daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old January 27th, 2007, 07:07 PM   #241
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn View Post
There is no 350' height limit on the parking lot portion of the site on Wabash, which is where the tower will go. the 350' figure is from a guide line plan drafted by neighborhood groups in the South Loop which has no legal bearing on this projects future approval.
The Michigan half of the block is controlled by draft landmark restrictions, which recommend a 264-foot limit for the full footprint of any building, with only towers (floorplates substantially less than the full footprint) allowed as tall as 425 feet.

The Wabash half of the block is controlled by the Near South Community Plan, adopted in 2004, which says on page 61: "The suggested building heights [below] are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments. Wabash Avenue District. Higher intensity development could be permitted along both sides of the corridor, provided it does not detract from the image and character of the Michigan Avenue Development District. 350 feet."

Legally, this should be stronger protection than the landmark district designation. The draft landmark guidelines for Michigan Avenue have never been adopted, but PD's must comply with adopted plans:

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 Near South Community Plan was written entirely by the Department of Planning & Development and consulting firm Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen & Payne. Comments were invited from the general public--including four neighborhood groups--but the height limits were adopted exactly as DPD staff initially wrote them.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old January 28th, 2007, 04:41 AM   #242
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ I'd like to meet the 8 people who came up with that idea.

That was 2002-2003. This is 2007--people want to live there, it (south loop) is booming beyond even fairly recent predictions Why hold it back?

Like all bad plans--back to the drawing board, kiddo
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2007, 10:20 PM   #243
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The Michigan half of the block is controlled by draft landmark restrictions, which recommend a 264-foot limit for the full footprint of any building, with only towers (floorplates substantially less than the full footprint) allowed as tall as 425 feet.

The Wabash half of the block is controlled by the Near South Community Plan, adopted in 2004, which says on page 61: "The suggested building heights [below] are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments. Wabash Avenue District. Higher intensity development could be permitted along both sides of the corridor, provided it does not detract from the image and character of the Michigan Avenue Development District. 350 feet."

Legally, this should be stronger protection than the landmark district designation. The draft landmark guidelines for Michigan Avenue have never been adopted, but PD's must comply with adopted plans:

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 Near South Community Plan was written entirely by the Department of Planning & Development and consulting firm Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen & Payne. Comments were invited from the general public--including four neighborhood groups--but the height limits were adopted exactly as DPD staff initially wrote them.

Well, the South Loop Plan is not a legal binging document. And if person who thinks a taller on Wabash mars the Michigan Avenue streetwall is a total dumb-ass. The skyline in this area is so unbalanced because there aren't any tall buildings south of Congress (yet) behind the streetwall.

Besides how are you going to have a height limit, but not change the zoning. This site allows for a building of at least 1 million sq.ft. in size, and I don't see that happening with a 425' height limit.

Besides, it was the department of Planning and Development that recommended the height of 830 S. Michigan, which means they are going against their own recommendations.

They've adopted the tall and thin outlook...
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2007, 10:26 PM   #244
prelude91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago...Soon to be Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 2

These barriers are so frustrating...This small group of people in the south loop dont realize how much they are holding back the area
prelude91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2007, 11:53 PM   #245
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Well, the South Loop Plan is not a legal binding document.
Do you have case law or other authority to cite for this proposition? The city's own zoning ordinance says that no PD can be approved unless it complies with adopted plans.

Quote:
This site allows for a building of at least 1 million sq.ft. in size, and I don't see that happening with a 425' height limit.
Perhaps you could show your work on that arithmetic. Half the site has a base FAR of 12 and half is FAR 16.

Quote:
Besides, it was the department of Planning and Development that recommended the height of 830 S. Michigan . . . They've adopted the tall and thin outlook...
Then they need to revise the community plan, not have a backroom deal with a developer.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2007, 01:06 AM   #246
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Do you have case law or other authority to cite for this proposition? The city's own zoning ordinance says that no PD can be approved unless it complies with adopted plans.


