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 December 11th, 2010, 06:19 AM   #2141
Flacos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 0

16th

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
Facts:

The open lot at the NE corner of 16th and Indiana is currently NOT a park.

The open lot is privately owned and the public currently as no right to access it.
Your facts are totally 100% incorrect. Can you post where it is written that this lot is not a park or publically accessible open space? In addition to JS Ford's link, any one can go to the City Clerk's website http://www.chicityclerk.com/journals..._oct3_2001.pdf pages 68723 to 68739 and see where it is written relevant to information. it is common knowledge that the space is a publically accessible open space. "The park shall be open and accessible to the Public..."

It does not get any clear than that. So where do you get your facts again?
Flacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 14th, 2010, 12:21 AM   #2142
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flacos View Post
Your facts are totally 100% incorrect. Can you post where it is written that this lot is not a park or publically accessible open space? In addition to JS Ford's link, any one can go to the City Clerk's website http://www.chicityclerk.com/journals..._oct3_2001.pdf pages 68723 to 68739 and see where it is written relevant to information. it is common knowledge that the space is a publically accessible open space. "The park shall be open and accessible to the Public..."

It does not get any clear than that. So where do you get your facts again?
The document you reference is NOT reality - it is a PLANNING document. My facts are in all the public records detailing ownership of the site. I'm sure we all can find planning documents that detail all sorts of public amenities that never came to fruition and try to cry and whine their way into existence or somehow magically transfer ownership.

Again, local 'activist' with personal agendas:

This space is NOT publicly owned.
This space is NOT a park.
The public has NO RIGHT TO ACCESS.

Last edited by slooparch; December 14th, 2010 at 12:32 AM.
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2010, 07:27 AM   #2143
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
The document you reference is NOT reality - it is a PLANNING document. . . I'm sure we all can find planning documents that detail all sorts of public amenities that never came to fruition and try to cry and whine their way into existence or somehow magically transfer ownership.
Have to disagree with you there. This is not a mere community plan or statement of goals. It’s a zoning ordinance duly passed by the City Council on October 3, 2001. Let’s look at the actual ordinance language:

3. The requirements, obligations and conditions applicable within this planned development shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns and. . . any homeowners association(s) formed to succeed the Applicant. . . .

4. This plan of development consists of these thirteen (13) statements . . .These and no other zoning controls shall apply to the area delineated herein.

5. The following uses shall be permitted within the areas delineated herein: multi-family dwelling units; accessory parking; ground floor residential uses; park uses, accessory uses and related uses.
(Note that nonaccessory parking is not a permitted use.)

10. . . . The park shall be constructed at the time of first occupancy of the building. The park shall be open and accessible to the public during regular City of Chicago Park District hours.

Now, personally, I think it's a distasteful but acceptable tradeoff to get a nicely landscaped park with parking spaces instead of an empty lot with scruffy grass. But the ordinance is clear: the condo association must keep the lot open to the public during regular park hours and must maintain it as a "park."

Last edited by Mr Downtown; December 14th, 2010 at 07:57 AM.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2010, 11:27 AM   #2144
Flacos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 0

16th and Indiana Park

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
The document you reference is NOT reality - it is a PLANNING document. My facts are in all the public records detailing ownership of the site. I'm sure we all can find planning documents that detail all sorts of public amenities that never came to fruition and try to cry and whine their way into existence or somehow magically transfer ownership.

Again, local 'activist' with personal agendas:

This space is NOT publicly owned.
This space is NOT a park.
The public has NO RIGHT TO ACCESS.
mr./ms. southloop arch, what are you talking about? planning documents? activist? the information referenced details explicit and specific zoning requirements & limitations for the park in discussion, from the project zoning ordinance, as mr downtown has so efficiently detailed. it equivocally refutes #2 and #3 of your claimed "facts", and places restrictions to #1 on your list. are you referring to some other 'magically' created public records that the rest of us are not aware of, because someone may be misinforming you.

also, i am not aware of or do not follow your claims of 'activists' or 'personal agendas' and their applicability to reasonable and thoughtful development & zoning discussion here. these imaginary claims do not appear to be germane to the conversation.

