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 November 23rd, 2007, 03:51 AM   #1221
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

The actual full paragraph, putting the quote in context:

"We need good, comprehensive development and planning, and we are not getting that in the South and West Loop," Fioretti said. "We need for development to cool down to keep the neighborhood hot."

The complete Tribune story here.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 23rd, 2007, 05:44 PM   #1222
ChicagoSchool
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 55
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The actual full paragraph, putting the quote in context:

"We need good, comprehensive development and planning, and we are not getting that in the South and West Loop," Fioretti said. "We need for development to cool down to keep the neighborhood hot."

The complete Tribune story here.
Instead of targeting world-class development, like XO, why doesn't Fioretti re-gain his credibility and block the heinous 2-story, drive-in bank going in amongst midrises at Harrison/Clark?

Is that acceptable or "good, comprehensive development and planning"?
ChicagoSchool no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2007, 06:55 PM   #1223
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

The bank is as-of-right.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2007, 07:30 PM   #1224
Ritchie Rich
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 21
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The bank is as-of-right.
Just because the bank developer is building within the legal definition of the zoning for that parcel of land, doesn't mean that the development is "good, comprehensive development and planning" for the neighborhood. A new construction 2 story building at that intersection is a gross under utilization for that parcel both from an economic perspective and from an urban planning perspective.
Ritchie Rich no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2007, 07:52 PM   #1225
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

But where's the leverage point? No aldermanic approval is needed for the bank. Is he going to throw a Natarus tantrum and threaten to hold his breath or cut off water service if the bank doesn't do what he wants? And how's that going to help him down the road when Fifth Third is considering whether to finance a courtyard apartment renovation, support a small retail development or open a branch in Westhaven?
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2007, 11:41 PM   #1226
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
But where's the leverage point? No aldermanic approval is needed for the bank. Is he going to throw a Natarus tantrum and threaten to hold his breath or cut off water service if the bank doesn't do what he wants? And how's that going to help him down the road when Fifth Third is considering whether to finance a courtyard apartment renovation, support a small retail development or open a branch in Westhaven?
What leverage did Fioretti have on X/O, though? They already had their zoning change approved, before he tried to step in the way of their development.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 12:17 AM   #1227
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
What leverage did Fioretti have on X/O, though? They already had their zoning change approved, before he tried to step in the way of their development.
This is funny, sort of. It is intellectually inconsistent to bash Fioretti for invading the vested rights of a developer for an XO project the density folks approve of, and then criticize him or say he should take action against a similarly vested developer because the building is only 2 stories tall on a prime lot.

Plus all of the posts that Fioretti shouldn't be injecting himself at all into the development process. I understand the commitment here is not balanced, and the ideal would be an alderman doing everything he can to promote density with supertalls at every available location, but that really isn't politically feasible.

When bashing it does seem as if intellectual consistency would be appropriate.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 12:20 AM   #1228
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

To finish the point, Fioretti is at least an alderman who will listen to points of view and not be swayed by developer contributions (the bad builders of low rises got equal time with Haithcock). I understand here he is viewed as controlled by density hating NIMBYs, but that is not really the case. Organize and show support in numbers and he will listen to any group.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 03:17 AM   #1229
Belacqua
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 153
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
To finish the point, Fioretti is at least an alderman who will listen to points of view and not be swayed by developer contributions (the bad builders of low rises got equal time with Haithcock). I understand here he is viewed as controlled by density hating NIMBYs, but that is not really the case. Organize and show support in numbers and he will listen to any group.
If anything, what I took away from that article was not that Fioretti had declared war on property rights in the Second Ward, but just that future PDs or zoning variances aren't going to slide through as easily as they once might have (although that depends on the plan commission and zoning cmte going along with him, which so far he hasn't demonstrated he has much ability to wrangle).

District-wide guidelines that were actually enforced (new ones or old ones) would be a boon to everyone, I think, and would hopefully head off some of the inevitable neighbors' objections to new construction, by giving people some greater clue than the zoning code does of what the neighborhood might look like a few years from now. Although from what I've observed, no matter how much notice people have of what's legal to be built next door to them, it doesn't really avoid the moaning about anything that changes ever. As the man says, some people you just can't reach.
Belacqua no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 04:25 AM   #1230
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
This is funny, sort of. It is intellectually inconsistent to bash Fioretti for invading the vested rights of a developer for an XO project the density folks approve of, and then criticize him or say he should take action against a similarly vested developer because the building is only 2 stories tall on a prime lot.

Plus all of the posts that Fioretti shouldn't be injecting himself at all into the development process. I understand the commitment here is not balanced, and the ideal would be an alderman doing everything he can to promote density with supertalls at every available location, but that really isn't politically feasible.

When bashing it does seem as if intellectual consistency would be appropriate.
What's even funnier is that you claim that I was being "intellectually inconsistent" and that I was bashing Fioretti, when the only thing I stated was to point out that Fioretti didn't have any leverage with X/O as it had already been approved by the city (in response to Mr. Downtown who implied that the bank at Harrison and Clark is a different situation than X/O because Fioretti has no leverage in the case of the bank that is about to go up).

