with X/O was... well a total waste of time (and resources). It was a political move from the start.

Maybe now he can start being productive and adding value to the ward. His performance thus far leaves me doubtful. Haithcock may have been an unpolished hack, but Fioretti is a slick, calculating politician. He slung buckets of mud in the election and played dirty tricks on David Askew. His general anti-development stance got him elected, so he will probably just stick to being obstructionist, if only for the sake of satisfying the nimbys.

Maybe now he can start being productive and adding value to the ward. His performance thus far leaves me doubtful.

Let's hope so. I think he's finding (or at least as one of his constituents I'm finding) that it's a lot harder to get things done in the city bureaucracy when you're part of the opposition. There's very little actual power that the aldermen have in terms of getting things done day to day, since they're primarily legislators and still depend on the mayor's administration to actually do things in the ward, like fix sidewalks, deal w/ parking zones, etc. All the alderman can do is call the relevant dept and ask them to move things along, but there's no actual statutory authority there. If the city (the mayor) doesn't like you, or you symbolically block him at every turn, things will move a lot slower for your constituents. That's how they make you play ball. If there's a serious opposition bloc on the council that's one thing, but it's not there yet.

I voted for him, if only to get rotten to the core Haithcock the hell out of there, but unless he starts playing it a little smarter this is his one and only term. This X/0 move was astoundingly boneheaded. I really hope the expensive symbolic gestures end here and he saves his conscience for when it really matters.

[QUOTE=Belacqua;16619594]
I voted for him, if only to get rotten to the core Haithcock the hell out of there, but unless he starts playing it a little smarter this is his one and only term. This X/0 move was astoundingly boneheaded. QUOTE]


Bingo. This whole episode was the most heavy-handed pandering I've ever seen. It's just absolutely insulting to those with any degree of intelligence for Fioretti to contend the Kargil lawsuit had "no merits" as he is quoted in Chicago Journal, when in fact it was obviously a slam dunk. Yes, we all know that the city would have lost millions defending the lawsuit, but we also know what the outcome of the lawsuit would have been (the city would have lost) - and Fioretti realized this as well. For him to pretend he had any kind of legal standing is stomach-churning at best....

direct Fioretti quote from the Tribune - "We need for development to cool down to keep the neighborhood hot." I posted this for anyone who doubts my contention that our new downtown aldermen intend to slowdown the development approval process (this is already evident in the very sparse Plan Commission agendas (for downtown high-rises) since late spring/early summer. Rather than being a sympton of the condo market slowdown or credit crunch (these impacts would show up more in groundbreakings for projects that are already entitled), the slow down in the entitlement process itself is more of a reflection of the new aldermen's desires to slow down development overall (what I sometimes call 'chasing the community consensus phantom') - I just didn't think I would get so lucky with a quote so explicitly expressing his intentions...

Also, what is Fioretti suggesting - that he thinks it's his role to interfere with the free market in order to prop up prices or something? Folks - I'm telling you - this is a very misguided individual trying to make some sort of mark...

Also, what is Fioretti suggesting - that he thinks it's his role to interfere with the free market in order to prop up prices or something? Folks - I'm telling you - this is a very misguided individual trying to make some sort of mark...

How is it a free market? The whole process of guiding a development through purchase of the lot, zoning, planning development process etc., is dripping with politics every step of the way. To suggest it is the free market at work unless an alderman gets involved is lunacy.

^^ More of a free market, then.

^^ More of a free market, then.

How? You can't be a little pregnant. Development is entirely political. Land use law is founded on the politcal (and non free market) nature of development, and Chicago is one of the most politicized in the country.

If the alderman simply gets out of the way and adds nothing to the process, he or she isn't promoting free market in development; they are simply letting development be dictated by other political elements that control the various processes. Haithcock had to sign off on everything before -- she merely did whatever the Mayor asked and received her tribute -- but developments still went through her as part of approval.

If the system were driven totally by market forces that may be a better system, but saying if Fioretti steps out of the way this system will work better due to market forces controlling development is a naive and unrealistic point of view, imho.

..... Development is entirely political. Land use law is founded on the politcal (and non free market) nature of development, and Chicago is one of the most politicized in the country.....

Land use law is founded on the state's inherent constitutional powers to promote and maintain public safety and welfare, which it in turn delegates to the municipality to implement on its behalf. Hence the incessant mantra of light, air & traffic concerns.

And I disagree that development is "entirely political" - it is all but entirely driven by a desire for monetary profit; the politicking is either a means to achieve profit, or a byproduct of it.

.....If the alderman simply gets out of the way and adds nothing to the process, he or she isn't promoting free market in development; they are simply letting development be dictated by other political elements that control the various processes. Haithcock had to sign off on everything before -- she merely did whatever the Mayor asked and received her tribute -- but developments still went through her as part of approval.

If the system were driven totally by market forces that may be a better system, but saying if Fioretti steps out of the way this system will work better due to market forces controlling development is a naive and unrealistic point of view, imho.

This is a strawman argument - or at the very least you are responding to the wrong poster. Of course aldermen have an interest in new developments within their wards - how could they not?

not sure who has what view on what here but here is my two cents.

Anyone who moves into downtown or the downtown area and is astonished or oppossed to a new highrise needs to get a clue and realize they moved into downtown chicago. Its kinda like moving to a farm and then complaining about farms. You bought the place and if you had no clue what you were buying into that is your own fault for being so incredibly niave, not knowing where you bought.

If i bought on a farm and didn't like the farming area I can't imagine telling other people not to farm based on my own stupidity. I'm not a greedy person.

How? You can't be a little pregnant. Development is entirely political. Land use law is founded on the politcal (and non free market) nature of development, and Chicago is one of the most politicized in the country.

If the alderman simply gets out of the way and adds nothing to the process, he or she isn't promoting free market in development; they are simply letting development be dictated by other political elements that control the various processes. Haithcock had to sign off on everything before -- she merely did whatever the Mayor asked and received her tribute -- but developments still went through her as part of approval.

If the system were driven totally by market forces that may be a better system, but saying if Fioretti steps out of the way this system will work better due to market forces controlling development is a naive and unrealistic point of view, imho.


Wrabbit is correct - I should have stated "more of a free market". Markets are not at all like pregnancy. Markets are all about matters of degree. And "more of a free market" is almost always better than "less of a free market" Under obstructionist, heavy-handed Fioretti be prepared to get "much less of a free market"...

Wrabbit is correct - I should have stated "more of a free market". Markets are not at all like pregnancy. Markets are all about matters of degree. And "more of a free market" is almost always better than "less of a free market" Under obstructionist, heavy-handed Fioretti be prepared to get "much less of a free market"...

Under Haithcock how did that free market work on the West Side? Didn't she bow to what you would call the NIMBY groups there and allow them to develop the power to prevent high density, high rise structures in that area?