Perhaps you could show your work on that arithmetic. Half the site has a base FAR of 12 and half is FAR 16.


Then they need to revise the community plan, not have a backroom deal with a developer.

Perhaps they think that revising a community plan for a fast-evolving neighborhood would be greatly inefficient, inflexible, and time not well spent, considering that conditions could greatly change a few more years down the road.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2007, 01:37 AM   #247
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
Perhaps they think that revising a community plan for a fast-evolving neighborhood would be greatly inefficient
Then what method should DPD use to decide which PDs to approve and which not to? See how much the developer contributed to the mayor's reelection? Check to see which law firm was retained to do the PD? Put it to a vote on SSC?

There is a reason that the entire city planning and zoning paradigm is based on having a written, adopted plan. Without one, zoning or planning decisions devolve into mere "spot zoning" or worse, "contract zoning," and cannot be defended as a valid use of the police power.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2007, 02:09 AM   #248
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Then what method should DPD use to decide which PDs to approve and which not to? See how much the developer contributed to the mayor's reelection? Check to see which law firm was retained to do the PD? Put it to a vote on SSC?

There is a reason that the entire city planning and zoning paradigm is based on having a written, adopted plan. Without one, zoning or planning decisions devolve into mere "spot zoning" or worse, "contract zoning," and cannot be defended as a valid use of the police power.

The overwhelming majority of the time, everyone (including the president) has to make important decisions without having some sort of plan to resort to or fall back on. And I think for the most part, we are usually able to make these decisions effectively, without a plan to use as guidance (although many would say this is not the case with the president :P ).

You make it sound like that without a plan (a non-binding one, at that, that was created by only a few people and often created numerous years ago when the circumstances were much different) our neighborhoods will erode into utter chaos. I have confidence that the DPD can decide on a case-by-case basis which PDs will be beneficial to the neighborhood and the city as a whole, and which PDs will not be beneficial....using sound judgment, input from residents of the neighborhood/city, and common sense.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2007, 02:12 AM   #249
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

And in regards to my last statement, I think we will see the DPD approving this development as I believe that they have the common sense to realize that this building in it's proposed form would be an excellent addition to the neighborhood....bringing in new retail, many residents, and a beautiful, iconic new building to the neighborhood.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2007, 02:13 AM   #250
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Not to mention, this building would bring in much needed shade to Grant Park visitors on our hot and humid summer days
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2007, 06:34 AM   #251
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
You make it sound like that without a plan (a non-binding one, at that, that was created by only a few people and often created numerous years ago when the circumstances were much different) our neighborhoods will erode into utter chaos. I have confidence that the DPD can decide on a case-by-case basis which PDs will be beneficial to the neighborhood and the city as a whole, and which PDs will not be beneficial....using sound judgment, input from residents of the neighborhood/city, and common sense.
^ BINGO!

The way I see it, the little developer 'contributions' to people in political power appropriately counteracts the bloated power a handful of vocal NIMBY's has in blocking development by screaming and crying to their Alderman. This, of course, while not even representing the majority viewpoint of the neighborhood.

Let one injustice cancel out another, I say.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2007, 10:42 PM   #252
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 881

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Do you have case law or other authority to cite for this proposition? The city's own zoning ordinance says that no PD can be approved unless it complies with adopted plans.


Perhaps you could show your work on that arithmetic. Half the site has a base FAR of 12 and half is FAR 16.


Then they need to revise the community plan, not have a backroom deal with a developer.

My reference to the plan not being a legal binding document, comes from a source I have with the city.

While I might not be a math genious, the info I posted came from information given at the presentation back in June at Jones College Prep about 830 South Michigan. You remember that meeting don't you?

Besides, FAR can be transfered.