what is relative is potential impact to future development objectives, tactics, and precedents to achieve more density. it is a slippery slope when we let everyone re-write zoning ordinances after the fact for short term expediency or personal gain.

fulfilling the south loop development vision is a marathon, not a sprint.
Flacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2010, 06:17 PM   #2145
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Have to disagree with you there. This is not a mere community plan or statement of goals. It’s a zoning ordinance duly passed by the City Council on October 3, 2001. Let’s look at the actual ordinance language:

3. The requirements, obligations and conditions applicable within this planned development shall be binding upon the Applicant, its successors and assigns and. . . any homeowners association(s) formed to succeed the Applicant. . . .

4. This plan of development consists of these thirteen (13) statements . . .These and no other zoning controls shall apply to the area delineated herein.

5. The following uses shall be permitted within the areas delineated herein: multi-family dwelling units; accessory parking; ground floor residential uses; park uses, accessory uses and related uses.
(Note that nonaccessory parking is not a permitted use.)

10. . . . The park shall be constructed at the time of first occupancy of the building. The park shall be open and accessible to the public during regular City of Chicago Park District hours.

Now, personally, I think it's a distasteful but acceptable tradeoff to get a nicely landscaped park with parking spaces instead of an empty lot with scruffy grass. But the ordinance is clear: the condo association must keep the lot open to the public during regular park hours and must maintain it as a "park."
The 'park' was never constructed, therefore the public has no right to access what is not there....
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2010, 10:02 PM   #2146
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

^The site is at ground level and is covered with grass. In your mind, what are the requirements for it to become a "park?"
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2010, 03:53 AM   #2147
Flacos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 0

16th and Indiana Park

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
The 'park' was never constructed, therefore the public has no right to access what is not there....
the J.S. Ford post link, and the ordinance information all seem to confirm a park site is currently built to original specifications, do they not? claims that "the park was never constructed" appear to be inaccurate. i am not following your rationale for communicating that the the "park was never constructed".
Flacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2010, 01:30 AM   #2148
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

McPier gives up on hotel

McCormick Place officials will drop legal attempts to acquire a neighboring parcel for potential hotel development, officials said Wednesday.

Jim Reilly, the trustee overseeing the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, decided to end the agency's two-year effort to acquire the land through condemnation proceedings, citing the expenses associated with it, an MPEA spokeswoman said. The decision was announced at the authority’s monthly meeting Wednesday morning.

The condemnation proceedings targeted four properties close to the convention center, bounded by Indiana Avenue, Prairie Avenue, Cermak Road and Cullerton Street.




Crain's story
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 16th, 2010, 08:04 AM   #2149
Flacos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 0

McCormick/McPier drops condemnation plans

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
McCormick Place officials will drop legal attempts to acquire a neighboring parcel for potential hotel development, officials said Wednesday.

Jim Reilly, the trustee overseeing the Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, decided to end the agency's two-year effort to acquire the land through condemnation proceedings, citing the expenses associated with it, an MPEA spokeswoman said. The decision was announced at the authority’s monthly meeting Wednesday morning.

The condemnation proceedings targeted four properties close to the convention center, bounded by Indiana Avenue, Prairie Avenue, Cermak Road and Cullerton Street.



Crain's story
this impacted potential projects like 230 east cermak proposal:
http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/15739...Rd-Chicago-IL/

not surprising for a few factors. first, the calumet & cermak TIF will likely be closed to capture TIF surplus. 2nd, state approval for McCormick to refinance for 2nd Hyatt above their garage, would likely negatively impact demand for similar facilities across the street in the highlighted are at this time.

3rd, if recent reported news that indicated that the principle owner of the property, Pam Gleichman, was having financing problems and would likely default, the state or city could get the property a lot cheaper on the open market. circle back to the lack of possible TIF $ availability, and the owners would have harder time getting any project off the ground at this time.
Flacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2010, 05:58 AM   #2150
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
The 'park' was never constructed, therefore the public has no right to access what is not there....
This is simply not true. The rendering that was posted earlier in this thread shows the existing park. The fencing is the same. The trees/bushes shown are the existing ones. The park bench is existing. The changes in the rendering are the building of a parking lot within the existing parkland, the addition of a gate off of 16th and some minor upgrades in the current park -- some gravel paths and a fountain in the rendering. To say this is currently not a park is to disregard reality.

