X/O Condominiums - N. Tower: 450'/44 fl, S. Tower: 380'/33 fl (Canceled) [Archive]

ErmDiego

April 8th, 2007, 06:29 AM

Man, those PDNA neighbors are annoying. If it wasn't for developments like this, and Central Station, etc., most of them wouldn't even live there in the first place! I mean, yeah, PDNA, they didn't even exist last year. Why? Because, most of them probably just moved into all this new development. And now they want to curb it? Hypocrites!

Man, how do I sign up? I want to join this group, does anyone know when they meet? Shit, I know they may do some good things, like try to get shoddy work fixed and fight for condo owners. But this is ridiculous.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not an anti-development group, quite the contrary.
1. X/O - This has been lies, deceipt, and more lies since this was proposed. The Alderman has lied to everyone, taken big money from the developer and their many 'hidden' LLC's (even beyond should be allowed per munciple ordinance).
A) The project is not even close to the goals and guidelines of the City of
Chicago 2003 Central Plan and Near South Community Plan, which
DPD, the City, Alderman, and residents all signed off on. Why spend
millions on a "plan" if you have not intent of following it? Lori Heally and
DPD know they screwed the pooch on this one and are covering their
collective asses. They also missed the follow-up on the rezoning per the
plans after they were developed and approved by the Plan Commission.
One Block North, Two Blocks South, or One Block West, and no one would
have cared about the project.
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalDeptCategoryAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1275693253.1176006310@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfaddkifkkhglcefecelldffhdffn.0&deptCategoryOID=-536886455&contentType=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&entityName=Planning+And+Development&deptMainCategoryOID=-536886455

B) This developer has a poor history of quality on basic projects, with
major quality problems, lawsuits, or 'non-disclosure settlements'.
Examples include projects like Filmworks, Dearborn Tower, north Wabash,
Roosevelt Hotel (Hotel flooded a few months after completion closing the
business and building down for months). This is not the quality
of any of the developers in Central Station...What to you expect
on a project of this scale? My prediction is that many are going to get
burned, while the cronnies will be taken care of.

C) Infrastructure - Central Station did a sewer study for the entire area
and found the systems to be overtaxed and undersized for the planned
development. A project like X/O will now require the area to replace
over $5MM-$10MMworth of sewers that otherwise may not need
replacing. TIF concepts for infrastructure can be effective, if logical,
but if a certain development forces such required changes to
infrstructure, why should that developer not born some of that costs
to complete?
Much much more to this story...:nuts:

2. DEVELOPER Quality - A big goal, to work with the city and other
organizations is to drive change in developer accountability. A great deal
of the developers are litering the South Loop with projects that have very
significant problems like Facade, Roofing, missing reserves, problems with
easment issues, etc. :bash: This includes developments by the likes of
Legacy/Warman/Barr, Frankel & Giles, MCZ, Dipiazza, etc. Yet, the
problems are being hidden, not properly inspected and turned over, or
forced on unprepared associations with no funds to fight. The same
developers close up the LLC, claim to be sucking wind, and move onto the
next project across the street, permit in hand. Yet there is not support
for the residents; bad development is worse than no development.

There needs to be accountability standards, follow-up and protection.
Issues such as escrow requirements for LLC, additional inspection
requirements and documentation, and performance criteria for permit
approval. Development is a risky business. But some of that risk should
be taken on by the developer, not just the buyer. They money spend
in legal aversion costs could probably be better served in fixing the
poor follow-through of the developers.

As an example, here is Warman/Bar story; in addition they have major
problems with singificant special assessments required at 221 E. Cullerton,
1717 S. Prairiie, yet they have permit in hands for more work on 21st,
despite millions of dollars in quality problems.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=377046&format=print

This Alderman has been here, 14 years, and she still has not plan to manage development, nora plan to monitor the problems it is leaving behind. She is part of the problem, not the solution.

Sir Isaac Newton

April 8th, 2007, 06:43 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you want to personally slam someone, at least have the huevos to meet the person face to face or take it off line. Besides who cares about New York?

I don't think Urban Politician is trying to start a fight online with that guy Jeff. All he is doing is getting the point across that Jeff is obviously opposing the construction of X/O, which would be a great development for our city (not to mention its hundreds of residents), for extremely selfish reasons. The Urban Politician as well as the overwhelming majority people on this site can completely see through Jeff and the rest of the anti-X/O crowd who live in the townhomes nearby...by claiming that X/O is destroying the integrity of the "historic" Prairie District...when we all know that these people had a grossly misguided feeling of entitlement in that they think that they should be allowed to live in a suburbanesque neighborhood less than 2 miles from the Loop...and that no major future developments should be made nearby as it would make their neighborhood less suburban.

For all of the people railing against X/O, all I have to say is: if you want to live a suburban lifestyle, move to the suburbs.

Sir Isaac Newton

April 8th, 2007, 06:56 AM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not an anti-development group, quite the contrary.
1. X/O - This has been lies, deceipt, and more lies since this was proposed. The Alderman has lied to everyone, taken big money from the developer and their many 'hidden' LLC's (even beyond should be allowed per munciple ordinance).
A) The project is not even close to the goals and guidelines of the City of
Chicago 2003 Central Plan and Near South Community Plan, which
DPD, the City, Alderman, and residents all signed off on. Why spend
millions on a "plan" if you have not intent of following it? Lori Heally and
DPD know they screwed the pooch on this one and are covering their
collective asses. They also missed the follow-up on the rezoning per the
plans after they were developed and approved by the Plan Commission.
One Block North, Two Blocks South, or One Block West, and no one would
have cared about the project.
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalDeptCategoryAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1275693253.1176006310@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccfaddkifkkhglcefecelldffhdffn.0&deptCategoryOID=-536886455&contentType=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&entityName=Planning+And+Development&deptMainCategoryOID=-536886455

B) This developer has a poor history of quality on basic projects, with
major quality problems, lawsuits, or 'non-disclosure settlements'.
Examples include projects like Filmworks, Dearborn Tower, north Wabash,
Roosevelt Hotel (Hotel flooded a few months after completion closing the
business and building down for months). This is not the quality
of any of the developers in Central Station...What to you expect
on a project of this scale? My prediction is that many are going to get
burned, while the cronnies will be taken care of.

C) Infrastructure - Central Station did a sewer study for the entire area
and found the systems to be overtaxed and undersized for the planned
development. A project like X/O will now require the area to replace
over $5MM-$10MMworth of sewers that otherwise may not need
replacing. TIF concepts for infrastructure can be effective, if logical,
but if a certain development forces such required changes to
infrstructure, why should that developer not born some of that costs
to complete?
Much much more to this story...:nuts:

2. DEVELOPER Quality - A big goal, to work with the city and other
organizations is to drive change in developer accountability. A great deal
of the developers are litering the South Loop with projects that have very
significant problems like Facade, Roofing, missing reserves, problems with
easment issues, etc. :bash: This includes developments by the likes of
Legacy/Warman/Barr, Frankel & Giles, MCZ, Dipiazza, etc. Yet, the
problems are being hidden, not properly inspected and turned over, or
forced on unprepared associations with no funds to fight. The same
developers close up the LLC, claim to be sucking wind, and move onto the
next project across the street, permit in hand. Yet there is not support
for the residents; bad development is worse than no development.

There needs to be accountability standards, follow-up and protection.
Issues such as escrow requirements for LLC, additional inspection
requirements and documentation, and performance criteria for permit
approval. Development is a risky business. But some of that risk should
be taken on by the developer, not just the buyer. They money spend
in legal aversion costs could probably be better served in fixing the
poor follow-through of the developers.

As an example, here is Warman/Bar story; in addition they have major
problems with singificant special assessments required at 221 E. Cullerton,
1717 S. Prairiie, yet they have permit in hands for more work on 21st,
despite millions of dollars in quality problems.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=377046&format=print

This Alderman has been here, 14 years, and she still has not plan to manage development, nora plan to monitor the problems it is leaving behind. She is part of the problem, not the solution.

Dude, we can totally see through you and your BS. If roofing issues or special assessments were to arise in X/O, they wouldn't affect you or any of the other current residents in the area - they would only affect the people moving into X/O. I don't believe for one second that you give a rat's @ss about these issues. This is Burnham Pointe all over again - people protesting against a development using tons of obviously BS reasons (for example, getting rid of the parking lot would make it easier for someone to get mugged on the sidewalk), while not mentioning the real (and grossly selfish) reasons they are against the development.

ErmDiego

April 8th, 2007, 09:14 AM

I realize this is a skyscraper forum that gets wood about 'new high rises', cool; it is likely though that many posters here who get the stiffy will probably not even buy or live in these high rises. But the quality issue is real; It is an issue of the continued fraud that goes on with the city and developers. Some people who actually buy are tired of the BS. (I find it ironic that the most vocal Anti-Nimby voice for Chicago posts from New York)

To date, other Residential groups have had too large a territory to disect or support the quality problems, post haste because of the new development being to much to keep up with. THe PDNA has already brought these issues to the forefront with the Mayors Office and DPD with some success, but this is a long haul issue to put some support behind. However, as the South Loop matures and increases in density, it is only natural to look for more input from the respective Districts in the Ward. This input is not usually of the anti-development, but of cursory design and infrastructure review to ensure what needs to get done get's done, and that bonehead mistakes (like putting a garage entrance on Michigan Ave. or adding a red Aluminum barn siding to a 3rd and 4th floor loft) do not happen. If DPD was so thorough, why does this stuff happen time after time?

And Sir Isaac, to your quote
"when we all know that these people had a grossly misguided feeling of entitlement in that they think that they should be allowed to live in a suburbanesque neighborhood less than 2 miles from the Loop...and that no major future developments should be made nearby as it would make their neighborhood less suburban."

This is not entitlement or selfish. Read the Central Plan and Near South community Plan and then get back to me. The plans were prepared by DPD and The Plan Commission, not the current residents. Early development of the area was completed per the plan. This is about the city doing what it paid for and said it was going to do. The plan was vetted with residents and organizations on 2002 and 2003, with specific recommendations to scale, height, character. The intent was so that development had some clear and relative organization and goals, and primarily to avoid these individual development by development NYMBY battles.

Listen, I have no problem with tall and thin, but that is not what is in the current approved plan. When the City spends millions of $$$ in taxpayer money for the consulting plan, has it formally reviewed and adopted by resident groups and Plan Commission, then follow it, or execute the appropriate planning procedures and revise the freaking plan. But the DPD keeps making verbal changes with no clear guidelines, creating this mess.

Also, if the developer in question for X/O was one of the more professional outfits, than folks would have some comfort that it would be done right. I will gladly bet a case of beer on this one turning out for the worse. :cheers:

Sir Isaac Newton

April 8th, 2007, 04:31 PM

Likewise, most Nimby's get a stiffy over some sort of neighborhood "plan". You know, slavery, women not having the right to vote, etc. were once part of the United States' written laws - ie, a plan. Maybe we should go back to only allowing white men to vote in our country, since that was part of the United States' plan - the original and master plan no less.

Stop siding with the argument that lacks any semblance of common sense just because some "plan" supports it. The dynamics/demographics of the city have greatly changed over the last 5 years, and any city development plan that was written before this time is seriously outdated.

Rascacielos

April 8th, 2007, 06:38 PM

I live at 18th and Indiana and I am wholeheatedly in favor of X/O. I am tired of the people in the tacky townhomes along Prairie and Calumet suggesting that they are fighting to retain the historical charm of the Prairie District when they have been instrumental in perpetuating the most insulting form of cheap imitation. What makes a city beautiful and exciting is not some poor facsimile of what once existed but rather the constant change and innovation and the contrast of old and new. 1717 Prairie is bad not because of the poor construction (that's an issue between the owners and the developer) but because it's a poor attempt to "respect" Prairie Avenue that, in truth, only insults it. X/O, on the other hand, is modern, foward-looking and innovative and will actually add something to the neighborhood. We'll never get you guys to admit it, but the truth is that you're mad because you want to live in the shadow of the Sears Tower yet have streets with no cars so you can feel like you're in Hinsdale instead of in the center of one of the largest metropolitan areas in North America. Yes, let's kill development and kill the dynamism of the city by mandating that only horrific imitations of architecture (on a scale that is completely ridiculous given the central location of the neighborhood) from bygone eras can be built. And let this be known, you do not speak for everyone who lives in the neighborhood. Your newly formed group may have the support of some but it certainly doesn't have the support of all who live in this area. The forumers may have vocal supporters from other parts of the country but they also have support from those of us who live right in the heart of the issue.

ErmDiego

April 8th, 2007, 06:53 PM

I can believe anyone would equate development plans and zoning issues with Slavery, woman's right to vote. So when faced with logical discussion, pull out the race card, slavery, etc.?

ErmDiego

April 8th, 2007, 06:55 PM

What is happening there?

Sir Isaac Newton

April 8th, 2007, 07:20 PM

I can believe anyone would equate development plans and zoning issues with Slavery, woman's right to vote. So when faced with logical discussion, pull out the race card, slavery, etc.?

...since you obviously completely missed my point. In no way was I equating development plans and zoning issues with slavery and women's voting rights. Rather, I was using a couple of recognizable and extreme examples to drive home the point that using the argument that some sort of prior "plan" supports your view, is absurd.

robituss

April 8th, 2007, 07:31 PM

Those plans likely did not take into account the extremely rapid development that has taken place in the past couple years. In other words, they are outdated by now. ALso, those plans, while helpful, are merely guidelines; not like the bible is for devout catholics. They must take into account different conditions that result from the new developments.
That area of south loop is basically a clean slate anyway, so complaints about it not fitting in with some sort of plan, or the existing 'character' is ridiculous to me. Complaints about the developer are valid though, but not a reason to scrap a project altogether.

ErmDiego

April 8th, 2007, 07:57 PM

Robituss, as to your point that these are outdated or needs changing, if you read the plans, your comment is not accurate. The plans were approved in 2003, when much of the already built development and much of the proposed (except for X/O) was already included in the plan. Eveything that you see already constructed today was included and reflected in the plans. The goal was/is to frame in the lower density area by building higher around Calumet, Michigan, Cermak (it is mentioned specifically about 10 times in the Chicago Central Plan). Examples completed developments or proposed developments included in the plan:

1. Higher buildings along Calumet which are Museum Park Place Tower I &II
(although these will be blocked by the IC train corridor Air-Rights projects
to be announced later this year)
2. Lower density & scale in the middle of the Prairie District (note this
includes the entire District, not just the Landmark portion)
3. Higher density and height along Michigan, and Cermak (Lexington,
potential Prairie Blocks Hotels by the ABC Book Building, etc.)
4. Gradual transition along north end of Prairie to taller buildings (1600
Museum Place, Prairie Pointe, etc.) of 20 - 25 stories.

The area per the Zoning Plan was supposed to be Residential, not Downtown Mixed (DX) use. The city did not do a good job of communicating the changes and let the developers drive the cart, as much of the vacant land was snapped up by Political Cronnies and folks like Pappageorge who bent the mayors ear to change to DX while many were moving in.

BVictor1

April 9th, 2007, 03:22 AM

robituss

April 9th, 2007, 05:55 AM

ErmDiego

April 9th, 2007, 06:06 PM

^Exactly, agree 100%. Also, the plan may have been approved in 2003, but thats still out of date, and probably based on information they were compiling way before the true boom even started to take place. It was a wasteland, so who could have preditcted what would happen in that area?

Anyway, like I said, these neighborhood plans should be used only as guides, and if developers of projects like X/O can get those amendments to planned developments, then so what. Im sorry Ermdiego, it really just sounds like you guys and this PDNA want to limit the growth of the neighborhood for your own selfish reasons. Like shade, views blocked, traffic (ha!) and some other such nonsense.

As far as holding the developers to higher standards of work, Im all for that, maybe PDNA should focus on that. But I want to live in an area thats growing and will have tons pedestrian activity, and I dont care if sunlight is blocked by brand new gleaming highrises. Its 'the city'.

Out of date? I am not sure you have ever read either plans. What specifically or factually in the plan is out of date? Most of the projects east of Michigan are identified in the plan. The plans clearly predicted and charted most of the development to date that has been completed, or that was proposed. How is that out of date again?

The 'True Boom' started in 2003? The Boom in the South Loop started in 1999-2000...most who were down here in 1996 to 1998 saw it coming. That is why the city started drafting the plans in 2000, and then an exhaustive review with residents, architects, neighborhood planning experts, developers, business leaders, etc. in 2001-2002.

Where has it been stated that group wants to slow growth? Most are all for the development that is sound, well thought out, well built. Not fast, cheap, poor quality that leaves problems for buyers, residents, city, neighborhoods. Compounding the problem, it is the same 3-4 developers churning out the problematic develpments (Frankel & Giles, Warman/Barr, DiPazza). Developers in the South Loop are focusing on initial cost per sq foot, with quality far lower than Central, North Loop, or River East.

Build what you want, but build freaking quality stuff. As to developers, getting changes to the plan, I am all for that if it is quality development based on architectural or planning merit, not play for pay formula with the Alderman, and members of the Plan Commission, which is what is happening. Lori Heally has been the worst thing for development quality in Chicago.

There is a reason that Central Station/Fogelson does not have to donate money to the campaigns...they usually build decent buildings, and if there are problems, they take care of it, without the drawn out legal bull shit.

Loopy

April 9th, 2007, 06:38 PM

Sir Isaac Newton

April 9th, 2007, 07:30 PM

What about the "lifetime lake views" that Central Station guaranteed to so many of its buyers of the earlier Central Station buildings...only to build future high-rises a year or two later that completely blocked those lifetime lake views?

Mr Downtown

April 9th, 2007, 08:09 PM

You and other certain people on this forum need to get off the Centr4al Area and South Loop plans because they are out of date amd uninspired.

If not an approved, official city plan adopted by the Plan Commission, what criteria should the city use in determining whether to approve a specific building or not? Ask the alderman? Take a poll on SSC?

Wouldn't it be wiser to amend the plan if conditions have materially changed rather than dismiss it?