As for revising the community plan, the goddamn thing that was recently written needs to be burned. It's idiotic and uninspiring. I don't think the city realized how hot the area would become in the short amount of time that it has.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2007, 12:24 AM   #253
Chicago Shawn
Registered User
 
Chicago Shawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 361
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
As for revising the community plan, the goddamn thing that was recently written needs to be burned. It's idiotic and uninspiring. I don't think the city realized how hot the area would become in the short amount of time that it has.
DING, DING, DING! We have a winner! The central area has exploded with a 230% increase of residential units over predictions made by Department of Planning in 2003. The plans need to be ammended to reflect market conditions rather than putting a lid on our city's future potential. There was a time when there was a height limit for the entire city, which would make Sears, Hancock and others "illeagal" buildings under the old ordinances. Things change, and need to be open for change for the future, otherwise our city will be left behind.
Chicago Shawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2007, 02:27 AM   #254
PrintersRowBoiler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 650
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
Not to mention, this building would bring in much needed shade to Grant Park visitors on our hot and humid summer days
I can't believe this is even an arguement. Even Bob O'Neil (director/president or whatever) of the Grant Park Advisory Committee raves about this building and when I heard him speak last loves tall slender buildings along the park because it provides a more desirable shade condition on Grant Park.
PrintersRowBoiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2007, 06:09 AM   #255
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
While I might not be a math genious, the info I posted came from information given at the presentation back in June
The Park Michigan site is 36,794 sq ft. After taking various bonuses, maximum FAR--as shown in the PD application--is 19.5. That's only 717,000 sq ft--not 1 million.

More to the point, you claimed that the allowable FAR could not be reached with a 425-foot height limit. Obviously an (after bonus) FAR of 19.5 requires less than half that height.

As designed, the main tower has floorplates less than 7000 sq ft, meaning that nearly 20 percent of each floorplate is consumed by the core. A 30-story building with 20,000 sq ft floorplates would provide the same square footage and same number of units. If designed as a shallow T, with the wings an efficient 80-foot-wide double-loaded corridor, 888 could still keep their western views and it would shadow nothing but the Johnson Publishing building.

Quote:
Besides, FAR can be transfered.
In Chicago? How, exactly?
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2007, 07:23 AM   #256
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

Well I'm just glad to hear theres no irrational opposition to this tower.

By the way Mr Downtown judging by your passion for this tower if you get on the VIP list and put your reserve down quickly you might be able to get the 80th floor penthouse, worst case scenario the 79th...well thats of course assuming it is going to be ONLY 80 floors,
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2007, 08:23 AM   #257
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
888 could still keep their western views and it would shadow nothing but the Johnson Publishing building.


Oh for the love of God, get over your ridiculous shadow fixation--nobody CARES
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2007, 05:57 PM   #258
chicagogeorge
Registered User
 
chicagogeorge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South suburban Chicago
Posts: 5,284
Likes (Received): 893

Yeah, my view was recently obstructed by several highrises being built on the east side of Michigan Ave, down in the South Loop. My unit is on the 12the floor. I use to be able to see Soldier Field and Lake Michigan. I don't mind though, I would rather see tons of highrises all around me.
__________________

for the Pelasgians, too, were a Greek nation originally from the Peloponnesus
The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...assus/1B*.html

Macedonia, of course, is a part of Greece". Strabo, VII, Frg. 9
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...ragments*.html

But north of the gulf, the first inhabitants are Greeks called Epirotes....
Procopius
http://books.google.com/books?id=9m6...page&q&f=false
chicagogeorge no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2007, 06:15 PM   #259
Chitowner245
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Paradise
Posts: 278
Likes (Received): 0

With the central station towers all going up along roosevelt, it would look ridiculous if nothing tall was built between roosevelt and congress (looking at the city's skyline as a whole. We need to fill that gap between the taller buildings around congress and michigan and central station- this project will happen, and many more tall highrises will go up after this one.
Chitowner245 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2007, 11:47 PM   #260
danthediscoman
Registered User
 
danthediscoman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 384
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge View Post
I don't mind though, I would rather see tons of highrises all around me.
I salute you, you are a true urbanist, not many would agree with you (outside of this forum)
danthediscoman no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu