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 July 29th, 2007, 09:54 AM   #261
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; June 18th, 2010 at 12:17 AM. Reason: spelingg
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 29th, 2007, 06:00 PM   #262
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

And it's important not to let the developer set this up as a false choice between accepting X/O on this site or losing Glessner House.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 04:24 AM   #263
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
And it's important not to let the developer set this up as a false choice between accepting X/O on this site or losing Glessner House.
I don't think we're in danger of losing Glessner House, seeing as it is actually"within the boundaries of the Prairie Avenue Historic District".

They could however lose much needed funding.

Last edited by BVictor1; July 30th, 2007 at 05:02 AM.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 04:36 AM   #264
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

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

As to the boundaries of the district, way back when Prairie Avenue was made a district, the landmarks commission felt it did not have the power to include vacant lots and noncontributing structures, so the district had to be drawn to weave in and out among the remaining houses. Thus there was nothing to keep the ugly-ass DCFS building from stinking up the southwest corner of the district. Under today's landmarks ordinance, districts are drawn more logically to include vacant lots in between and nearby, so that insensitive infill can be controlled.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 06:49 AM   #265
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

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

By the way - I'm now in the camp that says this is just a shrewd political move by Fioretti - he's picking a fight he fully knows he is incapable of winning, and then can place the ultimate "blame" elsewhere when X/O begins construction....in the meantime he's picked a very high-profile instance to heavily pander to a very vocal group of hardcore NIMBYs...
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 08:29 AM   #266
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
And it's important not to let the developer set this up as a false choice between accepting X/O on this site or losing Glessner House.

That's exactly right - this would indeed be a false choice. Prairie Avenue has every to get the best of both worlds here - the X/O development as planned and the restoration of Glessner House...
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 08:32 AM   #267
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

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

As to the boundaries of the district, way back when Prairie Avenue was made a district, the landmarks commission felt it did not have the power to include vacant lots and noncontributing structures, so the district had to be drawn to weave in and out among the remaining houses. Thus there was nothing to keep the ugly-ass DCFS building from stinking up the southwest corner of the district. Under today's landmarks ordinance, districts are drawn more logically to include vacant lots in between and nearby, so that insensitive infill can be controlled.
Vacant lots and noncontributing structures should NOT be part of landmark districts. So Landmarks in this case was right not to include them. If Landmarks in recent years has more frequently included such parcels in new landmark districts, this would absolutely be a mistake and they are headed in the wrong direction. This is all part of the backward-looking philosophy of certain people that are basically neighborhood character preservation fundamentalists. It's the wrong approach in nearly every instance. Even the Chicago Journal, with a rather spotted history on neighborhood character/new development issues, finally seems to have come around and seen the light on this topic...
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 02:17 PM   #268
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

Here is a thought. Since the PNDA has got such a hard on about XO and Glessner House now says that with the XO $$ they can't redo the roof. Why not assess every condo in the PNDA a special assessment to cover the cost of the Glessner. I mean it was their association that got us to this point and we all know that the PNDA speaks for every condo owner in the District.
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 03:52 PM   #269
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

NIMBY

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

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

PDNA has opposed this project for a whole host of reasons and on behalf of the larger community as well. But in their opposition they have always said they didn't oppose the towers per se, just the location of this one. To call PDNA a NIMBY organization and to label it opposed to any tower development in the area is to distort the facts and create a smear campaign. Yes they do oppose XO, but that is a unique project with a unique set of issues and history and community opposition.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 05:17 PM   #270
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

^ Fair enough. But then you guys asked for cul-de-sacs, and thereby lost all credibility in my book..
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 06:40 PM   #271
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

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

I know in Printer's row they have pushed traffic calming for years, and they have a stop signs everywhere. I don't see them being blasted here. PDNA is a punching bag here because it took on GSLA as a less than representative group for a specific area, and then certainly worked hard to oppose XO. But to call it NIMBY or label it anti development, anti density or anti tower is just not consistent with the facts.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 08:38 PM   #272
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 880

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Those here sure like to throw around the label as if PDNA does nothing else but oppose towers in the South Loop. XO was a single tower project they have opposed. Drive east on Roosevelt over the river and all you see on the horizon is cranes. Towers are going up all over, and PDNA has not objected to any of them, and in fact has supported many projects.
Well of course you have. It's not in the "Prairie District" and the traffic and density wouldn't really affect PDNA directly on the streets where they live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
XO is a unique project in many respects. Its location for one. Its developer for another. The fact is that at the community meeting at Glessner house last fall the community members there soundly opposed it. After that meeting Alderman Haithcock, clearly in the pocket of Giles SAID SHE WOULD NOT LET THE PROJECT GO FORWARD WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES. It was then approved with zero changes. No traffic study was ever done in connection with the building. The immediate area never received assurances that the sewer system in the area, which has backed up and caused issues in many developments in the surrounding area, could handle the development. Haithcock lied to the community about XO not being on the agenda for approval, and then later lied that she did not support the project. During the campaign on 3 separate occassions she stated that even though the project had gained approval she was not going to allow building permits to be issued without substantial changes. So the aldermanic "pandering" that is oft repeated here began with Haithcock, although she just pandered with lies instead of action.
The problem is that all this opposition at last falls community meeting was after the fact. The PD had already been been approved by the Plan commission, Zoning and the City Council. The sewers should have been replace a decade ago before any new development occured in the area in the first place, so PDNA should also be having issues with the developers of their new townhomes and condo towers. Whether Haithcock lies about the project beiong on the agenda is a moot point seeing as the agenda is public information in the first place. How stupid was it for you all not to check? What type of "substantial changes" could have been made then that you think will be made in the future without a lawsuit? All approvals had already gone through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
PDNA has opposed this project for a whole host of reasons and on behalf of the larger community as well. But in their opposition they have always said they didn't oppose the towers per se, just the location of this one. To call PDNA a NIMBY organization and to label it opposed to any tower development in the area is to distort the facts and create a smear campaign. Yes they do oppose XO, but that is a unique project with a unique set of issues and history and community opposition.
Those reason have yet to be made clear. Why oppose this development when other nearby developments aren't being harped on? The location is a bullshit reason when nothing was said about Prairie district Tower or 1600 Museum Park. NIMBY organization clearly defined PDNA, and everyone here, yourself included knows that.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 09:41 PM   #273
ChiPsy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 68
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Those here sure like to throw around the label (edit: NIMBY) as if PDNA does nothing else but oppose towers in the South Loop....Drive east on Roosevelt over the river and all you see on the horizon is cranes. Towers are going up all over, and PDNA has not objected to any of them, and in fact has supported many projects.
You're right: It's not that you guys oppose all towers, it's that you fetishistically seem to have a thing for stubby, concrete towers that block more sun from the sidewalk than thin, lithe towers do.

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

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

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

I honestly don't get it.
ChiPsy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2007, 09:53 PM   #274
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by InTheLoopSam View Post
All useless and silly speculation actually. . .[the rezoning] will undoubtedly be overturned in court
Based on what specific Illinois case law? Or would you be engaging in "useless and silly speculation?"
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2007, 01:18 AM   #275
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

PDNA = NIMBY

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Those here sure like to throw around the label as if PDNA does nothing else but oppose towers in the South Loop. XO was a single tower project they have opposed.
The only other tower proposal in your backyard, The Rokas Tower, is also opposed by the PDNA. So, your facts are incorrect.
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2007, 03:54 AM   #276
PrintersRowChemist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 43
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Based on what specific Illinois case law? Or would you be engaging in "useless and silly speculation?"
As I mentioned earlier:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowChemist View Post
[T]he developers of X/O complaints would pass the test for a vested right claim. They reasonably relied to their detriment on the previous ordinance: millions in sales have already been agreed upon as well as large sums in soft costs.
But since you requested case law, look no further than your buddies at holland & knight:

Furniture LLC v. City of Chicago
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ml/1023874.htm

1350 Lake Shore Associates v. Lori T. Healy
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/ill...006/102093.pdf
PrintersRowChemist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2007, 04:41 AM   #277
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrintersRowChemist View Post
As I mentioned earlier:



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

Furniture LLC v. City of Chicago
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ml/1023874.htm
^ I'm not an attorney, but gleaming this particular case, the plaintiff in this case did not even appear to have started sales on his development when it went to court. Compare this to the X/O development, where hundreds of millions of dollars are already at stake.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2007, 04:51 AM   #278
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Based on what specific Illinois case law? Or would you be engaging in "useless and silly speculation?"
^ Mr D, you really don't want X/O to happen, do you? Why are you so against all these projects?

Can you not just give in to the LOVE?

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

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

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

Mr Downtown, if you can't get excited about a highrise building, then maybe you just don't belong at a website named SkyscraperCity.com. Because in the end, your point of view, while perfectly valid, will always be in the minority around here. Think about it.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2007, 06:47 AM   #279
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
you really don't want X/O to happen, do you?
Actually, I think X/O is really cool-looking, and was even better before putting in a silly "park." I'd love to see it happen on a different site.

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

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

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

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

Quote:
if you can't get excited about a highrise building, then maybe you just don't belong.
Si bananas tripudio requiris . . . circumspice.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2007, 07:43 AM   #280
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Mr. Downtown - do you also oppose Harriet Tubman and her life work in the 19th century of freeing hundreds of slaves, since she "broke the rules"?
Sir Isaac Newton 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 07:15 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