If the DPD wants to approve the proposed new PD that's within their right.

No, it isn't. Ours is a nation of laws, not men. We have actual, written-down rules that you can go and read:

Chicago Municipal Code 17-08-0903: Approved Plans
Planned developments must be consistent with plans that have been adopted by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council.

BVictor1

April 9th, 2007, 08:43 PM

If not an approved, official city plan adopted by the Plan Commission, what criteria should the city use in determining whether to approve a specific building or not? Ask the alderman? Take a poll on SSC?

Wouldn't it be wiser to amend the plan if conditions have materially changed rather than dismiss it?

No, it isn't. Ours is a nation of laws, not men. We have actual, written-down rules that you can go and read:

Chicago Municipal Code 17-08-0903: Approved Plans
Planned developments must be consistent with plans that have been adopted by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council.

Take a poll here? Probably wouldn't hurt...

And that's the point----Conditions have materially changed

Looks like Chicago Municipal Code 17-08-0903 is out of date and needs to be changed.

The speed limit on LSD is 45mph. Doesn't mean people are going to obey it. There have been on many occasions of outdated Municipal Codes being on the books, not only here in Chicago, but across the country.

Daniel Burnham has a plan back in 1912 that was adopted. That doesn't mean that every thing within it was positive. I don't think anything in his plan was above 10 floors.

There was a plan for IRAQ approved and adopted by Congress also. As you can see it really hasn't been followed. Things have been changed over and over again, and they didn't need to go to the people and ask for permission.

So while you may have a point about the codes, that doesn't mean that it's benificial to the city in all ways.

Steely Dan

April 9th, 2007, 09:33 PM

No, it isn't. Ours is a nation of laws, not men.

you should know by now that the above doesn't apply to chicago. perhaps in the rest america..... perhaps...... but in chicago? no way, jose. laws are useless in this town.

"i've said it before, and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work"

BVictor1

April 9th, 2007, 10:04 PM

you should know by now that the above doesn't apply to chicago. perhaps in the rest america..... perhaps...... but in chicago? no way, jose. laws are useless in this town.

"i've said it before, and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work"

And I'll have to say a big AMEN to that. If it worked, we wouldn't get shit done here.

ErmDiego

April 9th, 2007, 11:34 PM

BVictor1 - seems you are being a hypocrite. When a developer argues that his project his per the Central Plan (see your 2005 post below) , it is ok as a justification, especially considering preservation issues. Yet when the residents who also reviewed and approved the plan refer to it, suddenly they are NIMBY's? So are developers allowed different rules?

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=4821854&postcount=151

July 22nd, 2005, 09:31 AM #151
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,459 7/20/2005 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
Mixed reviews for S. Michigan tower
Some fear it compromises South Loop’s character

By HAYDN BUSH, Staff Writer

Photo courtesy of Michael Moran
1355 S. Michigan.

A Central Station plan for a 30-story condo tower at 1355 S. Michigan got a mixed reception during its unveiling in front of the Greater South Loop Association July 16, with some residents wondering if the neighborhood needed another modern high-rise. The building, which would be built on the site of a 90-year-old, terra-cotta-clad building, would have 260 apartment units.

While few spoke out in favor of saving the structure as it is currently composed, GSLA President Jeffery Key said residents were worried about the "loss of character" with the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new high-rise. And several South Loop residents said they were concerned that the moderately scaled neighborhood they moved into would soon be dominated by staid condo towers.

Central Station founder and co-chairman Gerald Fogelson, though, said that while the city is promoting eclectic mix and height in the area south of 14th Street, the area between 14th Street and Roosevelt Road will soon play home to several new high-rises, including a handful developed by Central Station.

"This is consistent with the Central Area Plan," Fogelson said, adding that the city is pushing more moderately scaled development starting with the Chicago Firehouse restaurant on the other side of 14th Street from the proposed tower.
Also at issue is whether the existing building, which currently houses the Strictly Business nightclub, can be preserved. The building was constructed in 1909 by Jenney, Mundie and Jensen, the same firm that designed the now-demolished Home Insurance Building, considered the city’s first modern skyscraper . Preservation Chicago Vice President Mike Moran said the building was originally used as a showroom for the Kenmore automobile company, and was once adjacent to two other automobile showrooms in what he termed "the noncontiguous Motor Row District."

"It’s a no-brainer that the facade should be saved," Moran said.

At first, Central Station President Tim Desmond said, the company had every intention of saving the existing building. After purchasing it more than two years ago, Desmond said, Central Station discussed ways of saving the building with the city Department of Planning and Development, before deciding it wasn’t possible.

"We couldn’t make it work financially," Desmond said. "...We spent all of 2003 with DPD trying to reuse the building."

Desmond said Central Station also hired local architectural consultant Phillip Krone to work with Daniel Bluestone, dean of architecture at the University of Virginia, and review the historical significance of the building. Desmond said the pair discovered that the building was originally in the middle of the block, when 14th Street was narrower. The southern wall includes brick facing that once fronted another building, Desmond said.

"That diminished it as a historic building," Desmond said.

Desmond added that while the building was constructed by Jenney, Mundie and Jensen, firm founder William Le Baron Jenney, considered the father of the American skyscraper, had died three years earlier. And Fogelson said the building was badly dilapidated, and had been nearly condemned by the city before Central Station purchased it.

"This building has been a blight on the neighborhood," Fogelson said.

Moran, though, argued that building had stood for 90 years, and noted that Jenney, Mundie and Jensen built several other significant buildings after Jenney’s death. He said later that the city often uses condemnation proceedings as a ploy against inattentive owners, and that many nearly condemned building are eventually rehabbed.

At least one preservation concept did attract the interest of Desmond and Fogelson. Laughing Iguana owner Marifran Carlson asked the developers if the building’s terra cotta could be used in some form in the building’s interior, an idea they said they would look into.

"Preserving the materials is an excellent idea," Desmond said, adding that he thought the terra cotta facade could be integrated into a doorway over an elevator.

The tower’s condominiums would be sold for roughly $310 per square foot. In addition, 10,000 square feet of retail space would be developed on the ground floor.

BVictor1

April 10th, 2007, 12:08 AM

BorisMolotov

April 10th, 2007, 03:52 AM

Just out of curiosity, what building was that?

BVictor1

April 10th, 2007, 01:48 PM

Just out of curiosity, what building was that?

1400 Museum Park is rising on the site where these buildings once stood.

Mr. Hightower

April 10th, 2007, 04:28 PM

Fogelson pays to play just like everyone else.

He gave money to Natarus and Kelleher gave money to Haithcock. It works great, everyone is fooled!

The other partner in Central Station, Forest City pays to play. Big time!

Mr. Hightower

April 10th, 2007, 04:41 PM

The area per the Zoning Plan was supposed to be Residential, not Downtown Mixed (DX) use. The city did not do a good job of communicating the changes and let the developers drive the cart, as much of the vacant land was snapped up by Political Cronnies and folks like Pappageorge who bent the mayors ear to change to DX while many were moving in.

I am pretty sure D zoning did not exist 03. It was set up to modernize the zoning and differentiate between Central Area and neighborhood areas. It was meant to allow for taller structures, while keeping density similar in the areas considered downtown. It is ubiquitous throughout the Central Area since the change was made. This goes from 55 to North Ave (I think) and west from downtown to Racine. There is no R zoning in the Central Area.

Mr. Hightower

April 10th, 2007, 05:01 PM

I am pretty sure D zoning did not exist 03. It was set up to modernize the zoning and differentiate between Central Area and neighborhood areas. It was meant to allow for taller structures, while keeping density similar in the areas considered downtown. It is ubiquitous throughout the Central Area since the change was made. This goes from 55 to North Ave (I think) and west from downtown to Racine. There is no R zoning in the Central Area.

On top of that, "mixed use" zoning is absolutely compatible with the holy Near South Plan, which states, "Surrounding the historic district, taller residential and mixed-use buildings are appropriate."

Mr. Hightower

April 10th, 2007, 05:45 PM

The PDNA NIMBYs who are worried about traffic should rethink how they treat the Plans as the Bible. The Near South Plan states, "an additional connection to Lake Shore Drive between 16th and Cullerton Streets should be provided if feasible."

Wow, that is the only logical way a traffic problem could be created in the area.

This connection to LSD has been an objective of the City for a looong time. (Before 95% of the residents were in the neighborhood.) I worked on one feasibility study for this in 02 as part of the busway project to McCormick Place. In fact, my understanding is that as part of the original development agreement from way back when, Central Station developers are required to provide this access. Someone else may know the details better than I do.

I can see PDNA fighting this idea with all their might. But they will conveniently forget the precious Plans when that fight arrives.

Maybe they will just say, " alot has changed since then." Sounds familiar.

ErmDiego

April 10th, 2007, 08:42 PM

1. Regarding Zoning - see Lori Healy's presentation
she gives all the time (see the slide with the downtown map)
You will note that Central Station and Prairie District were to be
Downtown Residential (at least that what was agreed on). Not DX.
When your DPD head can't even get it right, WTF?

http://www.phil.frb.org/cca/conf/cca_roc-040606_urban-zoning-codes_healey.pdf

2. Near South Plan
At least be intelectually honest and present the entire plan (page 8). They had height recommendations on the entire District, not just the Landmarked portion. This would equate to about 20 stories, not 45, which is what all the other developers decided to respect, except for one.

The Prairie Avenue Chicago
Landmark District should be preserved and enhanced as
the “centerpiece” for this District. Low-rise structures are most
appropriate in 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.
Suggested building heights for this area should be in context
with development along the block face and immediate
surrounding area. Taller buildings should be approximately
60 feet along the Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th Street frontages:
and up to 250 feet elsewhere in the Development District

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/NS_District_plans,_Roosevelt_Road_to_I-55.pdf

3. 16th Street Bridge - will not happen anytime soon, if the the St.
Charles line is not moved. There is not the same amount of room as
Roosevelt Drive's 4+ lanes. It will also depend on Central Station's
development/Air right plans to be released in 2008. Simple solution is
is to make Prairie one-way, problem solved. The residents could always
pull a Haithcock and say "Well those plans are not always followed":ohno:

robituss

April 10th, 2007, 08:54 PM

BVictor1

April 10th, 2007, 09:50 PM

Mr. Hightower

April 10th, 2007, 10:07 PM

Mr. Hightower

April 10th, 2007, 10:13 PM

2. Near South Plan
At least be intelectually honest and present the entire plan (page 8). They had height recommendations on the entire District, not just the Landmarked portion. This would equate to about 20 stories, not 45, which is what all the other developers decided to respect, except for one.

The Prairie Avenue Chicago
Landmark District should be preserved and enhanced as
the “centerpiece” for this District. Low-rise structures are most
appropriate in 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.
Suggested building heights for this area should be in context
with development along the block face and immediate
surrounding area. Taller buildings should be approximately
60 feet along the Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th Street frontages:
and up to 250 feet elsewhere in the Development District

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_ATTACH/NS_District_plans,_Roosevelt_Road_to_I-55.pdf

The 60 ft specifically addresses frontages, which can often be misconstrued. Frontage heights of 60 feet could allow much higher towers if properly set back from the property line.

So, you have issues with a 40+ story building, but not a 25 story building. Somehow one is in context and another isn't? Hypothetically speaking, would you prefer (4) 25 story buildings over (2) 40 story buildings? And why?

Mr. Hightower

April 10th, 2007, 10:22 PM

3. 16th Street Bridge - will not happen anytime soon, if the the St.
Charles line is not moved. There is not the same amount of room as
Roosevelt Drive's 4+ lanes. It will also depend on Central Station's
development/Air right plans to be released in 2008. Simple solution is
is to make Prairie one-way, problem solved. The residents could always
pull a Haithcock and say "Well those plans are not always followed":ohno:

There have been numerous feasibility studies to provide access to LSD, since long before you lived there. At least one of them via 18th street. (I know, because I worked on it.)
The main issue was the length of the approach necessary to clear the electric lines above the train tracks. We need a very long ramp or a convoluted spiral curve to make it work. However, as some of the issues are being addressed, it may become feasible someday soon regardless of the status of the freight rails.

So, PDNA wouldn't be ashamed to pull a Haithcock?

BVictor1

April 10th, 2007, 10:29 PM

Thank you Mr. Hightower

Loopy

April 10th, 2007, 10:35 PM

ErmDiego

April 10th, 2007, 11:35 PM

^I have a question, why do you care if its 45 instead of 20 floors? And dont say because "the plan says so!". Give me your honest opinion please.

I personally would be elated to hear a buildings height increased, not just because I like skyscrapers, but it would increase the tax base and density of the area, which would eventually lead to better schools, more retail, improved infrastructure, more political power etc. How about you?

And also, your frustration sounds like it comes from non-adherence to this plan. Well, what if the plan underestimated the growth (which it clearly did), wouldn't you think it needs to be updated or revised to accomodate this demand?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I love highrises as well, especially the stuff at River-East, and the Museum Tower...but they have:
a) Good Developers with committment to quality and
b) A sound and comprehensive infrastructure plan,
c) A respectful interaction with the neighborhoods where they lie
d) An above board, transparent approval & communication process.

1. Growth Prediction -
We can politely disagree on the undestimated growth. Not sure where
you have lived, but for me, it became evident since 1997 that the growth
was going to happen, and especially in that part of the South Loop after
2000. Many came over here to stay in Chicago, yet get away from the
problems of the Frankel & Giles type developments. All the 2003 Central Plan attachments & renderings presented, penciled in much
of what is completed, or planned, with exception of X/O, Rokas at Indiana
& 21st and Rokas at 21st & Prairie. Much of this developent projection
was already captured in Central Stations plan as well.

2. Now to your question of objections:
A) The Plan - exhaustive money, effort, thought and review by
professionals that created a plan that most liked and could live with.
That is why many people jumped down here. Most of the restoration &
new low density development led to the desirability of this area.
Even the folks at Central Station, who could of added 20 more
stories to their projects, have shown restraint and respect for the
plan, it's goal, and how they fit. They realize the area is a decent
respite that can be shared by many, not just those who live there.
The plan was put together to discourage NIMBY'sm, and that is what
the project X/O destroyed.

B) The Building - A cheap design, with no respect. I invite you sometime
to take a walk to the Clark House/Woman's park and gander at
Museum Park Place Tower I with it's hideous red stripes. From
LSD it may look fine, but up close from within, it dominates when
it should not need to. X/O is going to be twice as tall,
in the middle of the District, and stick out like a sore thumb. The best
part of the District is nothing sticks out yet, and there is a decent
blend. Lucien could have taken a number of his conservative projects
like 840 LSD or Alyisian(sp) and most folks would have been
supportive; this project is a cheap knock off. It's like IKEA...
If the building was on Cermak, Michigan, etc. no one would care.

C) The Developer -This is an opportunist developer with a poor history
of uninspiring work that has quality problems, some conceiled
by non-disclosure settlemant agreements. I know personally, and
so do many others. Example, I did not realize that Dearborn
Tower had a huge settlement due to problems with the building. It
is sad that we continue to bend over for businessmen like that, when
we arrest people for stealing food if they are hungry. This is a
developer who has shown a propencity to work around the legal
boundaries, instead focusing on a first rate job. Those who buy in
Prairie District Lofts will find out.
Don't kid yourself on who holds the initial X/O contracts; After the
construction loan, these names will dissappear. Think Greektown:)

D) The area & Demographics - If this were the first development
here than people knew what they were buying. But much of the
restoration efforts of the area led to the desirability. No one
needed to have the developer say what 'Prairie Avenue should be',
Residents were already driving its redevelopment years before Giles
came over, proclaiming:
"We believe the South Loop has really come of age, and feel like this block wants something different than the other projects being built in the South Loop, which are basically square concrete boxes," said Giles. "This is going to be a lot more adventuresome."
(By the way did he not build 212 E Cullerton as a square box?)

The demographics already included a higher than normal amount of
families who wanted to raise their kids in the urban setting. X/O
respects none of this. It want to be a loud, in your face development.

E) Infrastructure - F&G rarely gives back to the neighborhood or
puts in necessary infrastructure. Example, 212 Cullerton,
a simple project has created a bottleneck on Cullerton. Is is hard
to put in a freaking wide curb drop off, etc. As well, this project will
require a $5-$10MM sewer upgrade for the area (some of the
developments already have flow limiting devices, and even the new
parks can't be tied into the sewer system). If you want approve a
project in excess of the infrastructure capability, fine, then make the
developer pay much of the costs, not rob the TIF funds for his
mistake or opportunity. And do the infrastructure now, not later.

F) The Way this way the developer & Alderman treated the residents
with lies, disinformation, and self-proclaimed approval long before
they were even ready to. It was clear on this project, there is a
godfather in DPD or the Mayors office. (Why would invester Peter
Parthenis need to give $5,000 to the mayor after Haithcock's remark
about stopping the project?)
The amount of money Haithcock has taken from
this developer & his project partners is stupifying. Then Glessner
House, with Developer Bill Warman as Board of Director, taking the
money for the donation...hmmm nothing wrong there.

Then you have the Near South Planning Board, a developer run
organization with Giles on the Board of Directors, as a "resident
approving body"...hmmm no conflict of interest there.

Even the Alderman at several points lied about status of project,
claiming it's approved, it's not, she is going to stop it, and when she
did host meetings, the were placation events. For example she got
members of the neighorhood together in September to talk about
the project, our concerns, but could not even bother to tell folks that
"oh by the way, I am taking the project to city council next week",
there by giving the residents no resolution or strength to review.
:cheers: :nuts:

ErmDiego

April 10th, 2007, 11:51 PM

First of all, welcome to the forum. Really. It was starting to get a little boring around here.

Second, I would like to dispute your claim that GSLA did not invite community comment on X/O. I am not a GSLA member, but I heard about the initial meeting in the Chicago Journal. If I remember it correctly; in one of their "event" sections they ran a blurb from GSLA announcing that they moved their meeting, which usually convenes at the 1st District Police Station, to Glessner House to present "Lucien Lagrange's twin tower proposal for Prairie Avenue". A press release to a neighborhood paper constitutes adequate "Public Notice" in my book.