Under Haithcock how did that free market work on the West Side? Didn't she bow to what you would call the NIMBY groups there and allow them to develop the power to prevent high density, high rise structures in that area?

What do you mean when you say "West Side"? If you are talking about the West Loop, where there are density/height restrictions, please note that this neighborhood is not a part of the 2nd ward.

The portion of the West Side that is in the 2nd ward does not economically support density and tall buildings. Put differently, the free market does not demand density in these areas.

Under Haithcock how did that free market work on the West Side? Didn't she bow to what you would call the NIMBY groups there and allow them to develop the power to prevent high density, high rise structures in that area?

We'll maybe it's time to work together to reverse the crap development in the West Loop. But don't you also think that if Haithcock bowed to the NIMBY'S in the South Loop, we could have gotten the same architectural crap?

We'll maybe it's time to work together to reverse the crap development in the West Loop. But don't you also think that if Haithcock bowed to the NIMBY'S in the South Loop, we could have gotten the same architectural crap?

I don't think Haithcock bowed to anyone other than the almighty greenback. She certainly pandered and lied to many, and with her re-election chances in doubt was making all sorts of promises of neighborhood input as part of a new approval process but I don't think for a minute she would have ever followed through. If re-elected she would have gone back into hiding. Remember this is the woman who wrote a letter of support for XO, helped push it through the approval and upzoning process yet when voters called her on it lied and said she had no input on the upzoning and approval process because after all she was just one of 50 votes.

Rather than libertarian bickering about free markets, does anybody have anything solid to report about this? It's been nearly a month with no news.

Rather than libertarian bickering about free markets, does anybody have anything solid to report about this? It's been nearly a month with no news.

What would be solid? The sales center has been dead for months. Their representation of being underway with construction this Spring is obviously a non starter. There is no news forthcoming from them and they are continuing their litigation against the alderman.

What would be solid? The sales center has been dead for months. Their representation of being underway with construction this Spring is obviously a non starter. There is no news forthcoming from them and they are continuing their litigation against the alderman.

They got a ton of contracts before Fioretti stepped in so they are already in decent shape, sales-wise. Also, in terms of "solid", I can say that I have seen a decent amount of advertising for X/O recently....on YoChicago as well as in a few Chicago newspapers as well.

..

I thought they dropped the suit when Fioretti retracted his downzoning measure. What is there to sue about now?

^ They're after blood now... ;)

..

They got a ton of contracts before Fioretti stepped in so they are already in decent shape, sales-wise. Also, in terms of "solid", I can say that I have seen a decent amount of advertising for X/O recently....on YoChicago as well as in a few Chicago newspapers as well.

So what are their numbers Sir, and when are they going to begin with site development? That would constitute solid news.

On the litigation it seems short sighted. They responded publicly throughout the proposed downzoning that it would never happen, sales were solid and that the threat wouldn't impact their schedule. With the withdrawal of the downzoning they are out on any loss due to vested interest. Unless they can make a case that an Alderman's public pronouncements cost them a critical sales mass that meant the difference between a go and no go on the project -- which in these days of real estate bubble popping would be difficult to imagine and would go against every statement Giles ever made in the press -- what do they have in terms of damages? Delayed construction costs?

Giles decision making on this doesn't appear sensible. Spite is not a terribly good decision maker when it comes to business.

And Loopy I doubt the alderman fears the lawsuit, but litigation can be a pain in the ass legal fee and time wise.

.....With the withdrawal of the downzoning they are out on any loss due to vested interest. Unless they can make a case that an Alderman's public pronouncements cost them a critical sales mass that meant the difference between a go and no go on the project.....

Where on earth did you get this idea from? The project doesn't need to be cancelled for them to suffer material harm.

Spite is not a terribly good decision maker when it comes to business.....

Nor is it an especially good conduit for legal analysis. ;)

[QUOTE=wrabbit;17529475]Where on earth did you get this idea from? The project doesn't need to be cancelled for them to suffer material harm.
QUOTE]

Never said it did. But they have to prove their damages. And the only way to prove their damages is to demonstrate that the pronouncements of a coming attempt at downzoning caused them harm. That is not an easy task. Especially when they were in the press constantly saying that the Alderman's actions were not hruting or slowing sales one bit and they fully expected the project to continue on schedule.

[QUOTE=wrabbit;17529475]Where on earth did you get this idea from? The project doesn't need to be cancelled for them to suffer material harm.
QUOTE]

Never said it did. But they have to prove their damages. And the only way to prove their damages is to demonstrate that the pronouncements of a coming attempt at downzoning caused them harm. That is not an easy task. Especially when they were in the press constantly saying that the Alderman's actions were not hruting or slowing sales one bit and they fully expected the project to continue on schedule.

Actually, proving that the pronouncements of a coming attempt at downzoning caused them harm is MUCH easier than you make it out to be. If they were selling, let's say, an average of 5 units per week before Fioretti attempted the downzoning, and then 1 unit per week afterwards, I think that is pretty clear data-driven, factual evidence that shows that they were caused harm.

And of course they were going to use positive spin and claim that the Alderman's actions were not slowing their sales, even though, that was probably contrary to the truth...if they had said otherwise, that would have hurt their sales even more. When it comes to a lawsuit, I'm pretty sure that the judge would determine whether or not "harm" was caused based on actual facts/numbers and not based on spin and cherry-coated comments that the developers made to reassure potential buyers.

If they were selling, let's say, an average of 5 units per week before Fioretti attempted the downzoning, and then 1 unit per week afterwards, I think that is pretty clear data-driven, factual evidence that shows that they were caused harm.

So "correlation doesn't imply causation" isn't true in a courtroom?

(Sorry, I felt like playing Devil's Advocate)

Fioretti is skilled litigator himself, the last thing that is going to scare him is a lawsuit.

Know where I can look up the court record of this "skilled litigator"?

[QUOTE=Prairie Avenue;17540186]

Actually, proving that the pronouncements of a coming attempt at downzoning caused them harm is MUCH easier than you make it out to be. If they were selling, let's say, an average of 5 units per week before Fioretti attempted the downzoning, and then 1 unit per week afterwards, I think that is pretty clear data-driven, factual evidence that shows that they were caused harm.

And of course they were going to use positive spin and claim that the Alderman's actions were not slowing their sales, even though, that was probably contrary to the truth...if they had said otherwise, that would have hurt their sales even more. When it comes to a lawsuit, I'm pretty sure that the judge would determine whether or not "harm" was caused based on actual facts/numbers and not based on spin and cherry-coated comments that the developers made to reassure potential buyers.