The real issue is whether the association can get their change through the legal process of taking land that was to be open and accessible to the public as a park and pave over it for the benefit of the landlord of the commercial space in their building. You are essentially taking public land and turning it into a commercial asset.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2010, 10:28 PM   #2151
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

My post about the park (or whatever you want to call it) was just a throwaway comment. I'm (pleasantly) surprised that it generated this much activity since this thread is usually so quiet.

Anyway, the city is supposedly committing $10 million in TIF for a new field house in Ping Tom park. Images from the park's framework plans:



Also saw this on Oasis Senior Living's website under "Future projects":

The Oasis of Chinatown
2428 S. Wallace Street, Chicago, IL


Lot description: Part of a 25,798 commercial and industrial site area
Building Area: 52,245 square feet
Plan: 7- story building, 97 apartment units (85 single occupancy and 12 double occupancy) totaling 116 beds.
Estimated 82 units reserved for Medicaid-eligible and 15 for private pay seniors


I think this may be the midrise portion of Eastern Tower. I thought it was originally going to be just condos but perhaps they've changed to senior housing.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 21st, 2010, 09:02 PM   #2152
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Roosevelt will build its student athletic center on the parking lot at the southeast corner of Wabash & Congress. The site is only the small surface lot on the corner, not the L-shaped garage.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2010, 12:05 AM   #2153
Flacos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post

Also saw this on Oasis Senior Living's website under "Future projects":

The Oasis of Chinatown
2428 S. Wallace Street, Chicago, IL


Lot description: Part of a 25,798 commercial and industrial site area
Building Area: 52,245 square feet
Plan: 7- story building, 97 apartment units (85 single occupancy and 12 double occupancy) totaling 116 beds.
Estimated 82 units reserved for Medicaid-eligible and 15 for private pay seniors


I think this may be the midrise portion of Eastern Tower. I thought it was originally going to be just condos but perhaps they've changed to senior housing.
color me unimpressed with anything planned near chinatown; all the new development and construction seems poorly designed, uses the same quality lacking material, and is uninspiring (except possibly for the proposed clark & archer hotel), and incredibly tired looking after about 2 years.

for example the chinatown square does not appear all that inviting.
http://chicago.about.com/od/neighbor...Signs.--AM.htm

many wonder why such a potentially prominent location so close to the loop gets such a free pass for design and development review. either go full authentic, or dump the concept and go full bore chicago architecture.

the irony is that the redeeming character of chinatown comes from is the original chicago style brick buildings on cermak, wentworth, etc.
Flacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2010, 12:43 AM   #2154
paytonc
Pragmatist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 433
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flacos View Post
color me unimpressed with anything planned near chinatown; all the new development and construction seems poorly designed, uses the same quality lacking material, and is uninspiring (except possibly for the proposed clark & archer hotel), and incredibly tired looking after about 2 years.
How about CASL's headquarters? Ping Tom Park's first phase? Archer Courts? They've won numerous architectural awards between them.

I'll grant that a lot gets done there on the cheap, with glossy interior materials trying to substitute for architectural quality -- but given how that's generally the rule in China, perhaps it carries over to Chinatown. I wish that the Chinatown Square parking lots could be infilled at some point so that Archer could become a proper retail street, but no -- since that's all LAZ parking, that'll never happen.
__________________
http://westnorth.com
paytonc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2010, 06:42 PM   #2155
Flacos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by paytonc View Post
How about CASL's headquarters? Ping Tom Park's first phase? Archer Courts? They've won numerous architectural awards between them.