I also remember that the overwhelming majority of the packed house was favorably impressed with the proposal and there were only a couple of grumblers. Jeff Key's comments on the inevitability of development were also well received by the those in attendance.

Lastly, the X/O PD application went before the Chicago Plan Commission with no citizens speaking against it. This surprised me, because by the time of the meeting, there were press statements made by a few Prairie Avenue residents against the proposal. Long after the Plan Commission approved the proposal, those same residents were crying that the project wasn't on the Agenda, and that they had been bamboozled. We all got a good laugh out of that. Anybody who can use a computer to download the monthly PDF agendas from the Plan Commission knew that that the proposal was deferred from one meeting and scheduled at the next. Maybe that is why forming PDNA became necessary, to wrest these issues from the hands of a few neighborhood cranks and give them a little better presentation.

1. Let's just say that Mr. Key did not listen or take any input.

2. Notice - I agree - but do me this favor, go to the August meeting notice,
save to your computer, and tell me the date by looking at it's properties.
It was put up on September 1st, after the Plan Commission meeting.
(The city will claim it relies on newspaper per ordinance)
Cripes look at the this months Plan Commission April 19th - I had to call
and remind them, and it was put up today the 10th. Who the fruck reads
legal noticies if you can check on line. DPD probably received 100+
emails or letters and could not have the curtousy to tell them of the
meeting.

The GSLA, invited by developer, certainly did not send out a reminder for
such a visible project. I attented 4 GSLA Meetings before my email ever
got registered, and that note was for Bash on Wabash...sheesh.

The Glessner House meeting you speak of was the second meeting after
angrly residents banged on Haithcock's door about lack of communication,
so she put up flyers the night before (nice of Giles to send his out of
neighborhood plants) Even Haithcock called out a guy from the wrong
ward. No control over the meeting, no sign in, no floor rules. A joke.

BVictor1

April 11th, 2007, 12:06 AM

I felt like it..

BVictor1

April 11th, 2007, 12:11 AM

1. Let's just say that Mr. Key did not listen or take any input.

2. Notice - I agree - but do me this favor, go to the August meeting notice,
save to your computer, and tell me the date by looking at it's properties.
It was put up on September 1st, after the Plan Commission meeting.
(The city will claim it relies on newspaper per ordinance)
Cripes look at the this months Plan Commission April 19th - I had to call
and remind them, and it was put up today the 10th. Who the fruck reads
legal noticies if you can check on line. DPD probably received 100+
emails or letters and could not have the curtousy to tell them of the
meeting.

The GSLA, invited by developer, certainly did not send out a reminder for
such a visible project. I attented 4 GSLA Meetings before my email ever
got registered, and that note was for Bash on Wabash...sheesh.

The Glessner House meeting you speak of was the second meeting after
angrly residents banged on Haithcock's door about lack of communication,
so she put up flyers the night before (nice of Giles to send his out of
neighborhood plants) Even Haithcock called out a guy from the wrong
ward. No control over the meeting, no sign in, no floor rules. A joke.

I knew about the plan commission meeting months in advance. It was on the July agenda, then it got defered to August which was noted on the agenda. Some people just aren't good at research and reading is suppose....

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 12:13 AM

There have been numerous feasibility studies to provide access to LSD, since long before you lived there. At least one of them via 18th street. (I know, because I worked on it.)
The main issue was the length of the approach necessary to clear the electric lines above the train tracks. We need a very long ramp or a convoluted spiral curve to make it work. However, as some of the issues are being addressed, it may become feasible someday soon regardless of the status of the freight rails.

So, PDNA wouldn't be ashamed to pull a Haithcock?

That was sarcasm :ohno: (note the shake). When did you work on the 18th Bridge? Did that incorporate the park? There is no way this will ever happen with the Soldier field crossing, The new park space, etc. (now deeded & will have landmark returned soon) . No one will get them to remove greenspace already turned over to the Park District.

16th is still an option, but likely an offset to the current 16th street. I still think it would ruin the walkability though. If Riverside ever happens, then they will need another eastbound route and 16th would be it.

Rascacielos

April 11th, 2007, 12:15 AM

Steely Dan

April 11th, 2007, 12:16 AM

it's all kinda moot at this point.

the project was approved.

the PDNA will lose their suit.

it may take several years of BS court proceedings, but they will lose.

afterall, this is chicago, not some "every person deserves a voice" democracy fairyland.

Mr. Hightower

April 11th, 2007, 12:26 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------

B) The Building - A cheap design, with no respect. I invite you sometime
to take a walk to the Clark House/Woman's park and gander at
Museum Park Place Tower I with it's hideous red stripes. From
LSD it may look fine, but up close from within, it dominates when
it should not need to. X/O is going to be twice as tall,
in the middle of the District, and stick out like a sore thumb. The best
part of the District is nothing sticks out yet, and there is a decent
blend. Lucien could have taken a number of his conservative projects
like 840 LSD or Alyisian(sp) and most folks would have been
supportive; this project is a cheap knock off. It's like IKEA...
If the building was on Cermak, Michigan, etc. no one would care.

You make many valid points, but I disagree with your point B.

1) I think the 18th/Calumet building is quite attractive. It dominates the view from my condo, and the glass tower looks great. (the treatment of the lower level podium is not so great, however) Just my opinion.

2) X/O is not in the middle of a Historic District, just part of an arbitrarily drawn "District" of the near south plan. There is nothing of historic significance remaining north of 18th street. So, I would argue that it is clearly outside the Historic District. It is deceptive to say otherwise.

3) I think it is a fantastic design, as do others on the forum. Again, just an opnion. If there are any "knockoffs", they are the cheap Prairie District Homes Tower and Townhouses. I am embarassed to have bought my unit preconstruction.

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 12:50 AM

One thing that bothers me, setting aside the Plan, is the insistence that there is a "historic district" to which all further adjacent construction should relate. By my count, between 18th and Cullerton, there are 5 buildings that survive from the old days and one that was moved to the site but wasn't original. That is hardly the critical mass that one would expect of a "district". Nevertheless, the rest of those two blocks has been filled in with imitations of historic architecture to perpetuate the feeling of a district, so for what it's worth, you get a section of uniterrupted, albeit mostly artificial, buildings that carry a theme, which is really morelike a theme park than a real, historic district like Alta Vista Terrace. Why this theme park should continue north of 18th, though, is beyond me. Neither the townhomes nor the tower respect the architecture that sits on the corner, and they are definitely cheap imitations of historic architecture. What is more insulting, a cheap imitation of something old or a truly modern statement? I would argue the latter. I for one am thankful that Lagrange didn't serve up Park Tower v. 3.0 but rather listened to his progressive instincts with this project. If the park on which Clark House sits was turned over to developers to build skyscrapers, I could understand the outrage, but that's not what's happening here. Yes, it's true that Glessner House will sit across the street from X/O, but it's just that kind of juxtaposition that makes cities so dynamic and compelling.

Respectively, I think your answer is in the 2003 Central Plan - they created Character Districts, specifically targeting to "Protect and Enhance the Character & Scale of the Landmark District and Surrounding Blocks" . At the presentations in 2003, this was explained that the goal was to create areas of space and collection from future Towers & Hotels on Cermak, Mid-rises at Calumet, and Highrises on Michigan to frame the Distict. Essentially, if you imagine what Grant Park is today if you stand at say Congress, with the frame around the park. Their goal, as explained was to create the same for the entire District, not just the Landmark Center. They just got stupid and lazy in the follow-up of the downzoning.:banana:

I would invite you to walk the District for the other Landmarks still being restored, and the other developments, comments noted here withstanding.

Mr. Hightower

April 11th, 2007, 01:01 AM

That was sarcasm :ohno: (note the shake). When did you work on the 18th Bridge? Did that incorporate the park? There is no way this will ever happen with the Soldier field crossing, The new park space, etc. (now deeded & will have landmark returned soon) . No one will get them to remove greenspace already turned over to the Park District.

16th is still an option, but likely an offset to the current 16th street. I still think it would ruin the walkability though. If Riverside ever happens, then they will need another eastbound route and 16th would be it.

I worked on a design/build proposal with McHugh to provide a bridge between 18th and LSD back in 01/02, as part of a proposal to build a busway bridge. This was in response to a City RFP, forget what agency. (bridge proposal was scrapped for cheaper grade crossing) The park was not yet a park at that time.

Now it wouldn't happen at 18th as we had proposed then, now that the park is there. (we can actually thank Legacy for that favor) Now that the other towers are being built on Calumet, it becomes more difficult to provide access near 18th. So, yes near 16th is more likely.

Nonetheless, traffic will be impacted.

spyguy

April 11th, 2007, 01:06 AM

What I find sad is that some people in Chicago (not just South Loop) believe a few nice homes that are no more than 150 years old (at most) are somehow the most important things in the world. While I too like these homes and everything should be done to preserve them, stopping development near them or making them conform style-wise is wrong IMO. These are just old mansions, not the Parthenon or some other international icon.

Meanwhile, Europe is doing just fine design-wise because they mostly accept progressive designs. Instead of sticking with cheap retro styles, they expect the best from their architects and manage to get striking designs from residential, office, transportation, and cultural projects, and the juxposition between the new and old (REALLY old, mind you) is great.

Perhaps I'll find some photos of what I'm talking about and post them later.

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 01:09 AM

You make many valid points, but I disagree with your point B.

1) I think the 18th/Calumet building is quite attractive. It dominates the view from my condo, and the glass tower looks great. (the treatment of the lower level podium is not so great, however) Just my opinion.

2) X/O is not in the middle of a Historic District, just part of an arbitrarily drawn "District" of the near south plan. There is nothing of historic significance remaining north of 18th street. So, I would argue that it is clearly outside the Historic District. It is deceptive to say otherwise.

3) I think it is a fantastic design, as do others on the forum. Again, just an opnion. If there are any "knockoffs", they are the cheap Prairie District Homes Tower and Townhouses. I am embarassed to have bought my unit preconstruction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 18th & Calumet - looks good on east side, not on west close-up. The Red paint is too striking, and needs to be toned down a lot. When red painted stripes has to be your architectural feature, is that architecture?? And did you get a look at the "modern townhomes" on the west side? Did not turn out well. Next time you walk by, look at the exposed concrete around the townhome's balcony - already in bad shape. How about designing a cap to cover it.

2) X/O is not in the middle of a Historic District
You know Hightower, you and I can agree on a lot of things. I do agree, although it is a "character district" per the Central Plan. But the developer has been playing both sides of the fence, one side to justify a massive 45 story building in the middle of the "character District" and the other to drum up sides by claiming to be in the middle of a "historic residential neighborhood". Frankel & Giles was even quoted on this in the Sun-times after the Plan Commission meeting.

But the problem is, they then turn around after saying this, and put the following on their own website:
http://www.aquariusproperties.com/property/x-o-condominium.aspx

Prairie District

* Over the past three years, the historic Prairie District has evolved into a
high demand submarket of the South Loop. The project’s prime location on
1700 block of South Prairie Avenue is situated in the center of this historic
residential neighborhood. All condominium projects in this area have
enjoyed robust sales.
* Historically, Chicago’s elite lived along Prairie Avenue, including the
Pullmans, the Armours, the Fields, and the Kimballs

"Misleading" could be this developers middle name.

That's why I did not buy where you did. It had Warman's name on it.

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 01:19 AM

I would agree if you are talking about quality modern architecture and quality material choice. What is being built in the South Loop is not on par architecturally, construction or material quality (say for one or two towers near Roosevelt like the Columbian and Maybe Museum Tower I) than much of the Central Loop, Near North, River East, etc. The buiilders come out with their perceived price point and that's it. So now we have more of either Painted Concrete (11th & Wabash, State Place, etc.), or Knock-off glass towers (1720 S. Michigan or anything by CMK). X/O is not even close to the quality of Aqua. Build high rises, but hold these guys to some higher standards.

Mr. Hightower

April 11th, 2007, 01:40 AM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 18th & Calumet - looks good on east side, not on west close-up. The Red paint is too striking, and needs to be toned down a lot. When red painted stripes has to be your architectural feature, is that architecture?? And did you get a look at the "modern townhomes" on the west side? Did not turn out well. Next time you walk by, look at the exposed concrete around the townhome's balcony - already in bad shape. How about designing a cap to cover it.

2) X/O is not in the middle of a Historic District
You know Hightower, you and I can agree on a lot of things. I do agree, although it is a "character district" per the Central Plan. But the developer has been playing both sides of the fence, one side to justify a massive 45 story building in the middle of the "character District" and the other to drum up sides by claiming to be in the middle of a "historic residential neighborhood". Frankel & Giles was even quoted on this in the Sun-times after the Plan Commission meeting.

But the problem is, they then turn around after saying this, and put the following on their own website:
http://www.aquariusproperties.com/property/x-o-condominium.aspx

Prairie District

* Over the past three years, the historic Prairie District has evolved into a
high demand submarket of the South Loop. The project’s prime location on
1700 block of South Prairie Avenue is situated in the center of this historic
residential neighborhood. All condominium projects in this area have
enjoyed robust sales.
* Historically, Chicago’s elite lived along Prairie Avenue, including the
Pullmans, the Armours, the Fields, and the Kimballs

"Misleading" could be this developers middle name.

That's why I did not buy where you did. It had Warman's name on it.

So, is this all really a fight about the developer's integrity? Being a victim of a Warman development, I can support you on that.

But, why not just say it instead of fighting the wrong fight? If a respectable developer were doing this development, would you still be fighting it?

18th/Calumet: just a matter of taste - I prefer the modern look. I look at the west face every day. Although, I agree the base leaves much to be desired. But, I think you were referring to the view from within the park surrounding the Clark House, from where you can't see the base.

Mr. Hightower

April 11th, 2007, 01:46 AM

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 02:07 AM

Agree, but does each project need to be cost sensitive? I think this is what hurt's the South Loop. I say that because it has been shown people will pay $1.5MM - $2.7M for quality construction in the District. Those are people intending to live and stay. Sometimes a project like this raises the bar regardless if it is North side or South loop, and actually leads to better housing diversity, where the bar is raised. Quality will bring in buyers who want to live, not just flip.

Flipping and investment are good, in moderation. It just seems to me that the South Loop market is to driven by investors, agents buying multiple units for flipping, etc. and a) they drive up price for average developments, b) developers keep putting some of this on the market, c) it creates a false frenzy, and d) the problems with the development quality never fully surface because everyone is a short timer, wanting to get out. Ultimately some of the cost sensative buyers are overpaying speculated 2nd hand flipped units, and then having to contend with the quality problems.

Maybe I am just crazy :) I think Aqua would sell like gang busters in the South Loop.

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 02:14 AM

CMK has done some magnificent projects, aesthetic-wise. I think the Columbian is pretty uninspiring. But, that is another topic.

To expect every project to be on caliber with Aqua is not realistic. The construction cost prices out cost-sensitive buyers.

I will give you uninspiring, because it is classical, but would you agree it is quality construction? At the same time, CMK's glass design has looked relatively the same on all their projects and in my opinion it wears on lack of diversity. Take the two buildings next door to each other (1720 S. Michigan & 1680?). The effect of the length of the two buildings together just seems to create a steril street wall effect, yet maybe by itself, it could work. I am not expert, just what I observe. I just hope in 10 years it does not look like the stuff on King drive.

Mr. Hightower

April 11th, 2007, 02:35 AM

Maybe I am just crazy :) I think Aqua would sell like gang busters in the South Loop.

Of course. But, it wouldn't be profitable. You couldn't get as much $/sf in the south loop as you would in Lakeshore East.

Mr. Hightower

April 11th, 2007, 02:43 AM

I will give you uninspiring, because it is classical, but would you agree it is quality construction? At the same time, CMK's glass design has looked relatively the same on all their projects and in my opinion it wears on lack of diversity. Take the two buildings next door to each other (1720 S. Michigan & 1680?). The effect of the length of the two buildings together just seems to create a steril street wall effect, yet maybe by itself, it could work. I am not expert, just what I observe. I just hope in 10 years it does not look like the stuff on King drive.

I cannot comment on the Columbian's construction without reviewing the drawings and construction team. It all comes down to the brick curtain wall. If they screw that up, you will have a never-ending nightmare. Isn't that a Walsh project? If so, I would not buy there unless they are using one particular team.

CMK used Brininstool/Lynch on their south loop projects. They have improved their style, and I like it now. The stuff they did with Perkins & Will in the Near North is fantanstic and won many awards.

BVictor1

April 11th, 2007, 10:51 AM

B) The Building - A cheap design, with no respect. I invite you sometime
to take a walk to the Clark House/Woman's park and gander at
Museum Park Place Tower I with it's hideous red stripes. From
LSD it may look fine, but up close from within, it dominates when
it should not need to. X/O is going to be twice as tall,
in the middle of the District, and stick out like a sore thumb. The best
part of the District is nothing sticks out yet, and there is a decent
blend. Lucien could have taken a number of his conservative projects
like 840 LSD or Alyisian(sp) and most folks would have been
supportive; this project is a cheap knock off. It's like IKEA...
If the building was on Cermak, Michigan, etc. no one would care.

Blah-blah-blah...

Cheap design my ass. All those bullshit-fake ass historical rip off town houses there are the joke. This opinion shows that without a doubt you have no taste in what real architecture and what living in a true urban environment is all about. Museum Park Place I is a really interesting design. Finally something with a little color and boldness,a dn I can't wait for the 2nd EVEN TALLER TOWER to begin construction. And I'm sorry, but we're all glad that Lucien didn't go with his annoying PO-MO designs over there. We have moe than enough of that in the central area as it is. That's the problem with you people, always going and thinking conservative. That's why this country is so fucked now, too many goddamn simpletons that lack vision and forward thinking. Take that shit to DuPage County.

BVictor1

April 11th, 2007, 11:02 AM

Maybe I am just crazy :) I think Aqua would sell like gang busters in the South Loop.