You would be wrong. The case cannot be built on trend numbers alone. Although those numbers would be interesting as a starting point because if sales had already dropped before the publicity of the downzoning, which is very likely given the real estate market, it will make their case pretty tough. Do you have numbers that show such a trend? I doubt it as the overall market had cooled before Fioretti ever took office. Also, Haithcock had issued statements she was going to stop the permit process in public forums, and those statements had been reported in the media as well, so how do you unravel what supposed sales were lost by that (or momentum) as opposed to Fioretti's similar efforts.

The Giles case will require expert testimony and I could begin to list the factors that would go into their analysis but the comprehensive list would be long. Market conditions and overall sales slowdown in the area would go a long way to diminishing any impact of a downzoning proposal never ruled on, would be my guess.

[QUOTE=Sir Isaac Newton;17546792]

You would be wrong. The case cannot be built on trend numbers alone. Although those numbers would be interesting as a starting point because if sales had already dropped before the publicity of the downzoning, which is very likely given the real estate market, it will make their case pretty tough. Do you have numbers that show such a trend? I doubt it as the overall market had cooled before Fioretti ever took office. Also, Haithcock had issued statements she was going to stop the permit process in public forums, and those statements had been reported in the media as well, so how do you unravel what supposed sales were lost by that (or momentum) as opposed to Fioretti's similar efforts.

The Giles case will require expert testimony and I could begin to list the factors that would go into their analysis but the comprehensive list would be long. Market conditions and overall sales slowdown in the area would go a long way to diminishing any impact of a downzoning proposal never ruled on, would be my guess.

I don't quite understand all the animosity toward this project. So much writing with no news or factual info to base it on.

So "correlation doesn't imply causation" isn't true in a courtroom?

(Sorry, I felt like playing Devil's Advocate)

Haha, point well taken.

However, the overwhelming majority instances where there is correlation but not causality between two factors, it is because there is a third factor that happens to be the cause of BOTH of the other two factors. For example, there is a correlation between how much violence a teenager watches on TV and the likelihood that they will eventually commit a violent crime. However, watching violence on TV may not be the cause of someone being more prone to committing violence later on in life. There may be a third factor - that a person just happens to be a more violent/aggressive by nature, which means he is more likely to enjoy violent TV shows AND partake in violence himself.

This isn't the case here, and I don't think that the defense could come up with some other cause that does seem plausible. I'm definitely no legal expert, so I don't know how convincing the evidence has to be to get a judgment, but I am guessing that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove causality without a shadow of a doubt, to win a CIVIL case (especially since causality is extremely difficult to prove with 100% certainty, in almost all cases). My guess is that as long as you can show strong correlation AND show that there are no other factors that likely would have been the cause of the result, you could win a judgment. I could be wrong though - and if so - any lawyers out there correct me!


Also, I'm sure that the lawyers for the developers could take gather names of hundreds of people who visited their sales office during the time that Fioretti threatened downzoning, but didn't end up buying any units...and then call them up and ask what their reasons for not ultimately purcashing a unit in X/O were. I would imagine that at least a few would mention the uncertainty of the project's viability due to Fioretti and the possible downzoning...and any of those people could be deposed as witnesses.

[QUOTE=Sir Isaac Newton;17546792]

You would be wrong. The case cannot be built on trend numbers alone. Although those numbers would be interesting as a starting point because if sales had already dropped before the publicity of the downzoning, which is very likely given the real estate market, it will make their case pretty tough. Do you have numbers that show such a trend? I doubt it as the overall market had cooled before Fioretti ever took office. Also, Haithcock had issued statements she was going to stop the permit process in public forums, and those statements had been reported in the media as well, so how do you unravel what supposed sales were lost by that (or momentum) as opposed to Fioretti's similar efforts.

The Giles case will require expert testimony and I could begin to list the factors that would go into their analysis but the comprehensive list would be long. Market conditions and overall sales slowdown in the area would go a long way to diminishing any impact of a downzoning proposal never ruled on, would be my guess.

I don't have any numbers myself, and I'm not even saying for sure that X/O's sales greatly declined after Fioretti stepped in. All I'm saying that IF that sales did greatly decline after Fioretti stepped in, they could make a good case in a civil trial that Fioretti was responsible for lost sales.

If sales started to slow before Fioretti stepped in, due to a slowing economy, it wouldn't make it any more difficult for an actuary/statistician to make the case that Fioretti caused sales to decline. For example, if X/O was selling 7 units a week 3 months before Fioretti stepped in, 6 units a week 2 months before Fioretti stepped in, and 5 units a week 1 month before Fioretti stepped in, and then all the way down to 1 unit a week DIRECTLY after Fioretti stepped in, it's clear that the slowdown in real estate didn't cause the majority of the drop-off in sales. Any actuary/statistician/mathematician could easily perform a multivariate analysis to show that the majority of the dropoff in sales was not due to the overall decline in the housing market.

[QUOTE=Prairie Avenue;17562971]

I don't have any numbers myself, and I'm not even saying for sure that X/O's sales greatly declined after Fioretti stepped in. All I'm saying that IF that sales did greatly decline after Fioretti stepped in, they could make a good case in a civil trial that Fioretti was responsible for lost sales.

If sales started to slow before Fioretti stepped in, due to a slowing economy, it wouldn't make it any more difficult for an actuary/statistician to make the case that Fioretti caused sales to decline. For example, if X/O was selling 7 units a week 3 months before Fioretti stepped in, 6 units a week 2 months before Fioretti stepped in, and 5 units a week 1 month before Fioretti stepped in, and then all the way down to 1 unit a week DIRECTLY after Fioretti stepped in, it's clear that the slowdown in real estate didn't cause the majority of the drop-off in sales. Any actuary/statistician/mathematician could easily perform a multivariate analysis to show that the majority of the dropoff in sales was not due to the overall decline in the housing market.

Way too simplistic. What was X/O's ad buys, events post the pronouncement? Sales typically start strong for good projects and then tail off after the most desirable units are off the market and/or early sales inducements expire.

To think this is an easy damage claim for Giles is just not correct. But let's toss that all aside, there are people here who used to proclaim knowledge on unit sales numbers and how well things were going, why not now provide the breakdown.

This started awhile back with a request for solid news. Is there any in terms of percent of units sold, when groundbreaking is expected to start, etc?

This started awhile back with a request for solid news. Is there any in terms of percent of units sold, when groundbreaking is expected to start, etc?

Absolutely not. I'm just waiting for somebody here or at the Yo to have an edgewise conversation at the X/O sales office and get a sales figure or groundbreaking date.

Absolutely not. I'm just waiting for somebody here or at the Yo to have an edgewise conversation at the X/O sales office and get a sales figure or groundbreaking date.

Another month has passed and nothing?

Another month has passed and nothing?

I actually went to the sales center about 2 weeks ago. I was told that sales have in fact improved after the whole PDNA bullshit.

They are hoping to begin demolition sometime in May or June of this year.

