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 31st, 2007, 10:35 AM   #281
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.



Si bananas tripudio requiris . . . circumspice.


I think the issue here is that you do not seem to appreciate how varying styles and scale actually enhance neighborhoods, including those that are
in or near landmark districts. Some people seem to hold this outdated view - that creating something new and different in a certain neighborhood or historically important district somehow detracts from the neighborhood character or prevailing scale or deisgn. The new, more refined and sophisticated thinking among professional planners (my own background is in urban planning, my passion architecture and my profession real estate) is that respectful contrast is much more appropriate than crude mimicry. It's about diversity in the streetscape and on the skyline. No new structure should be designed to pretend it is part of a bygone era, even if it is adjacent to structures that are legitimately from said era. And of course tall and thin is just common sense - more air, light openess etc all the way down to the street. You're insistance on abiding to the strictest interpretation of what you call rules (in reality they're guidelines open to review on a project by project basis) is bizarre and frankly a little hard-headed. X/O, Park Michigan, Legacy each overwhelmingly enhance their neighborhood/landmark district in part because of the very reason that they are different but high quality design - it's this sort of interesting and respectful contrast in scale and design that serves the district well. For the opposite - to see what crude mimicry can do to harm a district, all one needs to do is look at the ridiculous-looking, obviously fake historical townhomes on Prairie and Prairie District Tower. That's poor planning, poor urban design - and the streetscape and the skyline suffer for it, both becoming more banal, lacking in authenticity, in importance of place, in diversity. If I could sum it up in one word - that would be it - diversity. In design - on the street - on the skyline (as well as many other aspects of life) diversity is what makes the difference. X/O, Park Michigan, Legacy, etc are all quite appropriate from neighborhood character, urban planning and design perspectives for the exact sites they have been planned for (and also not in violation of any laws for that matter)
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7

Last edited by InTheLoopSam; August 1st, 2007 at 02:21 AM.
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 31st, 2007, 04:15 PM   #282
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.



Si bananas tripudio requiris . . . circumspice.
Did you always follow the rules while growing up and as a man? Please be honest, don't you believe that some rules were made to be broken?

Have you ever jay-walked or done 40 in a 35?

Have you ever gone swimming before 1-hour?

The Southloop Plan was/is flawed. It doesn't allow the city to grow enough and flex.

You opposed Sperts? But why? Why should we build late 19th and early 20th Century styled building in the 21st Century? What exactly was there to preserve there or in the case of X/O?

How can we build landmarks of the future, if we can't get out of the past?
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2007, 04:36 PM   #283
InTheLoopSam
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Likes (Received): 0

^ Yes - good point bringing up Spertus. This is perhaps the ultimate test if you really "get it". Spertus is a gem - in its setting. It is a fantastic addition to the streetwall and totally belongs there. People who say "I like the buiding, but not where they put it" are just not catching on. You do not enhance or respect what is already in an historically important district (or your own new project for that matter) by attempting to pretend you have always been there. Rather, truly contributing and enhancing a landmark district entails adding another true landmark for the future, representative of this point in time. This is a more sophisticated and appropriate approach to preserving and enhancing landmark districts and "neighborhood character". The future of landmark districts is much more important than the past could ever be - let's make sure our present day contributions to them address this.
__________________
In The Loop, 24/7
InTheLoopSam no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2007, 05:07 PM   #284
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
^ So modern buildings have no place next to historic ones? Let me ask you this. Are you really, really sure that you actually believe this dictum towards development? I think anybody with a whisp of aesthetic sense can walk through the Loop and see that the juxtaposition of truly historic buildings with modern ones works quite well. And even if you have a different opinion about that, it certainly doesn't justify creating what appears to be an all-encompassing rule against it.

I for one would like to know what kind of structure you would have rather seen at the Spertus site. Keep in mind that nobody is building the kinds of structures that characterize the Chicago of 1925 any more. That being said, are you suggesting that something along the lines of a shorter version of the Elysian would have more suitable?
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2007, 04:39 AM   #285
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
the juxtaposition of truly historic buildings with modern ones works quite well
I do not argue with this at all--except for small, rare landmark districts.

Landmark districts, which are only a tiny portion of the city, are places that we have set aside as so cohesive that they are special to us--precisely for their cohesiveness. What we are ceremoniously setting aside are small portions of the city that are not like the city as a whole. So making them like the rest of the city detracts from them. We should expect new infill to be respectful and deferential, to use the same design vocabulary and materials and massing. This is not the place for look-at-me architecture.

Does this mean second-rate imitations or bad postmodernism? Of course not. What's the main difference between the crappy stuff in the 1700 block of Prairie and the handsome, almost seamless infill in the 1800 block? The good stuff was in the district and closely reviewed by the Landmarks staff; the schlock is what the developer wanted to build (I assure you, no "NIMBYs" or community plans influenced the design of either block). The new Berlin (especially the government quarter) is full of buildings of our time that nonetheless respect and repair the fabric of a 19th century city.

I think of landmark districts as sort of the national parks of cities. They are rare places we are preserving for posterity precisely because we think they are worthwhile in their own right. They are not places we are trying to "improve."

Comments on Spertus in the Michigan Avenue Landmark District thread.

Last edited by Mr Downtown; August 1st, 2007 at 05:37 AM.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2007, 05:09 AM   #286
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I do not argue with this at all--except for small, rare landmark districts.

Landmark districts, which are only a tiny portion of the city, are places that we have set aside as so cohesive that they are special to us--precisely for their cohesiveness. What we are ceremoniously setting aside are small portions of the city that are not like the city as a whole. So making them like the rest of the city detracts from them. We should expect new infill to be respectful and deferential, to use the same design vocabulary and materials and massing. This is not the place for look-at-me architecture.

Does this mean second-rate imitations or bad postmodernism? Of course not. What's the main difference between the crappy stuff in the 1700 block of Prairie and the handsome, almost seamless infill in the 1800 block? The good stuff was in the district and closely reviewed by the Landmarks staff; the schlock is what the developer wanted to build (I assure you, no "NIMBYs" or community plans influenced the design of either block). The new Berlin (especially the government quarter) is full of buildings of our time that nonetheless respect and repair the fabric of a 19th century city.

I think of landmark districts as sort of the national parks of cities. They are rare places we are preserving for posterity precisely because we think they are worthwhile in their own right. They are not places we are trying to "improve."

Comments on Spertus in the Michigan Avenue Landmark District thread.
^ I will keep this response relevant to this thread by noting that this discussion certainly pertains to X/O's "belonging" to a landmarked district, and I argue that the Prarie Landmark District seems to have been created prematurely, and X/O is not out of character with its environment largely because its environment has yet to be created.

Name another landmarked district in Chicago where the majority of structures were created in the past 5 years. It almost seems as if some people took advantage of the presence of a few old houses to create a self-fulfilling "landmarked district" despite the fact that nothing of the sort existed. Landmarked districts are supposed to grow organically.

I doubt that Motor Row, or Wicker Park, or Pilsen (now THAT'S a district that deserves landmarking, far more than Prarie Avenue does) were built by people who anticipated that some day their neighborhood would be landmarked and, "by golly, we better not disturb the character of what we're putting up." They were built to suit a time and purpose. Yet this Prarie Avenue thing, well, it just seems a bit overcontrived.

Let me give you the ultimate example to fully illustrate my point, Mr D. A certain number of facades and original buildings that existed in Maxwell St were preserved in the University Village development. Despite this, few would dispute that the character of Maxwell St is long gone and the vast, vast majority of University Village is new & completely different from what was there before (even though new construction has sought to mimic a more traditional Chicago neigbhorhood). Now how would a rational guy respond if these UVA people began touting themselves as a "historic, landmarked Maxwell St district"? And what if they used their "historic district" argument to oppose development around them? Wouldn't that seem just a little bit silly? Wouldn't it seem like an excuse to simply oppose development on whatever grounds they can get their hands on?