Where in the South Loop are you talking about are you refering? Because I'm sure that if Aqua was proposed in the same location as where X/O WILL BE BUILT, at the same scale as it will be built in LSE we'd be having this same argument.

BVictor1

April 11th, 2007, 11:07 AM

I will give you uninspiring, because it is classical, but would you agree it is quality construction? At the same time, CMK's glass design has looked relatively the same on all their projects and in my opinion it wears on lack of diversity. Take the two buildings next door to each other (1720 S. Michigan & 1680?). The effect of the length of the two buildings together just seems to create a steril street wall effect, yet maybe by itself, it could work. I am not expert, just what I observe. I just hope in 10 years it does not look like the stuff on King drive.

But you seem to like the same seeing as you're arguing that the developments surrounding the Prairie Avenue Historic District should reflect it's character.

I'd take the suff on King Drive (if you're refering to Prairie Shores) any day over the Prairie District development.

And it's 1620 and 1720 South Michigan for future references.

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 02:57 PM

Blah-blah-blah...

Cheap design my ass. All those bullshit-fake ass historical rip off town houses there are the joke. This opinion shows that without a doubt you have no taste in what real architecture and what living in a true urban environment is all about. Museum Park Place I is a really interesting design. Finally something with a little color and boldness,a dn I can't wait for the 2nd EVEN TALLER TOWER to begin construction. And I'm sorry, but we're all glad that Lucien didn't go with his annoying PO-MO designs over there. We have moe than enough of that in the central area as it is. That's the problem with you people, always going and thinking conservative. That's why this country is so fucked now, too many goddamn simpletons that lack vision and forward thinking. Take that shit to DuPage County.

Dude, you need to take a pill...So know you are expert in Architecture because you think bold red painted concrete tic-tac toe design is an architectural accomplishment? :bash: Boy, that is some incredible vision you have. :ohno: If it can be designed by a 1st grade class with lego blocks is it really employing vision?

Good architecture is good architecture regardless or modern or classic, but most of this stuff is a lazy limp-wristed attempt at modern architecture by people who lack skills that true craftsman used to employ, followed by poor execution and cheap construction. You seem to think that only the architecture matters...and no one lives there. Enjoy your rental building after the foundations are vibrated down.

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 03:03 PM

Of course. But, it wouldn't be profitable. You couldn't get as much $/sf in the south loop as you would in Lakeshore East.

Early on, the Lakeshore East was running equal or less then some of the stuff in Museum Park, of course Museum Tower. The later projects have kicked it up a notch. Those holding early are going to do well in that nitch area. The new Townhome prices there are a bit high for the square footage...wow!

robituss

April 11th, 2007, 04:36 PM

I think both Museum Park Place and especially X/O are bold and interesting designs. But whatever, its all subjective. Like I've been saying, holding developers accountable to producing good products is fine and I agree, but putting a cap on development (particularly height and density) because of the central or near south plan seems very backwards. One would think they should encourage additional residents to move to the area, take advantage of the boom at its height! As far as the developer being shady, well, that may be; only ermdiego seems to know. But it sounded like there were some ample oppurtunities to attend the plan commision meetings etc., and contact those members, because on this board it seems like many people knew about them.

Personally, I was attracted to the area because of these types of projects, and Im sure many others are. We want to live in an exciting urban environment and appreciate interesting architecture. X/O could be a signature building for the south loop. Yes, it will stick out, but so what - in my mind its in a good way. (I didn't even like it at first). Before, that whole place stuck out as a wasteland in close proximity to the museums, at least this is a positive. And being a blank slate for many years, how can people argue about 'character'? Maybe in small spots only. The fake old-style townhomes try to create this character, but poorly mimics the existing homes.

Truly, I just think many in PDNA sound like they simply dont like the design, and thats why they are up in arms. While some of you guys may be responsible in holding developers accountable, I would guess that the majority are simply fighting additional developments for the traditional 'nimby' reasons. Otherwise, the real concerns should have been stated at the forefront and they would appear more willing to work with these developers to force them to improve their standards, add infrastructure, and adjust their designs. Instead of trying to just get rid of the project altogether -which would seem like a total wasted oppurtunity to me.

BVictor1

April 11th, 2007, 06:01 PM

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 06:06 PM

Now you have something I can agree with: "Otherwise, the real concerns should have been stated at the forefront and they would appear more willing to work with these developers to force them to improve their standards, add infrastructure, and adjust their designs. Instead of trying to just get rid of the project altogether -which would seem like a total wasted oppurtunity to me."

You hit one of the key points. The Alderman was all reactionary after the point - she gave zero support, information, disclosure (due to the campaign money), and hamstrung the residents with zero power. When the residents did express their input, she shut them down with her "Car Salesman taking an offer to her boss act" with Giles. On one hand, she lied about "I have never been for this project" and then turns around and writes a letter of endorsement and votes in council for the project. At least recuse yourself lady.

The GSLA - MR. Key was a joke in his pandering & dictorial support of the project. Coincidence that he stepped down right after the project approval? Their job is to work to the Near South Community Plan, not create something noone wanted. Also, When you hold a community meeting, get to know who is from the community and kick everyone else out of the room for a few minutes

DPD - Lori Healy has set city Planning and Restoration efforts back twenty years (on a variety of projects). I am not sure if she or Linda Searl has ever spent anytime in the neighborhoods. Follow the plan, and enforce the ordinance on the books. They are too worried about seeing if their new zoning FAR bonus calculation works. Also, why does the Plan Commission have Alderman serving on it who take money from developers with no development in their ward? Do they think we are that dumb?

And listen, if the new style of tall & thin is what is desired (X/O is not tall and thin by the way), fine, then revise the plan with the community validation that was used to revised the plan in 2006.

This is the acknowledgement I like by Linda Searl, Chairman of the Planning Commission :"the commission does not always consider whether individual projects fit in the general plans that are issued and sometimes forgotten".

ErmDiego

April 11th, 2007, 06:29 PM

AHHHH!!!! Progress :)

The architectural lines are rivaled only by the lines forming for Tower II's Grand Opening!

X/O's design is impressive. But even more impressive is the VIP list forming for
X/O's unveiling of Tower II.

Interest is extraordinary - even at this early stage. If you want to get in on the ground-floor, now is the time to let us know by touching base any way you can.

X/O hopefuls are calling, emailing registering, visiting in person - they know it's the best way to ensure true VIP treatment when the big day arrives. Join them today!

Being first in line is an immeasurable advantage. The South Loop is one of the country's hottest markets, and X/O is the South Loop's hottest address - selling nearly 150 residences in a few short months. Being first increases
your earning potential!

So please be prepared, and get in touch with us.
Tower II Grand Opens May 5th and 6th - your one and only chance to be first in line!

https://mail.iit.edu/attach.msc?sid=6AjIbSp8uLQ&mbox=INBOX&uid=1231&number=5

It will probably turn out like Filmworks Lofts (nice facade work), Dearborn Tower (nice settlement$$), Roosevelt Hotel (nice flooding), etc.; the true buyers better be ready for the big special assessment that will hit them.

Of course, it is quite likely that the contracts to date are just reservations for the 212 E. Cullerton Investment crew, whose names will quietly dissappear.

But then F&G will have had a hand in getting your biggest Cronnie out of office by Next Tuesday...she will be singing like a bird, but it is possible that one of her 'friends' will take care of her out of office 'wink'.

Chi649

April 21st, 2007, 05:07 AM

I saw a couple of tv commerical advertisements for X/O tonight so it seems like this project is moving forward.

amf312

April 21st, 2007, 07:16 PM

What can the new Alderman do to alter or stop it? Isn't there already a PD ordinance in place?

They are having an open house today, fyi.

The Urban Politician

April 21st, 2007, 07:21 PM

^ Considering that this is being cast off as Haithcock's "blunder" I doubt he will, but then who the hell am I?

Anyway, I was watching the Yo and they broadcasted an interview of the developers. According to them, groundbreaking will occur around this time next year.

robituss

April 22nd, 2007, 02:57 AM

According to them, groundbreaking will occur around this time next year.

What? They need to get moving on this thing. I thought they have been selling pretty fast, there's no need to go so slowly. I would have thought they'd start demoing that building by the fall.

Cullertonian

April 22nd, 2007, 03:54 AM

The PDNA seems to have two concerns with the X/O and a few other proposals for the district: 1) A legitimate concern about the quality of the developers' work and 2) good 'ole NIMBY complaining about design. It's great that the first issue is coming to light, and will hopefully lead to improvements if not at least increased awareness of some very shady business and construction practices. On the second point, they're not going to get anywhere by trying to make everything look like it was built in 1883.
I personally love standing in the Clark House park and enjoying the view of the red grid of Museum Park Place rising above the faux-old townhouses on Prairie. And I look forward to seeing the X/O twins over the Glessner House. Hopefully the PDNA's concerns will make it so F&G's investors at X/O don't have to invest in ShopVacs along with their condos.

Mr Downtown

April 22nd, 2007, 05:17 AM

Well, there's also the fact that it was approved illegally, in violation of the city's adopted plan for the area.

The Urban Politician

April 22nd, 2007, 03:31 PM

Well, there's also the fact that it was approved illegally, in violation of the city's adopted plan for the area.

^ Are these plans legally binding?

Mr Downtown

April 22nd, 2007, 08:15 PM

^ Are these plans legally binding?

They are for Planned Development ordinances.

Chicago Municipal Code 17-08-0903: Approved Plans
Planned developments must be consistent with plans that have been adopted by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council.

The Urban Politician

April 23rd, 2007, 12:50 AM

They are for Planned Development ordinances.

Chicago Municipal Code 17-08-0903: Approved Plans
Planned developments must be consistent with plans that have been adopted by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council.

^ So the loophole is the interpretation of the word 'consistent', I'm assuming

Mr Downtown

April 23rd, 2007, 03:21 AM

^ So the loophole is the interpretation of the word 'consistent', I'm assuming
No loophole needed. Plan Commission (and DPD staff) just didn't bother to look at the plan.

slooparch

April 23rd, 2007, 10:43 PM

No loophole needed. Plan Commission (and DPD staff) just didn't bother to look at the plan.

The only thing arguably that is not consistent with the south side plan would be the height....do the neighbors really want a lot line building (library tower) rather then the thin towers that will let significantly more light onto Prairie and the townhomes that are flanking it?

ErmDiego

April 23rd, 2007, 11:09 PM

The only thing arguably that is not consistent with the south side plan would be the height....do the neighbors really want a lot line building (library tower) rather then the thin towers that will let significantly more light onto Prairie and the townhomes that are flanking it?

Don't kid yourself, these are tall, but not thin buildings. Each of the two proposed building's may be wider than the Columbian on Michigan. Other developers who developing on the same block, like Central Station, who have a far better reputation, respected the Central Plan and Near South Community Plan enough to know not to go that height on the same Prairie Avenue, even though their site zoning may have allowed it. (30 stories max)

You are going to find the marginal developers who want to desperately go for broke, like Frankel & Giles (only 3rd new building - not counting State Place which was someone else behind the scenes). Buyers really should review the quality history and plan extra money accordingly.

Problem I have with DPD, is if Tall & Thin is the desired, why not revise the plan accordingly, instead of an arbitrary ruling on each project that counters every plan?

robituss

April 24th, 2007, 12:33 AM

Mr Downtown

April 24th, 2007, 12:53 AM

do the neighbors really want a lot line building (library tower) rather then the thin towers

I don't think 60-foot buildings on a 66-foot-wide street present a real light and air problem.

robituss

April 24th, 2007, 01:00 AM

^Are you saying you want only 60 foot buildings downtown, Mr Downtown?

ErmDiego

April 24th, 2007, 01:19 AM

Build them as tall as possible, and as 'illegal' as possible. :) Written into law huh, thats hilarious. Sorry, I know you guys worked so hard on that plan, you probably should have just left more room for growth, density and height (this is downtown). Then you wouldn't freak from all this development.

The columbian is thin as hell. So is Park Michigan. X/O doesn't look that thin, but it looks more interesting than many buildings of this boom. Anyway, I just hope all these proposals are built and all these ridiculous nimbys and their precious views are assed out. Meanwhile, the area gets tons of businesses and pedestrian traffic, as well as a dope new skyline.

Where do you keep getting this issue of views? No one gives a rat's ass about views, especially in Townhomes, nor has anyone indicated this as a major issue. It is about the city doing what they said they were going to do. Besides, in another 3-4 years, you will not see these towers from Lakeshore Drive as the monsters over the air-rights of the tracks get built. Those hoping for a lake view will be dissappointed and crying. Where as if you buy in Central Station, they deed you garaunteed views...X/O is not part of Central Station, thus they can and will be blocked out.

robituss

April 24th, 2007, 02:03 AM

Where do you keep getting this issue of views? No one gives a rat's ass about views, especially in Townhomes, nor has anyone indicated this as a major issue.

Surely you cant speak for the entire community now can you? Or do you. And no, people wont say views are their big issue, its normally veiled by something more pressing, like shadows, traffic, or parking. Otherwise they couldn't hope to be taken seriously now could they.

Mr Downtown

April 24th, 2007, 02:58 AM

^Are you saying you want only 60 foot buildings downtown?

No, 60 feet was the height limit specified for certain street frontages--Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th--within the "Prairie Avenue District" of "Area 2" in the Near South Community Plan.

BorisMolotov

April 24th, 2007, 03:00 AM

Besides, in another 3-4 years, you will not see these towers from Lakeshore Drive as the monsters over the air-rights of the tracks get built.

Monsters? You mean the Olympic Village? Isn't the highest only like 16 stories? I'd hardly call those monsters. There is a large height difference between 44 stories and 16 stories, but I don't even think that they're that high.

BorisMolotov

April 24th, 2007, 03:01 AM

Mr. Downtown, I would like to have a looksee at the Community plan. Do you have or know where I can look at a map of it? Maybe posting it would help to resolve some issues here.

Mr Downtown

April 24th, 2007, 03:07 AM

Mr. Downtown, I would like to have a looksee at the Community plan.
http://tinyurl.com/2dpkb5

Loopy

April 24th, 2007, 03:36 AM

mohammed wong

April 24th, 2007, 05:03 AM

http://tinyurl.com/2dpkb5
[taken from website intro page]
Near South Community Plan

The Near South Community Plan will serve as a guide to future development of the South Loop and Near South communities by recommending future land use, open space and transportation improvements.

The plan provides development goals and projections for a two-square-mile area between Congress Parkway, Lakeshore Drive, the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Stevenson Expressway (I-55), not including Grant Park or the Chintown area southwest of Cermak Road and Clark Street.

Residents, business owners, land owners and interested members of the public are invited to review and comment on the final draft of the plan. Subsequent to public feedback, the Department of Planning and Development will submit it to the Chicago Plan Commission for review and adoption.

Copies of the current draft are available for pick-up at City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle St., Room 1000, Chicago. PDF versions of the plan can be downloaded below.

Written comments can be mailed to Benet Haller, Dept. of Planning and Development, 121 N. LaSalle #1101, Chicago, Illinois 60602, or emailed to cbhaller@cityofchicago.org.

[is there a final draft?, looks like this is purposely just guidelines with some far off supposed final draft, heavy on the draft, nothing is permanent, which is one thing i have learned thru this site and just watching chicago grow and change, which i do accept and dont mind so much anymore, anyways i dont think it was the intention at all of making some rule book for alltime for zoning for this area of chicago, especially for it being downtown adjacent]

slooparch

April 24th, 2007, 04:09 PM

No, 60 feet was the height limit specified for certain street frontages--Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th--within the "Prairie Avenue District" of "Area 2" in the Near South Community Plan.

There appears to be some confusion about the historic district....

Just wanted to point out that XO is NOT in the historic district but rather adjacent to it.....it is part of the Prairie Avenue District which includes the historic district....

The South Loop plan clearly anticipates tall residential towers adjacent to the historic district (as opposed to the Prairie Avenue district)

ErmDiego

April 24th, 2007, 05:02 PM

There appears to be some confusion about the historic district....

Just wanted to point out that XO is NOT in the historic district but rather adjacent to it.....it is part of the Prairie Avenue District which includes the historic district....

The South Loop plan clearly anticipates tall residential towers adjacent to the historic district (as opposed to the Prairie Avenue district)

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalDeptCategoryAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1480497947.1177425832@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccccaddkjlideiicefecelldffhdfgm.0&deptCategoryOID=-536886455&contentType=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&entityName=Planning+And+Development&deptMainCategoryOID=-536886455

slooparch, you may want to read the plans a little closer. The plans are relevant for the entire District, not just the Historic Portion. The height, material, and character recommendations were for area outside the Historic District as well. Frankel & Giles try to say the same thing, but then their advertisment claims the are in the middle of this Historic District...a little misleading.

The South Loop Community Plan called for less than 100 feet on Prairie, 18th, Cullerton, and 285 feet elsewhere, with consideration for set-back, while a gradual progression in height to 16th. 45 stories is not gradual, and not even close to what was envisioned. But for the right amount of money to the Alderman, and someone else in City Hall, you too can do whatever you want.:lol:

Sir Isaac Newton

April 24th, 2007, 05:05 PM

Where do you keep getting this issue of views? No one gives a rat's ass about views, especially in Townhomes, nor has anyone indicated this as a major issue. It is about the city doing what they said they were going to do. Besides, in another 3-4 years, you will not see these towers from Lakeshore Drive as the monsters over the air-rights of the tracks get built. Those hoping for a lake view will be dissappointed and crying. Where as if you buy in Central Station, they deed you garaunteed views...X/O is not part of Central Station, thus they can and will be blocked out.

Actually, quite recently one of my coworkers told me about a friend who bought a condo in Central Station where she was guaranteed lake views "for life". Only to have Central Station build another high rise a year or two later that blocked those guaranteed lake views. I can't remember exactly what my coworker said the deal was, but I remember at the very least that some residents were considering taking legal action; not sure if they actually have (or will) take legal action yet. To me, that seems extremely shady - not only did they guarantee views when they thought that it was possible that some other developer's building could block those views; they guaranteed views when they themselves built a new building that blocked those views.

So ErmDiego - I find it funny that rip on Frankel & Giles, and other developers, yet constantly praise the developers of Central Station...considering the shady sh*t that they pulled (not to mention, all of their comleted buildings are friggin' ugly (the OMP buildings look like they should be nice, at least)). I am guessing that this might be a clue your ulterior motives, which would help explain your arguments and rants against X/O.

slooparch

April 24th, 2007, 05:10 PM

read it closer?....I was part of the development of that plan and I am not sure what you think I misstated....

xo is NOT in the historic district....

F&G's marketing is irrelevant....

Flubnut

April 24th, 2007, 08:08 PM

Monsters? You mean the Olympic Village? Isn't the highest only like 16 stories? I'd hardly call those monsters. There is a large height difference between 44 stories and 16 stories, but I don't even think that they're that high.

FYI: Olympic Village is south of McCormick, along the lakefront. The train tracks running along the west side of LSD, south from Roosevelt(16th) are where the air rights, and potentially tallest 'guaranteed lake view' buildings could go.

Or maybe I'm the one who's totally and utterly confused...

ErmDiego

April 24th, 2007, 09:18 PM

Actually, quite recently one of my coworkers told me about a friend who bought a condo in Central Station where she was guaranteed lake views "for life". Only to have Central Station build another high rise a year or two later that blocked those guaranteed lake views. I can't remember exactly what my coworker said the deal was, but I remember at the very least that some residents were considering taking legal action; not sure if they actually have (or will) take legal action yet. To me, that seems extremely shady - not only did they guarantee views when they thought that it was possible that some other developer's building could block those views; they guaranteed views when they themselves built a new building that blocked those views.

So ErmDiego - I find it funny that rip on Frankel & Giles, and other developers, yet constantly praise the developers of Central Station...considering the shady sh*t that they pulled (not to mention, all of their comleted buildings are friggin' ugly (the OMP buildings look like they should be nice, at least)). I am guessing that this might be a clue your ulterior motives, which would help explain your arguments and rants against X/O.

Read the Central station deeds closely of you own one. Depending on the unit, it is clear what is guaranteed and what is not. There are certain buildings where they can guarantee an angle of view, and others full views. With the air-rights purchase they have some leverage in holding some or all of the east views. High rise people crying about spoiled views, the nerve :nuts:

Regarding X/O and Frankel & Giles - Wrong design, wrong location, wrong developer.
I have dealt with almost all of these developers in regard to either purchase or investment, or in other public capacity. Living in the South Loop since 1996, I have also paid close attention to all of the buildings from construction to post construction, and there are two developers than come up visually or in discussion with high probablity of problematic development. Warman and Frankel & Giles (who now are partnered on Astoria Tower). I have also lived through problems with Frankel & Giles, who despite being give $2MM TIF Loan up front on project in South Loop, bailed despite problems with crumbling facad, structural issues, did not install emergency lighting, screwed up easments, unaccounted funds at turnover. (I encourage you to talk to folks at Roosevelt Hotel, 8th and Wabash, Dearborn Towers, Filmworks). I would be willing to bet we will be here talking about problems with Prairie District Lofts in two years...

As to Warman, don't take my word for it - here is review of some of his work:

http://www.suntimes.com/classifieds/homes/homelife/349614,HOF-News-prairiemain20.article
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=377046&format=print

ErmDiego

April 24th, 2007, 09:36 PM

read it closer?....I was part of the development of that plan and I am not sure what you think I misstated....

xo is NOT in the historic district....

F&G's marketing is irrelevant....

slooparch, respectively, my point is that the distinction of in the Historic or outside does not matter, as the plan called for recommendations anywhere inside the entire District depending on location. Also, during the public discussion, the same developer tried to disarm protection issues to the Plan Commission by citing your same comment, while these lemmings did not bother to read the rest of the recommendations on their own.

To date, whether folks feel it is quality or not (not the issue), all of the developers have generally respected or followed the Near South Community Plan to date, be it character, scale, setback, or architecture. The result of discussing and building to some assemblance of plan has led to the transformation of the area to what it is today (A character district desirable to many, and a higher % family oriented area, with the goal of many to stay in the city) and generally an agreeable development relationship with the community (other than the post quality issues). Now you have one developer who has demonstrated a relavent history of skirting his view of what is legal instead what is right, that now feels he is immune to the foundation and respect that others have laid....etc., etc., etc.

slooparch

April 24th, 2007, 11:22 PM

slooparch, respectively, my point is that the distinction of in the Historic or outside does not matter, as the plan called for recommendations anywhere inside the entire District depending on location. Also, during the public discussion, the same developer tried to disarm protection issues to the Plan Commission by citing your same comment, while these lemmings did not bother to read the rest of the recommendations on their own.

To date, whether folks feel it is quality or not (not the issue), all of the developers have generally respected or followed the Near South Community Plan to date, be it character, scale, setback, or architecture. The result of discussing and building to some assemblance of plan has led to the transformation of the area to what it is today (A character district desirable to many, and a higher % family oriented area, with the goal of many to stay in the city) and generally an agreeable development relationship with the community (other than the post quality issues). Now you have one developer who has demonstrated a relavent history of skirting his view of what is legal instead what is right, that now feels he is immune to the foundation and respect that others have laid....etc., etc., etc.

clearly, this is a personal and emotional issue with you regarding this particular developer....in my experience, the quality of the architect, and the degree in which they are involved in construction administration, has a much more significant impact on the quality of the building then the developer's past experience...Bill Warman, by the way, used his own architectural firm for his problem-plagued and extremely unfortunately designed projects....

as far as the South Loop Community Plan is concerned, it is a masterplan which, by definition, is a set of guidelines....

most architects will tell you that to respond sensitively to as well as complement historic architecture one must not mimic it....the Glessner House, as I am sure you are aware, was a ground-breaking contemporary structure when it was built....a building that it's Prairie Avenue neighbors violently opposed :)

It appears that you are interpreting the masterplan inappropiately (and inconsistently as I have been following this thread) to buttress the developer vendetta.....

The Urban Politician

April 25th, 2007, 05:30 AM

To date, whether folks feel it is quality or not (not the issue), all of the developers have generally respected or followed the Near South Community Plan to date, be it character, scale, setback, or architecture. The result of discussing and building to some assemblance of plan has led to the transformation of the area to what it is today (A character district desirable to many, and a higher % family oriented area, with the goal of many to stay in the city) and generally an agreeable development relationship with the community (other than the post quality issues).

^ Uh, no. The result has lead to some of the most banal architecture of our time. I don't mind the townhomes, but I really can't stand most of the earlier batch of towers that have gone up in Central Station. Perhaps you should consider how important architectural design really is to a lot of people on this forum.

The problem with your argument is that you're trying to convince us of something that most of us don't really care about. We care about ARCHITECTURE, the URBAN ENVIRONMENT, and what these developments mean for US and the cityscape as a WHOLE. I don't care whether or not Frankel and Giles built a bunch of pipes, screwed over some investors, or didn't build emergency exits. Whatever--let the buyers decide those things

Sir Isaac Newton

April 25th, 2007, 07:30 AM

^ Uh, no. The result has lead to some of the most banal architecture of our time. I don't mind the townhomes, but I really can't stand most of the earlier batch of towers that have gone up in Central Station. Perhaps you should consider how important architectural design really is to a lot of people on this forum.

The problem with your argument is that you're trying to convince us of something that most of us don't really care about. We care about ARCHITECTURE, the URBAN ENVIRONMENT, and what these developments mean for US and the cityscape as a WHOLE. I don't care whether or not Frankel and Giles built a bunch of pipes, screwed over some investors, or didn't build emergency exits. Whatever--let the buyers decide those things

Right on, TUP....and given X/O's great sales so far, apparently the buyers have decided that they really like what Frankel and Giles have to offer in the X/O development.

ErmDiego

April 25th, 2007, 03:36 PM

clearly, this is a personal and emotional issue with you regarding this particular developer....in my experience, the quality of the architect, and the degree in which they are involved in construction administration, has a much more significant impact on the quality of the building then the developer's past experience...Bill Warman, by the way, used his own architectural firm for his problem-plagued and extremely unfortunately designed projects....

as far as the South Loop Community Plan is concerned, it is a masterplan which, by definition, is a set of guidelines....

most architects will tell you that to respond sensitively to as well as complement historic architecture one must not mimic it....the Glessner House, as I am sure you are aware, was a ground-breaking contemporary structure when it was built....a building that it's Prairie Avenue neighbors violently opposed :)

It appears that you are interpreting the masterplan inappropiately (and inconsistently as I have been following this thread) to buttress the developer vendetta.....

Agree about Glessner house, but it was three stories and you have to drive on front of it to see it. It's not 45 stories. I do giggle at the self comparisons by the Architect of X/O and Glessner though...a little over the top.

The Urban Politician

April 25th, 2007, 03:48 PM

Agree about Glessner house, but it was three stories and you have to drive on front of it to see it.

^ Everywhere, both here and at YoChicago, all I hear is "drive this" "drive that". Do Prarie Ave people just drive to the Glessner house these days? Seriously, like do Chicagoans walk in your neighborhoods at all?

ErmDiego

April 25th, 2007, 03:49 PM

Right on, TUP....and given X/O's great sales so far, apparently the buyers have decided that they really like what Frankel and Giles have to offer in the X/O development.

Sales or investor holds?...I invite you to study their prior marketing and pre-sales practices then. Talk to folks at 212 E. Cullerton...hint, take a look at the project partners behind the scenes.

With some of the major projects in Central Station, River East, on Michigan Avenue, there is a fair amount of visable foot traffic. I have yet in the last 12 years seen anything like it their claims of sales; that sales center has been dead. They had a mass mailing event this prior weekend that, I shit you not, had 3-4 cars in the lot maximum. They must be relying on outside Chicago sales...

Sir Isaac Newton

April 25th, 2007, 04:20 PM

Sales or investor holds?...I invite you to study their prior marketing and pre-sales practices then. Talk to folks at 212 E. Cullerton...hint, take a look at the project partners behind the scenes.

With some of the major projects in Central Station, River East, on Michigan Avenue, there is a fair amount of visable foot traffic. I have yet in the last 12 years seen anything like it their claims of sales; that sales center has been dead. They had a mass mailing event this prior weekend that, I shit you not, had 3-4 cars in the lot maximum. They must be relying on outside Chicago sales...

Sales.

I went to their sales office a few months ago to check out the model, and it was packed. Just because there aren't cars in the lot doesn't mean anything...while you might use your car all the time, even to drive two blocks over to the Glessner House, most people in the city actually aren't that lazy, and walk, take public transportation, etc.

slooparch

April 25th, 2007, 05:52 PM

Agree about Glessner house, but it was three stories and you have to drive on front of it to see it. It's not 45 stories. I do giggle at the self comparisons by the Architect of X/O and Glessner though...a little over the top.

you are right....although I would call Glessner 2 stories.....and, guess what, when Richardson designed Glessner, there were not any 45 story buildings in the entire city.....it was not technically feasible...

naturally, if we let your logic govern the development of the city, we still would not have any 45 story buildings....

although I realize good design is somewhat subjective, the last contemporary tower that LaGrange designed won a AIA award for design excellence....

BVictor1

April 25th, 2007, 06:04 PM

Well, there's also the fact that it was approved illegally, in violation of the city's adopted plan for the area.

It was adopted as a guideline.

And if what they are doing is illegal (Which I and many of us don't think is), this is one law I'm glad their breaking, because it's a fucking stupid law (if that's what it really is) that should have never been approved

Break - break - break away....

No loophole needed. Plan Commission (and DPD staff) just didn't bother to look at the plan.

Congratulations to them for having the sence to know they did something stupid in the first place. They're just correcting their error.

BVictor1

April 25th, 2007, 07:58 PM

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalDeptCategoryAction.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1480497947.1177425832@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccccaddkjlideiicefecelldffhdfgm.0&deptCategoryOID=-536886455&contentType=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&entityName=Planning+And+Development&deptMainCategoryOID=-536886455

slooparch, you may want to read the plans a little closer. The plans are relevant for the entire District, not just the Historic Portion. The height, material, and character recommendations were for area outside the Historic District as well. Frankel & Giles try to say the same thing, but then their advertisment claims the are in the middle of this Historic District...a little misleading.

The South Loop Community Plan called for less than 100 feet on Prairie, 18th, Cullerton, and 285 feet elsewhere, with consideration for set-back, while a gradual progression in height to 16th. 45 stories is not gradual, and not even close to what was envisioned. But for the right amount of money to the Alderman, and someone else in City Hall, you too can do whatever you want.:lol:

What is your idea of gradual then?

BVictor1

April 25th, 2007, 08:12 PM

Read the Central station deeds closely of you own one. Depending on the unit, it is clear what is guaranteed and what is not. There are certain buildings where they can guarantee an angle of view, and others full views. With the air-rights purchase they have some leverage in holding some or all of the east views. High rise people crying about spoiled views, the nerve :nuts:

Regarding X/O and Frankel & Giles - Wrong design, wrong location, wrong developer.
I have dealt with almost all of these developers in regard to either purchase or investment, or in other public capacity. Living in the South Loop since 1996, I have also paid close attention to all of the buildings from construction to post construction, and there are two developers than come up visually or in discussion with high probablity of problematic development. Warman and Frankel & Giles (who now are partnered on Astoria Tower). I have also lived through problems with Frankel & Giles, who despite being give $2MM TIF Loan up front on project in South Loop, bailed despite problems with crumbling facad, structural issues, did not install emergency lighting, screwed up easments, unaccounted funds at turnover. (I encourage you to talk to folks at Roosevelt Hotel, 8th and Wabash, Dearborn Towers, Filmworks). I would be willing to bet we will be here talking about problems with Prairie District Lofts in two years...

As to Warman, don't take my word for it - here is review of some of his work:

http://www.suntimes.com/classifieds/homes/homelife/349614,HOF-News-prairiemain20.article
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=377046&format=print

So then it's personal for you???? That explains so much more now...

Wrong design, wrong location??

Why and how so? Because of some half assed plan? You think Prairie District is a good design? You want some PoMo schlopp there instead?

Mr Downtown

April 25th, 2007, 09:23 PM

It was adopted as a guideline.
I don't know what this means. The Chicago Plan Commission adopted the Near South Community Plan. You can look it up. There was no "signing statement" limiting its scope.

If this developer were satisfied with the existing zoning, they could simply build a project with an FAR of 5 that's less than 150 feet. They want to build more, so they have to request a PD, and there are certain rules for a PD. One of those--no surprise--is that a planned development must follow the adopted plan.

And if what they are doing is illegal (Which I and many of us don't think is)

I've cited the plain text of the municipal ordinance. Please explain what provision of statute or case law overrides the ordinance.

this is one law I'm glad their breaking, because it's a . . . stupid law (if that's what it really is) that should have never been approved
Do you have a list somewhere of the laws that it's permissible to break?

slooparch

April 25th, 2007, 10:37 PM

I don't know what this means. The Chicago Plan Commission adopted the Near South Community Plan. You can look it up. There was no "signing statement" limiting its scope.

If this developer were satisfied with the existing zoning, they could simply build a project with an FAR of 5 that's less than 150 feet. They want to build more, so they have to request a PD, and there are certain rules for a PD. One of those--no surprise--is that a planned development must follow the adopted plan.

I've cited the plain text of the municipal ordinance. Please explain what provision of statute or case law overrides the ordinance.

Do you have a list somewhere of the laws that it's permissible to break?

Although there has been great focus on this word “must” , the actual community plan (which, by the way, is still in draft form), includes language such as “suggested” and “should”, both words are clearly not mandatory……

Even considering the context in which “must” is used, it is combined with a significant qualifier: “consistent”…..consistent within a master plan is always open to interpretation….

robituss

April 26th, 2007, 12:49 AM

Slooparch, thanks for your commentary. Its nice to hear from someone who worked on the plan that is not so insistent that it is followed spec per spec (especially when the language used, as you pointed out, is not concretely defined). Listening to Ermdiego and Mr Downtown, I was beginning to wonder if this plan somehow differed from other neighborhood plans that are mostly used for guidelines and recommendations, in that it was to be followed like some written contract.

spyguy

April 26th, 2007, 12:59 AM

Just some pics of the small park next to it:
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/9588/xo03nl4wx9.jpg
http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/2076/xo02sr2si6.jpg

The Urban Politician

April 26th, 2007, 04:31 AM

High Life on LSD

April 26th, 2007, 05:14 AM

Mr Downtown and ErmDiego are our inhouse NIMBY's, and their presence gives us some good insider rep. They use their intelligent minds for evil (ie NIMBYism) instead of good (kick-ass development that inspires).

Please, no angry replies, I'm just poking some fun here..

Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.

i_am_hydrogen

April 26th, 2007, 05:20 AM

Mr Downtown and ErmDiego are our inhouse NIMBY's, and their presence gives us some good insider rep. They use their intelligent minds for evil (ie NIMBYism) instead of good (kick-ass development that inspires).

Please, no angry replies, I'm just poking some fun here..

Exactly. Even though we may disagree with them, they still deserve to be here so long as they are respectful of other forumers. And what's the common aphorism: "Know thine enemy"?

Mr Downtown

April 26th, 2007, 06:03 AM

Although there has been great focus on this word “must” , the actual community plan (which, by the way, is still in draft form), includes language such as “suggested” and “should”, both words are clearly not mandatory……

Even considering the context in which “must” is used, it is combined with a significant qualifier: “consistent”…..consistent within a master plan is always open to interpretation….

I'm not sure why you claim the plan is still in draft form. It is discouraging that the city's webmaster never updated the PDF or the web page.

Here is the actual language from the approved Near South Community Plan:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments, and guide potential height limitations in or near Landmark Districts.