I actually went to the sales center about 2 weeks ago. I was told that sales have in fact improved after the whole PDNA bullshit.

They are hoping to begin demolition sometime in May or June of this year.

Appreciate this information. Fair conclusion would be they don't have current sales of enough muster to lock in a start date for demo then, agree?

^ Why is that a fair conclusion?

Sounds more like your wishful conclusion.

^ Why is that a fair conclusion?

Sounds more like your wishful conclusion.

Because if they had enough sales now that would justify starting demolition it would be on a firm schedule by now, not something they hope to get rolling by May or June. You are savvy enough to know that.

Because if they had enough sales now that would justify starting demolition it would be on a firm schedule by now, not something they hope to get rolling by May or June. You are savvy enough to know that.

I gave you information given to me by a sales agent. I suppose that we'll have to wait the 3 or 4 months until that time comes and goes before we know whether it was accurate or not.

This isn't the case here, and I don't think that the defense could come up with some other cause that does seem plausible. I'm definitely no legal expert, so I don't know how convincing the evidence has to be to get a judgment, but I am guessing that the plaintiff doesn't have to prove causality without a shadow of a doubt, to win a CIVIL case (especially since causality is extremely difficult to prove with 100% certainty, in almost all cases). My guess is that as long as you can show strong correlation AND show that there are no other factors that likely would have been the cause of the result, you could win a judgment. I could be wrong though - and if so - any lawyers out there correct me!


Also, I'm sure that the lawyers for the developers could take gather names of hundreds of people who visited their sales office during the time that Fioretti threatened downzoning, but didn't end up buying any units...and then call them up and ask what their reasons for not ultimately purcashing a unit in X/O were. I would imagine that at least a few would mention the uncertainty of the project's viability due to Fioretti and the possible downzoning...and any of those people could be deposed as witnesses.

To all who posited the Kargil lawsuit would be a slam dunk or anything near it, it appears to have been voluntarily dismissed. Read into the dismissal what you will, perhaps even that there has been an uptick in sales and some actual work will start soon.

Well, now thats all settled, lets get rolling! Prairie Avenue, I bet you'll actually start to love this thing once its built.

Well, now thats all settled, lets get rolling! Prairie Avenue, I bet you'll actually start to love this thing once its built.

Okay guys for now probably the 20th time, I never had a problem with the design or location of the Towers even though they are literally in my backyard. The builder is not known for careful planning or execution, no traffic studies were done, I think dragging all the traffic of residents in and out of the Towers through the alley between Indiana and Prairie is a recipe for disaster especially given you have cars parked on either side 24/7 and finally I hate the institutional look of the townhomes that form what LaGrange says is a pleasing streetscape, they neither fit with the glass towers or the surrounding neighborhood. So the devil is in the details as it always is with major projects but I do think the Towers themselves could become quite a landmark for the area. I am not against them, just want appropriate planning and infrastructure in place and you know Haithcock never did anything to compel that.

^Those are actually all very fair reasons. I have my issues with some of the aspects that you mentioned. Particularly the look of the townhomes. However, I think it will all be an improvement over what is there presently. Also, dont the townhomes in that area, and even that tower at the end of 18th, also utilize small alleys for the residents?

^Those are actually all very fair reasons. I have my issues with some of the aspects that you mentioned. Particularly the look of the townhomes. However, I think it will all be an improvement over what is there presently. Also, dont the townhomes in that area, and even that tower at the end of 18th, also utilize small alleys for the residents?


What tower at end of 18th? The one at 16th and Prairie does not, it uses Prairie. The loft building at 16 and Indiana uses the alley already.
Two XO towers is a lot to put on the alley, especially when traffic on both 16th and 18th will be increasing greatly in the areas where the alley comes out -- you have Tower II starting on Calumet, Museum Tower at 17th and Prairie and either 16th or 18th or both will be used to expand the grid to the new Central Station development planned over the RR tracks. Note, carefully, I am not saying no more density because density brings traffic, I am just saying the current plan looks unsafe with cars edging out of the alley between parked cars with limited sight lines on streets with a lot of vehciles and pedestrian traffic.

^ Please don't take this as me trying to be a smart ass, but hear me out:

I've got a solution for congested alleys. Work to make your neighborhood less car-dependent!

No, I'm serious. Get people out of their cars. More highrises are going to go up along Michigan, Roosevelt, and eventually south of you towards Cermak. Push for more retail. But that still isn't enough, because a lot of those areas are still a decent hike from many of the townhouses and condos further east & north within Central Station. As we all know, Mr. Fogelson is proposing a giant mixed-use project just east of you guys, and this has the potential to introduce some density but also some community retail that will service the area immediately around it.

If history has taught us anything about NIMBY's, such a potentially great development is likely to spur the Ayersmans and the other bozos of this world to go running to their Alderman crying "congestion" and trying to block a project that actually could do wonders for a neighborhood where people currently get into their cars to buy a bag of potato chips.

If you really want to get cars out of those congested alleys, then lets use our noodles for a sec and find a better solution than not building highrises, a crappy solution with little prospect for long-term success in Chicago's growing central city. Lets find ways to get people to drive less. How about working with these developers, with an open mind, and try to focus on walkability instead of fixating on automobile congestion?

I'm asking people like yourself and others in the community to really take a second look at what some more development can do for the neighborhood as a whole, instead of the often quick response "we can't handle the cars" after an only superficial evaluation.

Those are just my thoughts.

^ Please don't take this as me trying to be a smart ass, but hear me out:

I've got a solution for congested alleys. Work to make your neighborhood less car-dependent!
I'm asking people like yourself and others in the community to really take a second look at what some more development can do for the neighborhood as a whole, instead of the often quick response "we can't handle the cars" after an only superficial evaluation.

Those are just my thoughts.

A totally planned area that would have enough of everything including public transportation would be ideal, however, it isn't rational to believe it will occur in the south loop. The majority of townhomes are being built in this area with two car garages, none are being built garage free. Street parking in the area has gone from plentiful 3 years ago to full now, even with heavy use of residential zones. XO brings with it zero "community" resources of the type that would strive for your goal of car free. I spent enough time without a vehicle in Hell's kitchen in New York to understand how great the freedom to do everything you ever wanted by walking, hailing a cab or jumping on a subway was, but I don't foresee that reality for the south loop of Chicago. Development is just too hodge podge and driven by whatever is hot at the moment and developers only care about their lot not the community as a whole.

I am working to try and get an "L" stop at 18th which is needed now and will be more needed as years go by. That would kill any claim that "traffic" was intolerable.

But I understand the concern as in Chicago outside of a very few areas with density comes additional traffic. Go sit on Fullerton almost any time any day. No one is controlling planning with a vision to increase density to limit traffic. So the goal is nice but pie in the sky. Traffic and congestion without the benefits of walk to destinations is the reality and people weighing in against that is predictable and understandable. Is there a single area in Chicago over the past 15 years that has paired increased density with reduced automobile traffic? If not, why would the south loop, with a bevy of low density townhome, row home and single family residences ever get there?