Next time, try not to put words in people's mouths.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 06:33 AM   #1231
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

But what legal mechanism do you think Fioretti can use against Fifth/Third's drive-in bank? Whether or not the X/O repeal ordinance would have been upheld under a vested rights doctrine, it was at least within the alderman's prerogative to introduce an ordinance repealing a PD.

Were he to introduce an oddball zoning amendment forbidding curb cuts or requiring a minimum height on this parcel alone, it would justifiably be overruled as spot zoning.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 07:12 AM   #1232
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Is there any way to specifically forbid drive-thrus? I would guess not, but IMO South Loop and River North need to have special zoning that forbids drive-thrus. Especially in River North, with its dense volume of traffic that almost rivals parts of Manhattan, drive-thrus introduce cars to the street in the middles of blocks and exacerbate the traffic-flow problems.

Perhaps a solution is to limit the number of curb cuts for any new project to 1, with more approved on a case-by-case basis? That would still allow for new buildings to build garages but it would discourage through-block driveways.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 05:08 PM   #1233
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The actual full paragraph, putting the quote in context:

"We need good, comprehensive development and planning, and we are not getting that in the South and West Loop," Fioretti said. "We need for development to cool down to keep the neighborhood hot."

The complete Tribune story here.

Are you implying that the first sentence actually helps to inform about the second?
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 05:21 PM   #1234
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it straight out. You deliberately took the second quote out of context, and didn't even provide a link to the full story for anyone who wanted to get the full picture.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 06:04 PM   #1235
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton View Post
What's even funnier is that you claim that I was being "intellectually inconsistent" and that I was bashing Fioretti, when the only thing I stated was to point out that Fioretti didn't have any leverage with X/O as it had already been approved by the city (in response to Mr. Downtown who implied that the bank at Harrison and Clark is a different situation than X/O because Fioretti has no leverage in the case of the bank that is about to go up).

Next time, try not to put words in people's mouths.
I was mainly responding to Chicago School and Ritchie Rich's post, although I recognize I quoted yours. If you didn't mean to suggest Fioretti should step into the bank development situation then there is no inconsistency. I did read your post as supporting that move if that was wrong you got me.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 09:24 PM   #1236
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I'm not implying anything. I'm saying it straight out. You deliberately took the second quote out of context, and didn't even provide a link to the full story for anyone who wanted to get the full picture.
Nonsense, and you know it. There is no context to be had there. In this particular case, the one sentence does not enlighten at all about the other. You happen to like Fioretti's position on comprehensive ward-wide planning guidelines (big government) and that's why you represent that it's needed for context...
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 09:38 PM   #1237
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Is there any way to specifically forbid drive-thrus? I would guess not, but IMO South Loop and River North need to have special zoning that forbids drive-thrus.
Well, drive-thrus are not permitted in DC and DR districts, and require special use permits in DX and DS districts. I suppose they could simply be forbidden, as strip centers are. As far as curb cuts, Clark between 16th and Wacker is a "Class 2" street.

Chicago Zoning Ordinance 17-4-0704 Standards
New curb cuts and driveway access are permitted on Class 2 streets only when reviewed and approved as an administrative adjustment by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 11:03 PM   #1238
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
I was mainly responding to Chicago School and Ritchie Rich's post, although I recognize I quoted yours. If you didn't mean to suggest Fioretti should step into the bank development situation then there is no inconsistency. I did read your post as supporting that move if that was wrong you got me.
I don't think that Fioretti should try to block the development because unless there are extreme circumstances present (like huge safety risks, pollution risks, etc.) I don't think any alderman should have such power to block a development - whether it be a two-tower residential development such as X/O or a two story bank.

I personally think that this bank is a pretty bad use of land, given it's prominent location...but at the same time, I'm not going to waste my time going around the neighborhood getting signatures to try to stop it. I am certainly all for Fioretti working with the bank to try to convince them to improve their existing plans (such as eliminating many if not all surface parking, to add more space/floors that could be leased out to other retailers) but I don't think he should in any way try to prevent the development from occurring.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 11:11 PM   #1239
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

I almost forgot - while I am not calling for Fioretti to block the bank development and thus am not being "intellectually inconsistent", Fioretti certainly is being intellectually inconsistent. He talks about "good, comprehensive development planning" to support his extreme actions with X/O, but this bank exhibits much worse comprehensive development planning than X/O, by far...and from everything I've seen, Fioretti hasn't done anything about it. I guess since a few Prairie District misfits complained to him about X/O, he decided to do something in that situation, as there were a few voters he could pander to.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2007, 11:29 PM   #1240
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoopSam View Post
Are you implying that the first sentence actually helps to inform about the second?
Fioretti: "We need good, comprehensive development..."

See, I can do it too - what would you think if I only quoted that part? Context is everything. Consider it next time.... I hate when people take things out of context and then twist it to suit their agendas. It is a modern phenomenon created by the sound byte. I pray it dies soon.
ardecila 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 03:37 AM.


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