Now please explain how a 450-foot tower is "consistent" with a 60-foot upper limit on height.

hoju

April 26th, 2007, 08:42 AM

ChiPsy

April 26th, 2007, 01:58 PM

Well it sounds like there is plenty of wiggle room in the language there:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments, and guide potential height limitations in or near Landmark Districts.

So thankfully, the city is using some logic and reason to guide and assist us away from this outdated plan that wouldn't let the south loop grow in a way that is consistent with its potential to be a vibrant, dense, urban addition to our city.

Absolutely, and you could have highlighted "potential" in that sentence too, as well as "are intended to" (vs. simply "set"). Unless there's more to this document that Mr. DT hasn't posted yet, it's clearly advisory, not an inscription/codification of a mandatory layer of review.

Mr Downtown

April 26th, 2007, 01:59 PM

slooparch

April 26th, 2007, 02:44 PM

BVictor1

April 26th, 2007, 05:41 PM

Or not so much:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments

I'm curious why none of you commented on the Near South Community Plan during all the years it was under preparation, why none of you decried the height limits at the Plan Commission meeting where they were adopted, only 18 months before Frankel & Giles proposed ignoring them. There are plenty of places in the South Loop where they can build 450-foot buildings. Or they could get their handmaidens, the Near South Planning Board and GSLA, to request the city amend the plan to account for "changed conditions"--when the only thing that's really changed is that they can sell condos faster than they thought they could in 2003.

If I had known about the development of the plan and the idiocy that's written within it, you can bet you ass I'd have said something. But seeing as the city was at least smart enough to adopt only a suggested plan, I, along with other formers will give those suggestions now...:)

And I'd agree with you that there are plenty of places in the South Loop for a 450-foot building, this site just happens to be one of them. Things are being amended. They are just doing it project bu project instead of the whole thing at once. I bet you this though, if the Near South Planning Board and GSLA, requested the city to amend the plan to account for "changed conditions", you and many others in the South Loop would be up in arms because of the currently approved suggested plan was adopted. It would be no different.

Latoso

April 27th, 2007, 08:26 AM

Or not so much:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments

Yes, it does indeed say intended. But that doesn't mean anything concrete or legally binding. I think you misunderstand the meaning of intended. Here's a little something to help you out. When I go to the store to buy a MegaMillions Lottery ticket, I fully intend to win. Unfortunately, my intending to win hasn't made it so. :(

mohammed wong

April 27th, 2007, 03:49 PM

ErmDiego

April 27th, 2007, 09:21 PM

If I had known about the development of the plan and the idiocy that's written within it, you can bet you ass I'd have said something. But seeing as the city was at least smart enough to adopt only a suggested plan, I, along with other formers will give those suggestions now...:)

And I'd agree with you that there are plenty of places in the South Loop for a 450-foot building, this site just happens to be one of them. Things are being amended. They are just doing it project bu project instead of the whole thing at once. I bet you this though, if the Near South Planning Board and GSLA, requested the city to amend the plan to account for "changed conditions", you and many others in the South Loop would be up in arms because of the currently approved suggested plan was adopted. It would be no different.

On the flip side, while trying to place a monster in the middle of a residential neighorhood, a similar failing could be said for the lack of attention on Cermak where the goal was to create taller buildings, per the Central Plan. The Lexington is a great start to the goal of building tall on Cermak to frame the South Loop, but then why continue with a cheap 1 floor structure across the street on Northwest corner of Cermak & Michigan (think it is some small shops called "Convention" something) in addition to the small commerical spaces on the South Side of Cermak with the dry-cleaners, chicken-shack etc. Suddenly the goal of the plan is not worthy?

Your comment on they are doing it project by project is scary as is the cry here to leave planning and development to DPD officials. Besides the documented corruption issues, the DPD head and the Chairwoman of the Plan Commission admitted they fail frequently in reviewing how each project fits within each neighborhood or area. (Sun Times - Roeder 2006) A benefit of the plans was to avoid the project by project "NIMBY" attitude thou claim is prevelent of residents.

robituss

April 27th, 2007, 09:48 PM

If I had known about the development of the plan and the idiocy that's written within it, you can bet you ass I'd have said something. But seeing as the city was at least smart enough to adopt only a suggested plan, I, along with other formers will give those suggestions now...:)

Sounds like Ermdiego and Mr Downtown may soon be making plans to move to the west loop and join up with WLCO. Their brothers from different mothers. ;)

But really, we're arguing semantics now but I think its pretty clear that the language used is not concrete enough to warrant strict adherence to any plan. If it did, it would say "shall" and "will" and "must", like contract docs and specs do. And keep in mind, this is what neighborhood plans are supposed to do, merely provide a guide. They allow room for the economic conditions to change, since obviously no one can predict frequent market changes (if we could we would all be rich). If development is far faster than anticipated, why not take advantage? Only selfish nimby's would disagree.

Case by case, yes, I think the city will occasionaly miss some projects, but if it means allowing room for grander ones that will improve the density and add livelihood to the neighborhood, I think most should be willing to live with that. Anyway, no one here is complaining about the small stores on cermak (at least to the extent that ermdiego and Mr DT are arguing against this project anyways).

BVictor1

April 27th, 2007, 11:25 PM

On the flip side, while trying to place a monster in the middle of a residential neighorhood, a similar failing could be said for the lack of attention on Cermak where the goal was to create taller buildings, per the Central Plan. The Lexington is a great start to the goal of building tall on Cermak to frame the South Loop, but then why continue with a cheap 1 floor structure across the street on Northwest corner of Cermak & Michigan (think it is some small shops called "Convention" something) in addition to the small commerical spaces on the South Side of Cermak with the dry-cleaners, chicken-shack etc. Suddenly the goal of the plan is not worthy?

What's good about the cheap 1-story structure is that it's easily torn down if a better opportunity presents itself in the future. There's still plenty of room of Cermack for highrises. Lexington Park is a start, then there's the building that will go around the corner from it on Indiana, then there's the potential for another McCormick Place Hotel.

High Life on LSD

April 27th, 2007, 11:38 PM

I am not sure what Ermdingo is so bent up about. The streets that run closer to Lakeshore Drive are built up with tall buildings all the way to Rogers Park. Why should this area be any different? One of the most amazing things about the City of Chicago is getting closer and closer via boat on Lake Michigan. When you see that wall of building from a distance, it blows away those cheesy Southern California views from a hilltop. It's unfortunate that everyone doesn't get a chance to see it (outside of a picture at some tourist shop). These two towers will do so much to add to that view, I can't believe that some people can be so selfish and complain about traffic and shade. You don’t love the City and it’s beauty, you just love your own home. Seriously, there is nice place called Inverness, IL, which is near where I grew up. It’s been there for over a hundred years designed specifically, for people like you. Please leave, it’s the best thing for everyone.

ErmDiego

April 28th, 2007, 09:01 AM

:bash: I am not sure what Ermdingo is so bent up about. The streets that run closer to Lakeshore Drive are built up with tall buildings all the way to Rogers Park. Why should this area be any different? One of the most amazing things about the City of Chicago is getting closer and closer via boat on Lake Michigan. When you see that wall of building from a distance, it blows away those cheesy Southern California views from a hilltop. It's unfortunate that everyone doesn't get a chance to see it (outside of a picture at some tourist shop). These two towers will do so much to add to that view, I can't believe that some people can be so selfish and complain about traffic and shade. You don’t love the City and it’s beauty, you just love your own home. Seriously, there is nice place called Inverness, IL, which is near where I grew up. It’s been there for over a hundred years designed specifically, for people like you. Please leave, it’s the best thing for everyone.

By the time, if these things ever get built, they will be blocked from the lake view by Central Stations next phase to be announced later this year. 7-9+ Towers and 300-400 Townhomes over the train track air rights from about
14th Street to just past 18th.

As to the area you speak of, Rogers Park, etc. ok, snicker, You go ahead and live in Rogers Park, it may be about your speed.

ErmDiego

April 28th, 2007, 09:03 AM

What's good about the cheap 1-story structure is that it's easily torn down if a better opportunity presents itself in the future. There's still plenty of room of Cermack for highrises. Lexington Park is a start, then there's the building that will go around the corner from it on Indiana, then there's the potential for another McCormick Place Hotel.

I think, for some reason it will be a tough sell at the prices I have seen, and with the area inventory.

Loopy

April 28th, 2007, 10:13 AM

hoju

April 28th, 2007, 12:09 PM

As to the area you speak of, Rogers Park, etc. ok, snicker, You go ahead and live in Rogers Park, it may be about your speed.

What the hell are you snickering about? You got some problem with Rogers Park? Or are you just revealing more of your prentenious attitude and general ignorance of our city?

-edit- Apologies for going off topic.

trvlr70

April 28th, 2007, 05:11 PM

This thread has been hijacked long enough with endless bullshit discussions that have very little to do with X/O. It's boring and rude.

Let's get this back on track, please.

spyguy

April 28th, 2007, 07:30 PM

^Yes I agree. It seems obvious that no one is going to change their mind so what is the point of going back and forth over these things?

BVictor1

April 28th, 2007, 08:22 PM

^Yes I agree. It seems obvious that no one is going to change their mind so what is the point of going back and forth over these things?

Agreed.

X/O will be built and hopefully other tall buildings in the area. But I must say that It's been interesting to learn peoples ignorance about other parts of the city.

Loopy

April 30th, 2007, 07:37 PM

spyguy

May 5th, 2007, 06:31 PM

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/0507/Newsstory0507f.htm

PDNA wants X/O investigation: planning department refuses

By Sarah Severson

The Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance (PDNA) has filed a procedural challenge with the City’s Department of Planning and Development asking for clarification on aspects of the approved X/O luxury highrise project at 1700 S. Prairie Ave, which would erect one tower of 45 stories and another 33 stories high. The City, however, found no reason for an investigation and nothing inappropriate in the project’s approval process.

“We’re concerned with the procedural aspect of the approval,” said Jeff Ayersman, PDNA treasurer. “We believe there was not full disclosure on the application and that the project does not fit with the City’s plan for the Near South Loop.”

Tina Feldstein, PDNA president, said the application did not provide full financial disclosure or mention that Keith Giles, a Frankel & Giles and Kargil Development principal, was an officer on the Near South Planning Board (NSPB), one of the organizations that approved the project. She also alleged neighborhood residents did not receive notice before public meetings.

“We feel it was not due diligence in the process of approving the project,” Feldstein explained. “They did not disclose that the developer had donated money to every organization that gave community support.”

Giles responded by noting the financial part of the application contained a misprint that has since been cleared up and insisting he has been open about his involvement with the NSPB and a one-time donation to the Greater South Loop Association (GSLA). He added that the developer held multiple meetings with individual neighbors and community groups about the project.

“The public and community review of this project took place over a period of over six months, which allowed comment and community input from many, many different sources," Giles wrote in a letter that was read aloud at the last GSLA meeting. "The result was a project that was approved without significant objection.”

Giles recently met with the PDNA to discuss its concerns.

“We opened up a formal dialogue with the hope and expectation to come up with some compromises on development ideas,” Giles said. “We made it clear that we’re not ignoring them, and we’re concerned that they don’t like the project.”

Giles said the towers' design will not change, as more than half the units in the first tower already are sold, but he is willing to redesign the townhouses and streetscape.

“We’re including a 10,000 square foot park, replacing street lights, redoing sidewalks, and contributed $700,000 to the Glessner House,” Giles said. “We’re trying to reconcile with the group and are willing to do some more.”

Despite PDNA’s opposition, Giles is encouraged by the number of sales to date.

“The public at large has embraced the project, and it’s been very successful from a marketing and sales standpoint,” he said.

Giles disagreed with the PDNA’s challenge to the project’s applications, stating the developer always has focused on full disclosure.

“The group is looking for a way to overturn the decision from Planning and Development,” he said. “I’m disappointed that no one has focused on the world-renowned architecture and that this will be an environmentally responsible building. We’re doing more than anyone has done in the South Loop.”

The City Council approved the X/O Towers last fall. The project is in the construction documents stage, with final plans being created. Giles said the developers expect to have permits this summer and break ground next year.

The City’s Department of Planning and Development (DPD) said that, although the PDNA objects to having two tall towers near the historic Prairie District, the property actually sits just north of the district and fits into the City’s plan for the South Loop for several reasons. For example, according to Constance Buscemi, DPD spokesperson, the X/O development will be down the block from other new—and taller—buildings, the corner will provide open space that is accessible and available to the community, the project will provide parking as required, and the development will be set back behind townhouses in accordance with the South Loop plan.

“Development means that you mix old with new—a mix of heights and density,” Buscemi said. “If you never developed anything, it would stay the same. You do not preserve a historic district by creating new buildings that mimic it but [by constructing ones] that are different so you don’t confuse historic buildings with recently erected buildings.”

Buscemi confirmed the developers completed the approval process in the correct manner by holding community meetings and going through the City Planning Commission and Zoning Committee, where the public can comment.

“It was an open, public process judged on its merits, and it was approved,” Buscemi said. “There was nothing inappropriate and no reason for investigation.”

Newly elected 2nd Ward alderman Bob Fioretti said he plans to review all the documents related the project, and he wants to work with Planning and Development, neighborhood organizations, and the developer to find resolutions among all parties.

“I will review what has already taken place and then form an opinion on the matter,” he said.

trvlr70

May 5th, 2007, 08:45 PM

I would not fight a redesign of those terrible townhouses. Good news.

Chi_Coruscant

May 5th, 2007, 09:52 PM

I don't care what they do with townhouses as long as they don't touch the two high-rise towers.

Chi649

May 15th, 2007, 04:30 AM

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/5980/dsc07757aj1.jpg

http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/7513/dsc07758la0.jpg

robituss

May 15th, 2007, 05:41 AM

Latoso

May 15th, 2007, 10:56 AM

The building that's currently there doesn't fit in with the historic mansions on the adjacent block.

asauterChicago

May 16th, 2007, 04:08 PM

^Oh yeah, that building there so fits in with the character of the historic Prairie ave district. What a loss that will be.....

Haha, cant wait till I see this monstrosity getting built when im taking the bus everyday; as its filling the sky and casting shadows on the townhomes below.

eh, it's called progress... if chicago built only buildings that fit in the character of the neighborhood before, then we would have a very flat city of log cabin(ish) type buildings...

Loopy

May 16th, 2007, 04:57 PM

robituss

May 16th, 2007, 05:53 PM

Well, i was totally being sarcastic. i dont think the existing crappy building fits in at all, which is why its funny those groups are protesting X/O's radical design so much saying it also "doesn't fit in". As if the existing one does. Im looking forward to X/O taking its place anyway.

Chicagotom

May 16th, 2007, 06:29 PM

Have you noticed that they say nothing of that crap State of IL building that sits on Indiana and overlooks the Clarke House. I guarentee you when the State sell that building and a developer makes a proposal the NIMBY strokes will fight for keeping the State building vs a high rise.

Mr Downtown

May 16th, 2007, 06:34 PM

asauterChicago

May 16th, 2007, 06:35 PM

You're brilliant! Redesign the townhomes as log cabins, or perhaps a log fortress.

It will go great with their new monument.

Personally, I think they should be building the Chicago Spire out of logs. Imagine, 100+ floors of log cabin bliss... We can build a fortress on top of it and shoot canons at NIMBYs, awesome... :banana:

Chicagotom

May 16th, 2007, 07:00 PM

That’s a funny take on the situation: (The experts who have considered that question over the past few years felt it should be a townhouse district, and the city's official planning agency adopted a plan explicitly saying so.)

Because I think that what the "City" is approving is vibrant mix of Town homes, Mid-rise and High-rises and Existing Lofts that ultimately honors the past and develops a future that makes best use decisions for limited sites along lakefront.

Additionally, I don't believe that a town home only development strategy for the Prairie District will provide the critical mass needed to draw retail and essential service to the area. Density will. I completely agree that there is a historic character to the neighborhood that should be protected. But as in Printers Row the reach of their steadfast obstructionist approach has hamstringed their ability to sustain and draw retail.

slooparch

May 16th, 2007, 07:04 PM

I don't believe PDNA is asking to preserve the existing building. I think they want new buildings to comply with the adopted neighborhood plan and to respect the nearby landmark district.

The Prairie District is perhaps the most redeveloped part of Chicago. Early small dwellings gave way to Gilded Age mansions, then most of those gave way to auto showrooms and light industrial buildings. Now that it's being redeveloped yet again, the question arises: what sort of character should it have? The experts who have considered that question over the past few years felt it should be a townhouse district, and the city's official planning agency adopted a plan explicitly saying so.

Please inform us, "Mr. Downtown", what experts and where does it state that this should be a "townhouse district"?

Meanwhile, all of you should plan on attending this meeting.....I can guarantee all of you that the NIMBYS will be well represented:
Meeting
Saturday, May 19th
9:15 - 11:30 a.m.
Weather Mark Tavern,
1503 S. Michigan Ave.

PRELIMINARY AGENDA:
9:15-9:30-Meet and Greet
-New Business Spotlight - Weather Mark Tavern
-Bash on Wabash Update
-Meet Aldermen-elect Dowell and Fioretti
-Hear about the new McCormick Place Expansion
-New Development Panel Discussion - Topics will include planned developments vs. build by right, zoning, near south community plan and aldermanic powers. Presenters will include Benet Haller, Director of Urban Planning from the City of Chicago's Department of Planning, and other experts in the fields of zoning, urban planning and government.
-Rokas International will introduce their proposed 37 story development on 20th and Prairie.
Refreshments will be served.

Mr Downtown

May 16th, 2007, 09:13 PM

what experts and where does it state that this should be a "townhouse district"?

Well, there's a full page of acknowledgements in the Near South Community Plan, but primarily the consultants from Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen & Payne.

The phrase "townhouse district" is my sloppy shorthand. What the Plan specifies is:

residential uses preferred
10 foot-setback,
building materials and styles "compatible with the historic character of Prairie Avenue," and a
height limit of 60 feet along Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th.

slooparch

May 16th, 2007, 09:37 PM

sloppy indeed

The Urban Politician

May 17th, 2007, 05:47 AM

Well, there's a full page of acknowledgements in the Near South Community Plan, but primarily the consultants from Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen & Payne.