Finally, I am not saying no to projects because the area can't handle more cars, just that additional traffic should be handled with the best planning possible, because if you build it the traffic will come.

Is there a single area in Chicago over the past 15 years that has paired increased density with reduced automobile traffic?

River North certainly has not reduced road congestion, but it has gained retail amenities over the past 20 years to the point where car-free living is possible and even convenient.

As for the alley issue - why not just demand no-parking zones for 12 feet east and west of the alley entrance on 18th, to open up sight lines? This would be simpler than redesigning the project and introducing a whole new curb cut for a garage entrance on Prairie.

A totally planned area that would have enough of everything including public transportation would be ideal, however, it isn't rational to believe it will occur in the south loop. The majority of townhomes are being built in this area with two car garages, none are being built garage free. Street parking in the area has gone from plentiful 3 years ago to full now, even with heavy use of residential zones. XO brings with it zero "community" resources of the type that would strive for your goal of car free. I spent enough time without a vehicle in Hell's kitchen in New York to understand how great the freedom to do everything you ever wanted by walking, hailing a cab or jumping on a subway was, but I don't foresee that reality for the south loop of Chicago. Development is just too hodge podge and driven by whatever is hot at the moment and developers only care about their lot not the community as a whole.

I am working to try and get an "L" stop at 18th which is needed now and will be more needed as years go by. That would kill any claim that "traffic" was intolerable.

But I understand the concern as in Chicago outside of a very few areas with density comes additional traffic. Go sit on Fullerton almost any time any day. No one is controlling planning with a vision to increase density to limit traffic. So the goal is nice but pie in the sky. Traffic and congestion without the benefits of walk to destinations is the reality and people weighing in against that is predictable and understandable. Is there a single area in Chicago over the past 15 years that has paired increased density with reduced automobile traffic? If not, why would the south loop, with a bevy of low density townhome, row home and single family residences ever get there?

Finally, I am not saying no to projects because the area can't handle more cars, just that additional traffic should be handled with the best planning possible, because if you build it the traffic will come.

^ I don't disagree with any of this, but then why not push for more retail? If a true shopping district emerges along Michigan Avenue, as well as (eventually) Cermak, along with more community-oriented retail within Fogelson's planned community, why should a person not be able to live carless in the south loop?

I don't think it's fair to expect a carless community in the south loop this early in its development process. At the same time, though, if NIMBY's are allowed to block everything in sight because of traffic concerns, I'm concerned that such a community will never be allowed to develop.

^ I don't disagree with any of this, but then why not push for more retail? If a true shopping district emerges along Michigan Avenue, as well as (eventually) Cermak, along with more community-oriented retail within Fogelson's planned community, why should a person not be able to live carless in the south loop?

I don't think it's fair to expect a carless community in the south loop this early in its development process. At the same time, though, if NIMBY's are allowed to block everything in sight because of traffic concerns, I'm concerned that such a community will never be allowed to develop.


I don't see a true shopping district emerging at S. Michigan Avenue. In fact the shopping is being developed at the Roosevelt and Canal area, and is being done with plenty of parking encouraging drive to.

I don't know of anyone in the South Loop who is against development of walk to amenities. If the Fogelson plan does include boutique retail and some non-car circulator I don't see people in the south loop efforting to stop it. Asking for traffic studies and solutions to manage traffic is different from opposing development because of the traffic it brings. One thing you may not be aware of is that much of the South Loop area is very familiar with bad traffic -- every Soldier Field event, Taste or other major festival brings a ton of traffic issues. People who are here live with traffic issues every day.

I don't see a true shopping district emerging at S. Michigan Avenue. In fact the shopping is being developed at the Roosevelt and Canal area, and is being done with plenty of parking encouraging drive to.

I don't know of anyone in the South Loop who is against development of walk to amenities. If the Fogelson plan does include boutique retail and some non-car circulator I don't see people in the south loop efforting to stop it. Asking for traffic studies and solutions to manage traffic is different from opposing development because of the traffic it brings. One thing you may not be aware of is that much of the South Loop area is very familiar with bad traffic -- every Soldier Field event, Taste or other major festival brings a ton of traffic issues. People who are here live with traffic issues every day.:lol: You seem to be implying the South Loop is the only place with heavy traffic! And in the winter when there is no activity you mentioned, traffic is barely an issue.

I live in River North on Wabash and Hubbard, where the density is 10x or 20x where you live and traffic has never bothered me and many times it can be very heavy. Ever try crossing Michigan Ave on a Saturday? or ride down Ontario on a Saturday night? Yeah there is a lot of traffic and it may take a few minutes to get where I'm going. But if I wanted miles of open lanes and little traffic, I'd move out to the suburbs.

I'm sorry but I am really tired of hearing anyone complain about traffic issues. This is a major city, its gonna happen from time to time.

:lol: You seem to be implying the South Loop is the only place with heavy traffic! And in the winter when there is no activity you mentioned, traffic is barely an issue.

I live in River North on Wabash and Hubbard, where the density is 10x or 20x where you live and traffic has never bothered me and many times it can be very heavy. Ever try crossing Michigan Ave on a Saturday? or ride down Ontario on a Saturday night? Yeah there is a lot of traffic and it may take a few minutes to get where I'm going. But if I wanted miles of open lanes and little traffic, I'd move out to the suburbs.

I'm sorry but I am really tired of hearing anyone complain about traffic issues. This is a major city, its gonna happen from time to time.

You really missed the point entirely,but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My point was that while this area (South Loop or more specifically Prairie District) often gets tarred with the brush of residents being overly sensitive to traffic, the opposite is true. Every Soldier Field event makes Roosevelt a dead zone. Every major convention at McCormick sends floods of taxis down every side street as they seek to avoid a clogged Michigan Avenue. When festivals shut down Columbus Michigan, State and Clark get the diverted traffic. I have never heard any outcry over these traffic concerns, people in the south loop have lived with them for a long time and put up with them. That was my point, not that traffic here is better or worse than anywhere else. Just that the area residents aren't demanding a free flow to traffic at all, that hasn't existed for a long time. And that residents are pushing for walk to amenities in new developments other than dry cleaners.

I have never heard any outcry over these traffic concerns, people in the south loop have lived with them for a long time and put up with them. That was my point, not that traffic here is better or worse than anywhere else.that is your point? People have lived with traffic problems in other areas of the city for far, far longer than the South Loop has. And the traffic problems in the South Loop are far less of a problem than they are in River North, Lincoln Park, lakeview and Wrigleyview. But whatever, not important and off topic.
And that residents are pushing for walk to amenities in new developments other than dry cleaners.this is something to definitely push for.

why are dry cleaners so abundant anyway? why are they often the first of any kind of 'retail' to go in anywhere?