I'll grant that a lot gets done there on the cheap, with glossy interior materials trying to substitute for architectural quality -- but given how that's generally the rule in China, perhaps it carries over to Chinatown. I wish that the Chinatown Square parking lots could be infilled at some point so that Archer could become a proper retail street, but no -- since that's all LAZ parking, that'll never happen.
Agree on the Archer idea and surface lots. the Cermak entrance, due to traffic design for the Dan Ryan might look nice in the car due to the Chinese archway, but it is not very people friendly. with the cermak underpass design, it is just not appealing or linking to the south loop.

with those issues, and in light of the truck crashing into the CTA cermak red-line entrance 2 years ago, perhaps a more pedestrian and visually oriented focus on the archer entrance back to clark (including the underpass). With a more prominent red-line entrance off of archer, it might be a more pedestrian pleasing entrance, and the red-line station would feel more integrated into the south loop for locals (who wouldn't have to walk through the disappearing panhandle scene and traffic on cermak).
Flacos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2010, 10:36 PM   #2156
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

http://www.chicagojournal.com/News/1...edule_for_2013

New Jones College Prep on schedule for 2013
By MATTHEW BLAKE 12/22/2010 10:00 PM


Representatives from the mayor’s office and South Loop Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd) proudly announced at a public meeting Dec. 14 that the construction of a new Jones College Prep High School, a selective enrollment school, should be completed by 2013.

...Carbonargi said that the city “is looking at all sorts of permutations for the current building,” which is located at 606 S. State St. One possibility is the conversion of the building into to a neighborhood school, though the city cannot “rule out” selling the property to a private developer.
---

I didn't know Perez was running for alderman. Now I almost want Fioretti to win.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 5th, 2011, 11:51 PM   #2157
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Another possible proposal across from the Transportation Building
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 6th, 2011, 12:17 AM   #2158
dvidler
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 116
Likes (Received): 0

That looks like a perfect fit for that location. I hope any development there includes space for more restaurants or bars. Either way, I am glad someone is proposing something for that location. Do you know if this is a new proposal or a very old one?
dvidler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 7th, 2011, 03:19 AM   #2159
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

I'm glad to see a proposal, too, but this seems overly derivative of the Donohue Building. And there seems to be no retail; just blind windows for a parking floor.

Rather perversely, the logistics of parking have apparently been a stumbling block for that site. I'm told that it's almost impossible to lay out parking floors in any efficient way. Perhaps that's another reason this building seems to be so short in such a good location.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2011, 01:26 AM   #2160
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
East-West University is talking about building "soon" an 800,000 sq ft building, including 230 beds of dorm space, an athletic center, food court, etc. Presumably this would be at 9th & Wabash SEC. No other details yet.
IL Finance Authority approved issuing up to $35 million in bonds for this project. The architect has not yet been determined.

East-West University is requesting approval of a Final Bond Resolution in an amount not-to-
exceed $35,000,000. Bond proceeds will be used to (i) construct and equip a new, 14-story multi-
purpose building
to be located in the 800 block of South Wabash Avenue (i.e., formerly the site of
building located at 825 and 831 South Wabash
) in Chicago; (ii) renovate and equip East-West’s
existing buildings located at 816 South Michigan Avenue and 819 South Wabash Avenue in
Chicago; (iii) pay capitalized interest on certain portions of the project, if necessary or desirable;
and (iv) pay costs of issuance. The new multi-purpose building will include limited ground floor
parking, retail shops, a student athletic center/health club; a campus library; instructional labs,
classrooms, and faculty offices, and 10 floors of student housing including studio, one-bedroom,
and two-bedroom apartments with kitchen and bathroom that will house approximately 220
students.


• Basement – 29 Parking spaces
• 1st Floor – Lobby and Retail Shops mainly consisting of a food court serving both resident and nonresident
students. The food court will be visible and easily accessible from the street allowing its use also
by students from other institutions in the area and by the general public. It will include a collection of fastfood
restaurants
with shared eating space.
• 2nd Floor – Student Activities Complex mainly consisting of an athletic center housing weight and
exercise room, lockers, pool table and table tennis, etc., and a large auditorium with a seating capacity of
500.
• 3rd Floor – Library and Learning Resource Center
• 4th Floor – Instructional labs and offices for ancillary services.
• 5th through 14th Floors – Student housing consisting of studios, one or two bedroom apartments with
full kitchen and bathroom, for approximately 220 students.
spyguy 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 01:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

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

tech management by Sysprosium