The phrase "townhouse district" is my sloppy shorthand. What the Plan specifies is:

residential uses preferred
10 foot-setback,
building materials and styles "compatible with the historic character of Prairie Avenue," and a
height limit of 60 feet along Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th.

^ Ugh... Not this again. Why on earth must we insist on forcing developers to build things that look "historic" just because many newly built structures next to them look like a cheaper version of the actual "historic" structures that originally existed in the area? In other words, modernism is out? Do we really have to follow this silly formula? I for one don't care much for it.

urban_addict

May 17th, 2007, 07:53 AM

I would not fight a redesign of those terrible townhouses. Good news.

I agree! The only things wrong with this development are those UGLY townhouses! I say all glass and steel from the base to the sky!

Mr Downtown

May 17th, 2007, 03:15 PM

Why on earth must we insist on forcing developers to build things that look "historic". . .? In other words, modernism is out?

No, modernism is fine, around the corner. I think the intent was to have new townhouses along Prairie to complement and, in some sense, reconstruct the "street of millionaires." The stuff on the northeast corner of 18th/Prairie turned out rather clumsy, but the new mansions in the 1800 block are very well done, and will be a much-admired streetscape in future years.

Chicago has no shortage of places to build tall, or to build modern.

The Urban Politician

May 17th, 2007, 04:01 PM

No, modernism is fine, around the corner. I think the intent was to have new townhouses along Prairie to complement and, in some sense, reconstruct the "street of millionaires." The stuff on the northeast corner of 18th/Prairie turned out rather clumsy, but the new mansions in the 1800 block are very well done, and will be a much-admired streetscape in future years.

^ Granted. However, I truly think that this formula of putting neo-historic next to true historic is completely off. In my own viewing experience, the best way to complement an existing (or well done neo-) historic structure is to build something of quality contemporary design next to it. Also, 90% of PoMo is complete garbage, so why must we promote it? Look at River North--do those PoMo buildings look purty next to those remaining historic mansions, etc that still exist there? A resounding NO. Do they "tip their hat" to the historic architecture around them (a concept that I assume is being promoted in the Prarie District)? No.

Chicago has no shortage of places to build tall, or to build modern.

^ Right, but wrong. For now, it doesn't, but if every community organization becomes as headstrong as the ones in the south loop waving their 'New South Community Plan' in the air like it's the Bible, then Chicago certainly will hit a wall with highrise development. Listen, it is not fair for you to say "hey, don't build highrises here, build them over there instead", pointing to another already more densely built up and expensive neighborhood. To designate that every building south of Congress (half of the potentially developable downtown, if you really think about it) should be under so-and-so feet is completely unreasonable and won't stand the test of time. Even SOAR has come to accept that tall highrises will get built in most of those remaining vacant lots.

They may not be perfect, but I'm actually beginning to respect that organization, and I'm hoping that the south loop people will take a page from their book or else they'll keep being at odds with reality.

ErmDiego

May 17th, 2007, 05:44 PM

^ Ugh... Not this again. Why on earth must we insist on forcing developers to build things that look "historic" just because many newly built structures next to them look like a cheaper version of the actual "historic" structures that originally existed in the area? In other words, modernism is out? Do we really have to follow this silly formula? I for one don't care much for it.

If you have such issue with the Prairie District Townhomes design, why do you not take it out on the city who allowed it (DPD), and the developers (Warman, Barr, Dipiazza) who continue to build the style in the South Loop? Many of the same developers building the junk high rises. These guys were not forced to do anything...

The difference with the Mansions and Townhomes at the Commonwealth (across from the Woman's park) is that the city spent more time up front defining the requirements and look before construction (part of Historic District). This took 4-5 years from design to construction completion to get complete (from 2001 to 2006). Warman and Barr (Legacy) did design, sales, and construction of Prairie District Lofts in about 2 years - the Legacy development required little city review or input. They broke ground 6 months after the sales opening...it was their rush that was the problem.

ErmDiego

May 17th, 2007, 05:51 PM

^ Right, but wrong. For now, it doesn't, but if every community organization becomes as headstrong as the ones in the south loop waving their 'New South Community Plan' in the air like it's the Bible, then Chicago certainly will hit a wall with highrise development. Listen, it is not fair for you to say "hey, don't build highrises here, build them over there instead", pointing to another already more densely built up and expensive neighborhood. To designate that every building south of Congress (half of the potentially developable downtown, if you really think about it) should be under so-and-so feet is completely unreasonable and won't stand the test of time. Even SOAR has come to accept that tall highrises will get built in most of those remaining vacant lots.

They may not be perfect, but I'm actually beginning to respect that organization, and I'm hoping that the south loop people will take a page from their book or else they'll keep being at odds with reality.

1. "Odds with Reality" - this coming from a guy who lives in New Jersey...rock
on Bon Jovi.

2. "Hit the Wall" - What's wrong with taking more time for the DPD, City,
and residents taking time up front to review the design and infrastructure
impacts correctly up front? DPD and Lori Heally have publically admitted
it is not reviewing each design properly, or individually to seehow it fits
in the area. These quick approvals, and every "Tom, Dick, and Harry"
thinking they are developers, hiding behind an LLC is leading to the poor
design and poor construction quality.

robituss

May 17th, 2007, 06:05 PM

I personally dont have any problems with the townhomes, except maybe that theres a ton of them. I would prefer the south loop to have a good mix of housing styles, townhomes, lofts, mid-rises and of course, hi-rises. People have to remember though, that the south loop is basically a part of downtown Chicago, and therefore should be as dense as neighborhoods north along the lake; like gold coast or east lakeview, or even streeterville. Clearly south loop has a ways to go in this regard, so i dont know what people are so afraid of - especially with X/O. I agree with TUP, that Chicago has tons of places for development, but may be limited by backward thinking orgs (who only have their own personal agendas in mind). If they continue to have their way, we will stunt the growth of the central area. Shit look at what WLCO has done to the west loop, it reminds me of DC not chicago.

Anyways, something bold like the X/O will really stand out in design and height (which is great to me), but I honestly think they could go even higher on S Michigan, and make a 1000' eventually (when the demand is there) to balance out the hancock to the north. And why not? Theres still tons of space for development, and room for the area to grow. The south loop should balance out whats north of grant park. People need to stop being so afraid, and so goddamn selfish. There is no reason for it, the entire city will benefit. And so, if it really doesnt allow for this growth as some suggest, its probably time to take the near South community plan back to the drawing board .

ErmDiego

May 17th, 2007, 08:29 PM

People need to stop being so afraid, and so goddamn selfish. There is no reason for it, the entire city will benefit. And so, if it really doesnt allow for this growth as some suggest, its probably time to take the near South community plan back to the drawing board .

1. Selfish? How so? If the developer wants to build and determine zoning
(many of the zonign changes are driven by developers) to increase sales
and profits, how is it that the residents are being selfish?

2. If DPD, the residents, and developers provided the input to the Near
South Community Plan, and a few 'buster' developers are trying to skirt
around it, why do we need to go back to the drawing board? It was
completed in 2003.

I personally dont have any problems with the townhomes, except maybe that theres a ton of them. I would prefer the south loop to have a good mix of housing styles, townhomes, lofts, mid-rises and of course, hi-rises. People have to remember though, that the south loop is basically a part of downtown Chicago, and therefore should be as dense as neighborhoods north along the lake; like gold coast or east lakeview, or even streeterville."
1. The South Loop is one of the few places to have mix. If anything,
there is more than enough highrises compared to any of the locations
on your list. Go through the list of Lofts, mid-rises, high-rises, super
high-rises, high-end homes, townhomes, rental, etc. None of those areas
is close to the South Loop diversity Mix. Why does no one complain about
the other neighborhoods mix? Why isn't the South Loop allowed to
develop it's distinct Districts like the Nrar North with Gold Coast,
Streeterville, etc. Should we tear down Astor street in favor of glass
towers?

2. Density and development are ideal in a fantasy world, however in this
case, with City Services, DPD corruption, Alderman corruption, and some
of these Developers in question (Giles, Warman, Barr) leaving multi-million
dollar problems for buyers in the South Loop, the reality is more problems
and poor development, with money wasted on lawyers instead of
infrastrucure. Also, Big-Box retail phylosophy has sadly changed the
neighborhood business mix.

3. The mix while desirable is not a requirement. The issue at hand is
where you place some of these gigantic monsters - would you place
a high rise in the middle of Dearborn Park? Many developers have been
respective of the NEar South Community Plan, despite "right to build",
yet the and marginal developers are the problem. Case in point, X/O
developer Kargil/Giles talks about committment to community, yet while
dropping a 45 story building in a low-rise area, they are quitely converting
a Loft building nextdoor where they intend to take away all of the
parking and move 80 buyers to the streets. Great density improvement
idea, no?

4. Do you not think that many people settled in the South Loop because
they did not want the density of Lakeview or Gold Coast? It seems many
of the complaints about restaurant's and services, and the desire for
density come from South Loop outsiders...many of the South Loopers,
while they appreciate new service businesses, have learned to appreciate
what we do have, and learn to live with what we do not.

Loopy

May 17th, 2007, 09:25 PM

ErmDiego

May 17th, 2007, 09:58 PM

I moved to the South Loop because I could see it's potential. Now all I'm seeing is bunch of selfish bastards squander that potential in order to ameliorate some imaginary "congestion".

Ditto...been here since 1997. So my prospective is better planning as the congestion has gotten here. Imaginary? Just take a look at the State & Roosevelt area every day for and example of what is happening. Where is it written that the manifest destiny of the South Loop has to match the potential of the Near North or North side...many people moved to get away from that...let the South Loop be the South Loop.

Sir Isaac Newton

May 17th, 2007, 10:33 PM

Ditto...been here since 1997. So my prospective is better planning as the congestion has gotten here. Imaginary? Just take a look at the State & Roosevelt area every day for and example of what is happening. Where is it written that the manifest destiny of the South Loop has to match the potential of the Near North or North side...many people moved to get away from that...let the South Loop be the South Loop.

I moved here for the South Loop's potential too, as well as to be a part of a neighborhood and see it grow over time.

There are probably a few people who moved to the South Loop, a while back, to live in a "quiet" area that lacked any vibrancy. The majority of people have moved to the South Loop as they see it as an increasingly exciting place to live in. And this majority will become decidedly more so when construction is completed on the Columbian, Vision, 1720 South Michigan, Vetro, Printers Corner, Burnham Pointe, and numerous other high-rises in the South Loop under development, as they are moving to the South Loop because they want to live in an exciting, vibrant neighborhood.

If there are South Loop residents who want peace and quiet, there's nothing stopping them from moving to the burbs, or at least a neigbhorhood much further away from downtown (and sell their home at a nice profit as all of the development going up around them that they complain about has greatly increased their property values over the last few years). However, the South Loop is pretty much part of Chicago downtown. While I'm not saying that the South Loop should be a mirror counterpart to River North in any way, given that it is so close to the Loop, it should be very dense. There are only so many areas where there can be extremely dense neighborhoods full of high-rises (pretty much anything within 2 (maybe 3 tops) miles of the Loop). If someone wants to be in a neighborhood that is a little more low-key and less dense, they can live in any one of the neighborhoods that is not within a 2-3 mile radius of the Loop, which includes roughly 90% of the city limits.

Loopy

May 17th, 2007, 11:10 PM

ErmDiego

May 17th, 2007, 11:57 PM

:ohno: I should add that my wife and I moved here without any vehicles either. Yep, car-free. The South Loop is a nexus of transport opportunities, and I have never regretted not having wheels. So, the people that are complaining about the traffic are just part of the problem, they're not innocent victims.

We could talk about how crappy the Chicago CTA is relative to other major World Class or North American cities, and come to agreement. But to say there is a nexus is really looking at relative crapiness in general. For being "downtown", as you claim, describing it as a nexus may be overstating it. It's one thing to be bad now, but it is even worse when the improvements are not even in the books to be done in the future. No connections south of Roosevelt on the Orange, Green, Red is not a nexus; no Lakefront transit is not a nexus.

The city should toss the affordable housing fund donations, and put the money into funding additional transit improvements. As well, for all the money going into the Near South TIF, you may want to see (Chicago CIP) how much is actually being put back into the South Loop. The money is ending up in West Loop and South of I-55.

Sir Isaac Newton

May 18th, 2007, 12:22 AM

Chicago's public transportation is much better than most cities in the United States (although worldwide is a different story), but I will agree with you in that making improvements to the El should be a top priority for Chicago. If and when these improvements are made (and if and when the Circle Line gets built), Chicago mass transit will be better than almost all cities in the US.

Loopy

May 18th, 2007, 01:38 AM

Cullertonian

May 18th, 2007, 07:52 AM

ErmDiego

May 18th, 2007, 02:02 PM

PDNA (and Erm's) points about holding developers accountable for what they build: good.

Erm's offshoot of the above view that the entire district should be filled with townhouses: bad. The best thing that could happen to this neighborhood is for the parking lots (Prairie District Lofts included) to be replaced with a mix of townhomes, mid-rise- and high-rise development. I personally don't want to have to go a mile and a half to Jewel forever, so bring on the density and bring on the commercial development.

On the South Loop transit side of things, the adding El stops would be a great improvement. I'm sure that Olympic planning would include improvement to the South Loop's rain infrastructure. On the other hand, the South Loop benefits from excellent bus services. 5 different bus routs run on Michigan during rush hour, and our formerly industry-friendly block layout means the buses are actually faster than walking (take that, North Side).

Never have I advocated all Townhomes...an appropriate mix & location to maintain the "character district" per the 2003 Central Plan is what I advocate, especially if they link up North & South Prairie at 16th street eventually. But come on, 45 stories on Prairie? How dumb and illogical. Every other developer with projects in the Distric stayed at the 285 feet recommendation.

That developer could have put it on Indiana, Calumet, or Cermak (also per the plan recommendation), and now one would have said a peep about the height, even though it is more than the recommended 285 feet for the remainder of the District.

The funny thing is that the city is doing everything opposite as opposed to the 1350 S. Lake Shore Drive court case a few years back (City vs. LAS), where they argued it was important to protect "character" despite developer zoning rights, and even conceded "community plans" are an important tool to accomplishing.

And despite the high rises, you will not see a Jewel type place built in any of these, so keep dreaming. The only chance is at Cermak.

As to developer quality, why is developer history of quality not part of the permit review process? Why should developers be given more permits if they bilk existing developments out of money? Why can't the city require a an escrow for 2 years after closing to keep these developers from disloving the LLC, even when the work is not finished?

As to the CTA, how sad is it when, gas is hovering at $3.50 per gallon, and
your here more dire news about the CTA today...?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-cta_18may18,1,149373.story?coll=chi-news-hed

The Urban Politician

May 18th, 2007, 07:23 PM

1. "Odds with Reality" - this coming from a guy who lives in New Jersey...rock
on Bon Jovi.

^ Getting petty, are we? Oh, and I live in Manhattan--big difference. When you stop using your car for a year then we can talk. Until then, keep pretending you know what living in a city means

2. "Hit the Wall" - What's wrong with taking more time for the DPD, City,
and residents taking time up front to review the design and infrastructure
impacts correctly up front? DPD and Lori Heally have publically admitted
it is not reviewing each design properly, or individually to seehow it fits
in the area. These quick approvals, and every "Tom, Dick, and Harry"
thinking they are developers, hiding behind an LLC is leading to the poor
design and poor construction quality.

^ Another non point. You haven't addressed anything I've said, except resort to name-calling. I'll be around when you're ready to explain why the south loop is entitled to being a bastion of lower density amidst future market forces.

RavenWolf55

May 22nd, 2007, 01:00 AM

I'd love to see the townhouses be given a futuristic look.

Chitowner245

May 22nd, 2007, 07:39 AM

ErmDiego

May 22nd, 2007, 02:45 PM

ERM, look up "urban metropolis" or "city" in the dictionary. I respect your concerns about the community, but the city is THE one place where high density development is supposed to occur. Look at what a mess has been made by the suburbs being so damn huge (more people driving/ polluting, traffic nightmares, and land that could be home to wildlife and farms- ethanol anyone?- has been developed because of people not liking "high density.") .

Chitown, I agree with most of your point and respect your comments, but my issue is not about the density, but about the establishment and protection of the "character districts", which is one of the pillers of the Chicago Central Plan. The density is going to be there regardless, and the Prairie District was one of the few locations in the city consistently called out in the plans for protection as a "character district" surrounding a "Landmark District". Much of this was designed in mind to create a collection point (via foot traffic) for surrounding neighborhood residents and guests for escape and greenspace. The density would surround the district; otherwise, with McCormick Place to the south, Michigan Ave to the west, Central Station to the North, you give no respite to residents.

All it takes is walking around one Saturday to see why the area is different than Central Station, or other parts of the South Loop, but complimentary and an extension.

From the Central Plan "...the scale and density of new development will require special attention to the effect on the neighborhood, district, and Central Area. The most signiificant buildings must be protected, the distinctive identity of special areas maintained,....Key Recommendations: Preservation and sensitive infill in the Prairie Avenue District respecting the scale and character of this important Landmark District" (this is the entire District) This doesn't even include the more targeted comments in the Near South Community Plan.

For those who say the market forces have changed, and are calling for it, that's catagorly false and misleading. The success of the development in this area is consistent with the plan, and everthing already planned or on the books is predicted or projected in the plan for the Prairie District (Prairie Point, 2100, Museum Park Tower I & II, Lexington), except X/O. All one has to do is look at the 2003 Central Plan renderings to see these buildings predicted since 2000. If eveyone is so concerned about density, where is the outcry for construction of some of the smaller stuff on Cermak, when this is supposed to be high-rise city.