:nuts: 22,301 Views and 431 Replies later and not a single spade of earth turned. Wake me when this is over. :ohno:

why are dry cleaners so abundant anyway? why are they often the first of any kind of 'retail' to go in anywhere?

Dry cleaners don't need a lot of space, and they require small staffs. In addition, there is demand for them, and less permits necessary to start them up. A bar, restaurant need more permits, room, larger staffs, and are more expensive to operate- demand must be very high for entrepreneurs to be willing to take the risks involved. Other retailers struggle, because of a lack of foot traffic on the sidewalks. I walk by the new shops on the east side of michigan ave a block south of roosevelt everyday, and there are never customers in them. Specialty shops tend to struggle in newer neighborhoods like the south loop, but they'll pick up after people move into OMP,1400MP, marquee, and when mich ave tower II is completed. Things may be shaky now, but by adding a couple thousand people to the neighborhood will certainly help.

Nice shots of the model at X/O.

http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/220/216220.jpg

http://wibiti.com/images/hpmain/392/216392.jpg

Asking for traffic studies and solutions to manage traffic is different from opposing development because of the traffic it brings.


Mr. Avenue:
Could you please tell us what you think a 'proper' traffic study of X/O would have revealed?

the model looks really nice. i'd buy there if, i, ya know, had money

Mr. Avenue:
Could you please tell us what you think a 'proper' traffic study of X/O would have revealed?

^ :lol:

No kidding. The answer: LOTS of traffic.

Traffic studies are a joke & they always will be. Expect traffic in Chicago. Total waste of money to study it for seemingly every project..

All is well, except it appears that some of the more desperate members of society don't seem to know what the words "get over it" mean. Mr. Ayersman continues to slander the project using different usernames at the Yo (assuming falsely that people wouldn't know that it's him). He's clearly running out of options here, but I guess being pathetic isn't a deterrant to some individuals:

2/27/2008 10:00:00 PM
X/O lawsuit officially ends
Giles: ‘Costly experience;’ Fioretti: zoning change 'unfortunate'

BY MICAH MAIDENBERG
Editor

Excerpt:

PDNA member Jeffrey Ayersman said his group is considering its options, including the possibility of bringing a lawsuit to stop the project.

"I think it's worth a look," Ayersman.
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=60&ArticleID=4161&TM=33374.36

Go get um, Jeff! :nuts:

You ban the guy from the forum and then take shots at him? Seems petty.

You ban the guy from the forum and then take shots at him? Seems petty.

If you haven't already noticed, around here we take shots at a lot of NIMBY's--and the ones who especially have their heads up their rear ends certainly aren't spared. We're talking about a guy who has lost so much credibility that he even stopped posting with his own name at the Yo.

Do us all a favor and stop defending that adolescent

Do us all a favor and stop defending that adolescent

"us all" -- a monolithic group that you head up?

I didn't defend him, and in fact there would be no discussion of him here without you bringing him into it. I don't frequent the Yo boards but it sure seems like you want to bring your battles from there here where you know he can't respond to your attacks.

I didn't defend him, and in fact there would be no discussion of him here without you bringing him into it. I don't frequent the Yo boards but it sure seems like you want to bring your battles from there here where you know he can't respond to your attacks.

Nope. I stopped posting at the Yo months ago, but I still read it from time to time.

If it irks you so that I attack him, then let me make this easy for you. Every aspect of this tiny movement against X/O has long reeked of selfish, poorly conceived, baseless NIMBYism of the worst kind. People who have the gall and the nerve to keep dragging this issue along are the objects of my attacks. And guess whose name keeps coming up?

But then you always run to his defense. Great for you, be my guest. But now you know where I stand, as I do you. I'll keep pointing out how full of shit he and his group are, and you'll keep scurrying to their defense. Lets not pretend that something else is going on here.

Every aspect of this tiny movement against X/O has long reeked of selfish, poorly conceived, baseless NIMBYism of the worst kind. People who have the gall and the nerve to keep dragging this issue along are the objects of my attacks. And guess whose name keeps coming up?

But then you always run to his defense.

There has never been any question of where you stand. Pointing out your pettiness is not "running to his defense." For example, I didn't defend his quote in the article that peeved you so.

And you are uninformed about much of the "real story" when it comes to XO or else intentionally misrepresenting to say it is NIMBYism at its worst. The reality is that the majority of the "movement" against XO can be defined in a single word, GILES. The various skirmishes may have been fought under the guise of arguments that you would label NIMBYism, but he is the reason they were fought in the first place.

What should not be lost on this board or in the bigger framework of the city is the underside of the developer/development world that flooded the South Loop and other areas. Look where prime developers stand today -- Legacy, Rokas, Rezmar; Giles gamed the system the same way they did and they all seem to have inter-relationships, including with DiPiazza and Ferro.

Community groups have legitimate concerns not only about the renderings and development plans but who is behind the deals and how they worked the system into approvals. How the system is gamed to go after developers may end up looking like NIMBYism, but that doesn't mean NIMBYism is at its core.

Hey Mr. Ave., I'm still waiting for a reply to my question regarding the traffic study...

BTW, I think you betray the exact NIMBY motives that TUP is so concerned about when you reveal your real motivation: Giles. The purpose of community organizations should not be to further personal vendettas, but to review proposals for their inherent worth. The reputation of the developer plays a part in that, but ultimately, the organization's focus is on the development itself. If all developers were to be judged on every bad move they made in their past, I can assure that no developer would ever build twice.

Hey Mr. Ave., I'm still waiting for a reply to my question regarding the traffic study...

BTW, I think you betray the exact NIMBY motives that TUP is so concerned about when you reveal your real motivation: Giles. The purpose of community organizations should not be to further personal vendettas, but to review proposals for their inherent worth. The reputation of the developer plays a part in that, but ultimately, the organization's focus is on the development itself. If all developers were to be judged on every bad move they made in their past, I can assure that no developer would ever build twice.

On traffic I thought all of you (or all of us) had already dismissed answering with a peal of laughter -- "more traffic." It is a difficult posture to square with people who supposedly serve on community associations for "the good of the community." Do you need me to list for you the potential benefits of a traffic study? If the notion is laughable then what have you or your organization done to strip them from the planning and zoning process?

On your other points I am not sure why you want to rehash the XO issues. Why don't you post here the date of the first public or community meeting GSLA held on XO and let's compare that to the date on their letter of support. While we are at it how about posting GSLA's letters of support for the Rokas project? Some of "all of us" have already retracted their postings that PDNA was the death knell of that project because those posts were untrue.

BY the way there weren't and have never been my NIMBY concerns on XO, I am a nearby resident that has never minded the design of the towers.

To your point on developers it makes no sense. If a developer is known to have walked away from prior projects placing huge liabilities on the owners clearly they didn't live up to the projects they presented. So what if they present another rendering or design that looks great -- you just slap your approval on it? Don't you think it is a bad thing for the area that 1717 owners face 8 million in expenses to fix a developer error in their building. Do you really think that developer should be allowed to dodge that responsibility while he moves on to another project a few blocks down?

Look either there is merit to developers having to provide proof of community approval through groups like GSLA in that the groups serves a true vetting process and is a true community stamp of approval or get rid of the idea altogether. Giles had issues of quality long before XO and he certainly created at least the appearance of a conflict of interest if not an outright one with certain not for profits, and with his contributions to the alderman.

If you want to call putting those issues out there wrongful NIMBY concerns that is your problem not mine.

First off, I'm not sure what the GSLA has to do with this discussion at all...again, you are proving my point....do you really think that a community group has the necessary resources, investigative abilities, etc. etc. to properly police developers? Do you really think that each project that is presented to a community group should be held hostage based upon rumours and rants of former customers of whatever developer parties are involved? Do you really think it is up to the volounteers to become community development police? Issuing subpeonas, taking away business liscences, etc. etc.? Seriously, think about how that should work....what about a past project that had serious construction defects but the developer did his best to address them but the result was still inadequate, what then? ....what about a developer who had previous project generally regarded as excellent, but another who had a few, but very loud, owners who claim fruad, what then? What if a board member of a community group had a personal past relationship with a particular developer...should they recuse themselves from making any judgement on that project?

come on, you all are on a personal vendetta, we all know it, and it is foolish for you to claim otherwise now that you have already admitted it in your prior post...


Maybe only the DA's office should review projects.

As far as the traffic studies are concerned, I'm not sure if the GSLA has ever specifically requested them (I'm sure the PDNA has), and I am sorry if your feelings were hurt by someone on this thread, but I seriously would like to know what the NIMBY's who request them (like yourself) expect them to reveal?

^^^^:ohno:^^

I didn't design the system in terms of how it should work, but if a system is in place then at the very least the process defined by that system should be followed with transparency.

I don't think the system should be gamed and that is how XO worked. Should a board member close to a developer recuse himself -- yes. Should a "community group" providing the necessary letter of support as part of that process send the letter before it has held any community meetings -- no. You set up straw men to knock down, who said any development should be able to be held due to rantings and rumors?

IF GSLA or any other like organization doesn't have the resources to do any diligence then they should so admit and stop issuing letters of support. If they are going to represent themselves as experts in the area then do a workmanlike job.

On traffic studies I would foresee that they would provide the community an analysis with increases in traffic numbers, how ingress and egress to the development will be handled and the likely effect on existing traffic patterns along with suggestions for modifications of existing parking or traffic flows. Someone posted here just ban parking within 15 feet of alley way entrances -- instead of a shoot from the hip analysis why not have something done under the supervision of a traffic engineer?

Well, Mr. Ave., the system does not include the policing of developers for all the reasons I posted above and you conveniently ingnored. By the way, none of you have ever provided any documentation of developer misdeeds other then rumors and rants anyway. If it so easy, why hasn't PDNA provided this? Seriously, what you describe falls under the DA's responsibility or, at the very least, in the civil if not criminal court system.

The traffic studies results you mention are all already part of any professionally developed site plan and as far as no parking within x amount of feet from an alley, that does fall under the purview of community organizations and the alderman, not the developer. The point is that traffic studies are indeed a red herring, any professional urban planner and architect knows this and are only conducted to provide cover for the developer. If there are larger traffic concerns beyond the immediate development, then community organizations should indeed be working with the alderman to get those addressed - but trying to impugn a project because 'proper' traffic studies have not been completed is simply ludicrous. This was the point TUP was making....we can argue whether traffic should be using an alley, or another new curb cut, but the larger impact of all of the traffic of X/O or just about any other residential project on the neighborhood and city is negligible - always has been, and always will be.

You can carry on the vedetta as much as you want, the rest of us are going to focus on the impact all of these new projects have on our community, the value of our homes, and the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood.

Someone posted here just ban parking within 15 feet of alley way entrances -- instead of a shoot from the hip analysis why not have something done under the supervision of a traffic engineer?

Obviously, I'm not a traffic engineer - my suggestion was more in line with "if there are problems, then let's solve them and move on". I'm sure that an engineer would provide a better analysis of how to improve sight lines.

Anyone hearing anything? Last word was that they expected to begin demo in May -- no activity on site yet.

Anyone hearing anything? Last word was that they expected to begin demo in May -- no activity on site yet.

I spoke with someone higher than a sales associate, and I was told hopefully late summer. Of course this can either be sooner or later depending on the number of sales they get.

Hear rumors about converting Tower two to rental property?

I wonder if the spa or other amenities would then get built.

Nope. But rental in this area of the south loop wouldnt be a bad thing IMO. Theres not a whole lot of rental in the area, seems its mostly condos (besides long grove or whatever on Michigan). Either way, if it helps get the building done....

Theyve probably sold enough units in Tower I, from what it sounds, to keep the amenities there at least.

The South Loop has plenty of rentals coming up (next to Target, the revamped Burnham Pointe, 1400 block of State, 1212 Michigan, Sky55, 1100 Michigan, and change) Not to mention the potential that Roosevelt Collections tower could be apartments and the planned development North of River City will likely have more rental.

Regardless, I doubt X/O would take that hit. Though their sales are nowhere as high as the staff's optimism, it is a quality project. What we may see instead: Incentives and stagnant pricing. Prices have been the same for months....

^ And perhaps more studios & one bedrooms.

So much for the ground breaking by May of this year. Crains has big article today on Condo sales being dead downtown -- 201 units for the first quarter.

Wonder how many units remain to be sold in building now going up across the street or in Tower two a block away on S. Calumet?

I think this building is only around 40% or so.

does anyone know where I can get interior photos of X/O? I can't seem to find them on their site

Anyone heard anything about this one lately?

Put a fork in it?

..

Yes, it is pretty much dead as a project.

However, the developer is not bankrupt and there are no foreclosures or liens on the project as far as I know. So, in my opinion, there is a slim chance this one could come back to life if our 2016 Olympic bid wins out.

Not to mention, they were able to secure a decent amount of contracts before the market tanked. I would say that most current proposed condo highrises in Chicago don't have a very good chance, including this one, but I would say this one at least has a better chance than most, for the reasons you mentioned, and due to the fact that it has much less sales needed than most projects before it could potentially get a loan.

However many contracts they obtained in 2006/7, when they purported to be 75% sold on the first Tower, how many remain valid today? Certainly any flippers are now out, and anyone actually needing a place to live has gone elsewhere. Original contracts were sold on a basis that ground would be broken in fall 2007. I can't imagine that many of their previously sold contracts remain viable at this point.

However many contracts they obtained in 2006/7, when they purported to be 75% sold on the first Tower, how many remain valid today? Certainly any flippers are now out, and anyone actually needing a place to live has gone elsewhere. Original contracts were sold on a basis that ground would be broken in fall 2007. I can't imagine that many of their previously sold contracts remain viable at this point.
Not to mention the large number of people who probably won't be able to get financing when the time comes. I know this was a problem in several of the newer buildings I looked at before I bought my current place. Contracts were falling through left and right, resulting in more units becoming available almost daily.

However many contracts they obtained in 2006/7, when they purported to be 75% sold on the first Tower, how many remain valid today? Certainly any flippers are now out, and anyone actually needing a place to live has gone elsewhere. Original contracts were sold on a basis that ground would be broken in fall 2007. I can't imagine that many of their previously sold contracts remain viable at this point.

How do contracts matter? Is that a serious question?

Without a doubt, some investors are going to cut their losses and back out of their contract, and there will be other people who won't be able to get financing once the time comes, as someone else mentioned. And I don't know what the wording was in X/O's contracts, but I would imagine that the developers probably wouldn't go out of their way to confine themselves to strict deadlines in terms of starting construction (or else the buyers would have the option to back out), in terms of wording their contracts.

While there are surely going to be some investors backing out of their contracts, I don't think this number is nearly as high as you would think. I am assuming that all of the buyers under contract had put 10% down...while for a few people it may make sense to take that loss, I would imagine that most people would hold onto their contracts and avoid losing their down payment and decide to hold onto the property once it gets built....or better yet, hope that the project is cancelled and they get their 10% down payment back, with interest.

So while some contracts are certainly going to fall through, in this market, the majority will not. Let's say 20% of contracts end up falling through on average, for any given contract. If X/O was 50% sold originally, they'd still have 40% under contract after buyers back out of their contracts....whereas a project that was 10% sold originally would then fall to 8% sold. So obviously, the number of contracts they have DOES matter. X/O's chances at success, while not very good, are still better than the development that maybe had ony 10% of their units under contract before the market crashed.

I think all contracts have some sort of “out” for the buyer if the unit cannot be delivered by a given date. I don’t think it would be tied to the start of construction, but more likely to the delivery of the unit.

If the developer cannot deliver by that date, then it has to give back the deposit to the buyer and the contract is void.

In this market, only about 100% of the buyers would be happy to take back their deposit.

I’d say these guys would need to start marketing all over again if this gets revived.

While there are surely going to be some investors backing out of their contracts, I don't think this number is nearly as high as you would think....So while some contracts are certainly going to fall through, in this market, the majority will not.

One other issue that has been seen in developments that are built and closing is that sale contract prices are ending up higher than current bank appreciations. There are stories of units in One Museum Park being appraised for less than the sale price. When this happens the loan cannot be made. So the developer faces either dropping the sale price to the appraised value or having the deal not close due to financing.

What do you think about the sales prices for XO units negotiated during the height of real estate run up versus what they would appraise for if they too were hitting the market at this point?

You say no one would be likely to walk away from a 10% down payment, sure in the abstract and without looking at obligations that might be true. But if the decision is not to simply to walk away but now pay closing costs and sign into financing on a unit that appraises for say 20-30% less than the sale price in the contract and comes with high assessments and tax obligations that 10% walk away may seem like a bargain.

Look at all the projects that were conceived and started sales but not construction during the waning "good times" of the last real estate cycle that are now dead. I don't see XO's former contracts putting them at any advantage right now over any of those projects, and given the past, present and future carrying costs for the project, land ownership, that major demolition still has to proceed, etc., I would think vacant lots in the S. Loop are in better shape to be developed than XO.

You are correct that developers will never put in clauses guaranteeing start of construction in their standard contracts or out clauses on date of completion. I doubt they would negotiate a start clause either. But out clauses a year or two beyond the developer's projected completion date are routinely agreed to if the buyer's attorney puts it in a rider to the sales contract. It is one of the value added items attorney review gets you. It is hard for a developer to explain why such a clause should not be included when provided the leeway of 24 months beyond when they say they will deliver.

Look at today's Crains. There is an article there on the South Loop and how many units previously under contract no longer are. And those relate to buildings under construction, not a mere whim like XO.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=31256

X/O Condominiums
Andrew Schroedter
January 26, 2009

...Kargil at the time said sales would improve after the spat's resolution. But that prediction hasn't panned out; only about a dozen units have sold since July 2007, when buyers snapped up about 200 condos.

It's unknown when construction of the two glass towers, across the street from the landmark Glessner House in the Prairie Avenue Historic District, will begin or if developers have financing. Calls to Kargil Principal Keith Giles weren't returned.

Does anyone have any information on whether or not XO condominiums have obtained financing for the project and if not, will investors be able to recoup their earnest money?:ohno:

Does anyone have any information on whether or not XO condominiums have obtained financing for the project and if not, will investors be able to recoup their earnest money?:ohno:

My guess would be no to the first question (especially since it is so difficult in general to obtain financing at this point in time) and yes to the second question (as I believe that your earnest money has to be held and protected in an escrow account, by law).

Perusing the new suits filed I came upon several filed by 1600 Museum Park LLC seeking disbursement of earnest money on sale contracts for failure to close by the buyers. The amounts are pretty significant, 60k or more. probably be holding an auction soon and that should cushion the blow.

From Chicago Real Estate Daily (http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33685) (Crain's):

Developer defaults on X/O condo site

A venture led by Mr. Giles has defaulted on a $19.1-million loan secured by a Prairie Avenue property where the developer had planned a controversial 479-unit project called the X/O Condominiums, according to Joubin Khorsand, an investor in the venture.
* * *
Mr. Giles declines to say whether he plans to put the property up for sale or return deposits to buyers of X/O condos.

The article states 44% of units had been sold. Interesting since Giles had said that the first tower was pretty much sold and they were starting to sell units in Tower 2. I had heard they stiffed Lucien, and that very little of the actual architectural had been done beyond the mock-ups and overall design for the dog and pony shows, and that his firm had stopped all work a long time ago.

http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=35642

Foreclosure suit hits X/O condo site

By Alby Gallun, Sep. 30, 2009

(Crain’s) — Caught by the depressed condominium market and the credit crisis, developer Keith Giles faces foreclosure on a South Loop property where he had planned a 479-unit condo project.

National City Bank has sued to collect $20.2 million from Mr. Giles and his partner in the development, Jerry Karlik, alleging that they defaulted on a loan for the site at 1712 S. Prairie Ave. Unable to secure a construction loan for the project, the pair simply ran out of time and options for a property that may now only be worth a fraction of the $13 million they paid for it in 2005.