The Urban Politician

May 22nd, 2007, 04:57 PM

For those who say the market forces have changed, and are calling for it, that's catagorly false and misleading. The success of the development in this area is consistent with the plan, and everthing already planned or on the books is predicted or projected in the plan for the Prairie District (Prairie Point, 2100, Museum Park Tower I & II, Lexington), except X/O. All one has to do is look at the 2003 Central Plan renderings to see these buildings predicted since 2000. If eveyone is so concerned about density, where is the outcry for construction of some of the smaller stuff on Cermak, when this is supposed to be high-rise city.

^ Small stuff can be built an area that will eventually warm up and be replaced with denser projects--why should there be any uproar? But this "opposition" to dense projects can often start out rational but become a finger pointing frenzy when in the wrong hands. I see a huge slippery slope here, and I see no reason to trust these matters in anyone else's hands except the Dept of Planning & Development, who does this for a living and has the economic interests of the city as a whole at heart.

ErmDiego

May 22nd, 2007, 06:04 PM

^ Small stuff can be built an area that will eventually warm up and be replaced with denser projects--why should there be any uproar? But this "opposition" to dense projects can often start out rational but become a finger pointing frenzy when in the wrong hands. I see a huge slippery slope here, and I see no reason to trust these matters in anyone else's hands except the Dept of Planning & Development, who does this for a living and has the economic interests of the city as a whole at heart.

Wow, ye with Blind faith in the New York Model...I guess you must not have been reading all of the recent stories about some of the DPD payoff's including inspectors, the Sun-Times stories about Developers taking city money (Rezko & others) and delivering crap, etc.. As long as Daley is in charge, how can you claim DPD will not be used like a cheap hooker? Throw in some of Lori Healey's strange antics, and a Plan Commission that is allowed to accept donations from developers, and the crux of the problem is corruption.

As well, quite nieve that "the corporate headquarters" (DPD) can layout and execute the plan, with little or no support from "the field or project locations" (i.e. the Wards). The crux of the problem is DPD is out of step with reality, and does not bother to go and check the work they approve...hence why the issue with shotty work, and disappearing LLC's.

wrabbit

May 22nd, 2007, 07:00 PM

.....From the Central Plan "...the scale and density of new development will require special attention to the effect on the neighborhood, district, and Central Area. The most signiificant buildings must be protected, the distinctive identity of special areas maintained,....Key Recommendations: Preservation and sensitive infill in the Prairie Avenue District respecting the scale and character of this important Landmark District" (this is the entire District)

The new Spertus annex on the Michigan Ave cliff is a great example of how a contemporary, forward looking building can maintain the distinctive identity of an important, landmarked district through massing, scale & other formal considerations (and actually enhance the older buildings around it!) without resorting to the kind of inacurate, non-historical pastiche that unimaginative developers currently peddle as historical & respectful.

True historical recontruction can be fine if it is done well (the board has discussed this previously in another project forum - old castles in Japan, entire bombed-out villages is Europe have been rebuilt this way); Pricey though, because there aren't many skilled craftsmen (eg, stonecutters) left, and the companies that provide all of those little architectural flourishes & ornaments that we so like today are long gone. However, these bulky, squat developer homes aren't at all in this category.

I think of those strange little "Renaissance Faires" wherein Bob & Sally put on polyester robes, brandish some plastic swords & toss in some "thees" & "thous" (for authenticity) - the whole experience is bogus, historically inaccurate & really just a little sad, dippy & depressing.

ErmDiego

May 22nd, 2007, 07:21 PM

The new Spertus annex on the Michigan Ave cliff is a great example of how a contemporary, forward looking building can maintain the distinctive identity of an important, landmarked district through massing, scale & other formal considerations (and actually enhance the older buildings around it!) without resorting to the kind of inacurate, non-historical pastiche that unimaginative developers currently peddle as historical & respectful.

True historical recontruction can be fine if it is done well (the board has discussed this previously in another project forum - old castles in Japan, entire bombed-out villages is Europe have been rebuilt this way); Pricey though, because there aren't many skilled craftsmen (eg, stonecutters) left, and the companies that provide all of those little architectural flourishes & ornaments that we so like today are long gone. However, these bulky, squat developer homes aren't at all in this category.

I think of those strange little "Renaissance Faires" wherein Bob & Sally put on polyester robes, brandish some plastic swords & toss in some "thees" & "thous" (for authenticity) - the whole experience is bogus, historically inaccurate & really just a little sad, dippy & depressing.

Apples and Oranges...Spertus is not residential, nor are most of the buildings around it. Also the building scale of Spertus is not outlandish and in generally in context with the area. What if the Spertus was 90 stories, would you say the same thing?

I like Spertus, but if you were to build 20 in the same area, you would do what planners and developers have essentially done to destroy MAG Mile farther North.

wrabbit

May 22nd, 2007, 07:50 PM

Apples and Oranges...Spertus is not residential, nor are most of the buildings around it.

Irrelevant, unless one wants to keep out new residents - alas, this is an old Chicago pecadillo.

Also the building scale of Spertus is not outlandish and in generally in context with the area.

Exactly - modernism can be contextual, too.

What if the Spertus was 90 stories, would you say the same thing?

Oh, probably not on that part of the cliff face, but hard to say w/o seeing a proposal. Plenty of towers in town I wouldn't care to see anywhere

I like Spertus, but if you were to build 20 in the same area.....

Why on earth would anyone want to build 20 Spetus annexes in one area?

.....(Y)ou would do what planners and developers have essentially done to destroy MAG Mile farther North.

The Wrigley, Trib, Medinah & Hancock towers are some of my favorite towers on the planet.

ErmDiego

May 22nd, 2007, 08:35 PM

Irrelevant, unless one wants to keep out new residents - alas, this is an old Chicago pecadillo.

The Wrigley, Trib, Medinah & Hancock towers are some of my favorite towers on the planet.

1. Not keeping new development out; there are plenty of lots and spaces
in and surrounding the District for increased density. That is the point.

2. Agree 100% - my side point on 20 Spertus buildings is that the
proliferation of crappy, comercial driven only modern spaces on the MAG
Mile, is that contextually ruins or cheapens the Wrigley, Trib, Medinah,
Hancock. I think Spertus has achieved a great balance. But the builders
did not try to over build in desperation of potential profit through sheer
volume of size and scale (like X/O) for something that fits well.

wrabbit

May 22nd, 2007, 08:47 PM

1. Not keeping new development out; there are plenty of lots and spaces in and surrounding the District for increased density. That is the point.

Right, then the point is irrelevant to style.

2. Agree 100% - my side point on 20 Spertus buildings is that theproliferation of crappy, comercial driven only modern spaces on the MAG Mile, is that contextually ruins or cheapens the Wrigley, Trib, Medinah, Hancock. I think Spertus has achieved a great balance. But the builders did not try to over build in desperation of potential profit through sheer volume of size and scale (like X/O) for something that fits well.

Right - the same formal concerns apply whether the building is modern, pomo or whatever...

RavenWolf55

May 23rd, 2007, 12:43 AM

Through out Chicago's history there has been episodes in time we the population favors limiting the height of structures. Should idealogy proven to stunt economic growth and adds nothing to a city's image. I strongly feel that building of great importance ( historic & architecturally) should be preserve. HOWEVER we should not try to save every old building simply because it is old. We should respect a neighborhood's character but we must also realize that a city is an ever evolving place that must be allows to grow. There are no arguments that sprawls have and are a serious strain on the enviroment and economically. As long as we demand good and great architecture from any new development, we should not fear tall structures.

spyguy

June 5th, 2007, 06:00 PM

The next Friends of Downtown Brown Bag presentation
Thursday, June 7th at 12.15
Chicago Cultural Center
Millennium Room, 5th floor east

Projects by Lucien LaGrange

For the past 22 years, Lucien LaGrange has transformed downtown Chicago’s skyline with nearly two dozen new buildings. The architect will discuss his design for X/O, being constructed at 1712 South Prairie, and offer a look at other new projects including the Ritz-Carlton Residences, the Blackstone Hotel, and 208 South LaSalle.

spyguy

July 6th, 2007, 09:44 PM

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archive/0707/News070713.htm

The X/O development at 1712 S. Prairie Ave. is well underway, with 75% of the first of two towers already sold, said Lagrange, who is this project’s architect as well. “Dancing figures in the sky moving away from each other like tango dancers,” is how Lagrange describes the ultramodern design of the two X/O towers. Groundbreaking is anticipated in winter 2008, with move-ins expected in 2010. The development team also includes Frankel & Giles and Kargil Development.

Lagrange acknowledged the controversy the project created, with some community members preferring a modern design and others a historical one. Much controversy remains, and legal input has been sought, stated Jeffrey Ayersman, treasurer of the Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance (PDNA), at a recent meeting.

The development will consist of 525 dwellings with 600 garage spaces. Two glass-clad towers, one 45 stories high and the other 35 stories, will be built in tandem behind a row of townhouses, which are designed to harmonize with Prairie Avenue structures such as the Glessner House located across the street. Prices range from the high $200,000s to more than $1 million.

“No two units are alike,” said Lagrange. The building will provide a spa, an environmentally friendly “aqua grotto” on the roof, movie screening room, fitness center, and one-quarter acre park.

InTheLoopSam

July 7th, 2007, 07:53 AM

^ Great news on X/O. This one is in the bag. The thoroughly wrong-headed positions taken by Ayersman, Feldstein, McClendon, Ermdiego, "Mr. Downtown", etc have been soundly trounced on the issue. Much like Park Michigan, this is a fantastic project that is appropriately designed and scaled for its setting. Good planning, urban design, forsward-thinking and aesthetic sophistication have won out over NIMBYism, misplaced backward-looking sentimentalism and clumsy design taste in this case. Let's all hope this is one out of many, many similar victories that are yet to come...

ardecila

July 7th, 2007, 08:19 AM

To be honest, I'm only supporting this project because of its progressive design so close to the lakefront. The Prairie District simply cannot keep its totally low-scale character when simple market principles and precedent dictate that lake views are desirable, especially so close to downtown, and parcels along the lakeshore will be developed densely.

If this project were to be proposed in a historic district NOT near the lake, and faced a similar reaction, I'd be inclined to side with the NIMBYs.

ErmDiego

July 20th, 2007, 07:10 PM

July 20, 2007
By Alby Gallun

Proposed zoning change threatens South Loop project
(Crain’s) — Newly elected 2nd Ward Alderman Bob Fioretti has introduced a zoning change that would shrink a controversial South Loop condominium project, potentially triggering a lawsuit from the developer.

More: http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25726&bt=fioretti&arc=n&searchType=all

BVictor1

July 20th, 2007, 07:41 PM

I see a developers lawsuit coming, and I side with them on this one. X/O should be built.

ErmDiego

July 20th, 2007, 08:16 PM

I see a developers lawsuit coming, and I side with them on this one. X/O should be built.

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

Helmet Yawn

July 20th, 2007, 08:49 PM

Waterview Tower, which, at 90 stories 60%

From what I've heard coming from the grapevine, I question this particular stat.

Mr. Hightower

July 20th, 2007, 10:23 PM

As for a lawsuit, why would Giles and his partner immediately sue the city? Is no one practical here? How easy is it going to be for those developers to get future developments and city processing once they have become legal adversaries with the city and the alderman of the 2nd ward. If X/O is stopped on Prairie look for deals to be made and a property swap so it can go up somewhere else. People are much more practical in real life than they are cast here, deals will be made and things worked out.

How about a small dose of reality here for a change instead of the polarized wrong conclusion jumped to adversarial nonsense?:nuts: :nuts:

From Kargil's point of view, a suit would be inevitable and practical, because they would probably win. I can't see them not suing when there are millions of dollars at stake. Their relationship with the city would be minimally damaged - afterall, it's the city that would have initiated the adversarial pulling of the rug from under Kargil's feet.

The good news is that the City Council knows this and probably will not pass the zoning change. The City has much to loose if it passes.

Prairie Avenue

July 20th, 2007, 11:17 PM

[QUOTETheir relationship with the city would be minimally damaged - afterall, it's the city that would have initiated the adversarial pulling of the rug from under Kargil's feet.

The good news is that the City Council knows this and probably will not pass the zoning change. The City has much to loose if it passes.[/QUOTE]

Really, what is the track record of alderman on zoning changes opposing the proposal of one of their own? Is their a consistent track record where the council has defeated these proposals on the basis of probable litigation?

And the other point that this is pandering to PDNA that got Fioretti elected? Really? Fioretti carried the ward with more than 6,000 total votes, beating Haithcock 2-1 and with Haithcock carrying I think only 4 or 5 out of the 50 precincts. I can't imagine that even PDNA would would say they represented more than a hundred or perhaps 2 hundred votes.

Why isn't it more logical to see this action as Fioretti living up to his campaign platform -- that developers will no long get everything they want because of their monetary influence with the office, and every development has to have community support or community benefit to gain approval?

And even though my post the XO board got wiped off, I will reiterate here -- Giles development has almost been exclusively made up of 2nd ward projects. You really believe Kargil thinks the best plan here is to go to the mat against the Alderman? Maybe he wins the battle but loses the war?:banana:

hoju

July 20th, 2007, 11:43 PM

These are excerpts from an article in the near west gazette a few months back. In it, DPD makes excruciatingly clear that the permit process for the towers was legal and had full disclosure to the community. Further, the DPD position, from an urban planning viewpoint, is that the "historic district" argument, is bullshit. The quotes in that article alone make any legal challenge to this project unsustainable. But legality aside, it doesn't seem at all likely that the city would side with the PDNA in this case anyway.

http://www.nearwestgazette.com/Archi...story0507f.htm

The Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance (PDNA) has filed a procedural challenge with the City’s Department of Planning and Development asking for clarification on aspects of the approved X/O luxury highrise project at 1700 S. Prairie Ave, which would erect one tower of 45 stories and another 33 stories high. The City, however, found no reason for an investigation and nothing inappropriate in the project’s approval process.

The City’s Department of Planning and Development (DPD) said that, although the PDNA objects to having two tall towers near the historic Prairie District, the property actually sits just north of the district and fits into the City’s plan for the South Loop for several reasons. For example, according to Constance Buscemi, DPD spokesperson, the X/O development will be down the block from other new—and taller—buildings, the corner will provide open space that is accessible and available to the community, the project will provide parking as required, and the development will be set back behind townhouses in accordance with the South Loop plan.

“Development means that you mix old with new—a mix of heights and density,” Buscemi said. “If you never developed anything, it would stay the same. You do not preserve a historic district by creating new buildings that mimic it but [by constructing ones] that are different so you don’t confuse historic buildings with recently erected buildings.”

Buscemi confirmed the developers completed the approval process in the correct manner by holding community meetings and going through the City Planning Commission and Zoning Committee, where the public can comment.

“It was an open, public process judged on its merits, and it was approved,” Buscemi said. “There was nothing inappropriate and no reason for investigation.”

“The public and community review of this project took place over a period of over six months, which allowed comment and community input from many, many different sources," Giles wrote in a letter that was read aloud at the last GSLA meeting. "The result was a project that was approved without significant objection.”

Mr. Hightower

July 20th, 2007, 11:47 PM

[QUOTE]

Really, what is the track record of alderman on zoning changes opposing the proposal of one of their own? Is their a consistent track record where the council has defeated these proposals on the basis of probable litigation?

And the other point that this is pandering to PDNA that got Fioretti elected? Really? Fioretti carried the ward with more than 6,000 total votes, beating Haithcock 2-1 and with Haithcock carrying I think only 4 or 5 out of the 50 precincts. I can't imagine that even PDNA would would say they represented more than a hundred or perhaps 2 hundred votes.

Why isn't it more logical to see this action as Fioretti living up to his campaign platform -- that developers will no long get everything they want because of their monetary influence with the office, and every development has to have community support or community benefit to gain approval?

And even though my post the XO board got wiped off, I will reiterate here -- Giles development has almost been exclusively made up of 2nd ward projects. You really believe Kargil thinks the best plan here is to go to the mat against the Alderman? Maybe he wins the battle but loses the war?:banana:

OK, we'll see how it all plays out...

I don't know why you are getting so confrontational. I was just stating my point of view on the situation, which is that of a large developer.

I would sue to protect the millions of dolars already invested and potentially lost with a rezoning. And sue to protect my rights. I would still get plenty of pity from the DPD and Mayor, and after losing the suit, the Alderman would be practically impotent to try to stop me on future projects. But, that's my personal analysis. I would like to analyze the Council's track record of approving changes that would have a high probability of harming the City itself. I'd be glad to discuss it further if you'd like to take a less confrontational demeanor.

Never did I say that PDNA single-handedly elected Fioretti, but many of their people played key rolls in his volunteer organization and helped much with community visiblility and fundraising. That precinct was the strongest in favor of Bob in the primary and runoff. Like it or not, Fioretti owes much of his success to them. (of course not all of it)

Mr Downtown

July 20th, 2007, 11:51 PM

I only know of one case (Eugenie Terrace) where City Council has gone against aldermanic prerogative for his own ward. I believe the law department vigorously defended aldermanic downzonings for the second New York tower and for 65 E. Goethe and 1350 N Lake Shore Dr. However, I've never heard of a PD being rescinded, so I'm not sure what to expect.

Haithcock was so clueless that she didn't appear to understand that a PD was an ordinance she introduced. (In a forum during the last campaign, she told me "oh, planned developments. I don't have anything to do with those.") I think she was just given instructions by someone in the mayor's office.

ErmDiego

July 21st, 2007, 12:02 AM

Haithcock was so clueless that she didn't appear to understand that a PD was an ordinance she introduced. (In a forum during the last campaign, she told me "oh, planned developments. I don't have anything to do with those.") I think she was just given instructions by someone in the mayor's office.

You hit the Nail on the Head - 100% concurrance. I often wondered how much of this was an act to confuse and demoralize.

Sir Isaac Newton

July 21st, 2007, 12:10 AM

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

Most of these developments have been selling units on the market for a few years; X/O has only been on the market for a few months! Even with higher prices than most of these projects and in a slower real estate market, X/O has sold more units than many of these projects had sold after a few months....especially Vetro and Printers Corner. Vetro is going to be hurting - they have only sold 53% and they just topped out the building!