Well, that's how this whole Prarie Avenue "historic district" thing plays out in my head.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2007, 05:34 AM   #287
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

X/O is not in the Prairie Avenue landmark district. Neither is the lovely DCFS building. To protect the district from another disaster like DCFS looming over Clarke House, the Near South Community Plan prescribed "low-rise structures . . . for 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."

That seems like textbook urban design theory with which no one could seriously argue.

Last edited by Mr Downtown; August 1st, 2007 at 05:42 AM.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2007, 06:02 AM   #288
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Building materials and styles that are compatible with the historic character of Prairie Avenue should be used."
^ I question the existence of the above. And that's what my entire last post was about. A contrived "historic district" that simply does not exist.

As I said before, calling PD an "historic district" is just as arbitrary as saying the same about University Village. If UVA residents opposed a glass and steel structure on such grounds, most people would chuckle. Likewise, I'm chuckling at this "historic" Prarie District concept right now, because I don't really see on what basis it exists.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2007, 06:22 AM   #289
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
X/O is not in the Prairie Avenue landmark district. Neither is the lovely DCFS building. To protect the district from another disaster like DCFS looming over Clarke House, the Near South Community Plan prescribed "low-rise structures . . . for 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."

That seems like textbook urban design theory with which no one could seriously argue.
Sure you can argue with it, because not all things are learned from text books. Somethings are learned off the streets, and that can be the better of the 2 sources of information.

The DCFS Building isn't aesthetically pleasing and doesn't contribute anything to the area. X/O is totally opposite.

The Near South Community Plan isn't helping, it's hindering. The plan might have"prescribed "low-rise structures . . . for the immediate Prairie Avenue area, with a gradual transition to the higher-rise residential and mixed-use buildings in surrounding blocks", but most people feel that the plan is a misdiagnosis.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2007, 04:46 PM   #290
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

and, the larger Prairie Ave District already contains 5 towers that are finished or under construction that make an immediate jump from townhome scale to high-rise with no mid-rises in between. That IS the existing fabric of the neighborhood. So then, like The Rokas Tower, the argument becomes: Does a 250' tower really have a significantly different impact on the new townhomes on the 1800 block of Prairie vs. a 450'? No, of course not....but a significatly different bulk/massing would.
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 1st, 2007, 08:22 PM   #291
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

I think this Prairie ave district is practically non-existent, there are unfortunately only 5 historical homes - which by all means should be preserved. And I admit I do like the 1800 block of new townhomes a lot more than those a bit north. But come on, its all concentrated in a tiny area. I walk through it everyday, and barely notice it.

Anyways, a small group of people living in an area thats about 2 square blocks (and thats generous) should not dictate development of the entire surrounding neighborhood. They want to keep tall buildings out of this two square block area, fine, most would agree. But like slooparch said, theres a bunch of tall buildings in the immediate vicinity already. There is no way in hell a seamless transition could be made to this district anymore, and it doesnt need it anyway. And I still dont understand why the shitty existing warehouse building could somehow fit in better with this 'district' than a tall graceful tower like X/O that will add property value and much needed foot traffic to a nice looking, but boring residential area. And the Rokas tower would be put in a place where there is currently some crappy storage facitilities, and an old church. I dont see much historic stuff over there worth preserving. And what character are they talking about? Its all a joke.

The arguments against these developments just dont make any sense to me, especially not at this point with all types of buildings thrown up already.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2007, 01:31 AM   #292
Helmet Yawn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 259
Likes (Received): 0

Can't we talk about something fun, like how Chicago Spire is going to have to move 700 initial units at 1200 bucks/sf before they can even start the superstructure in a market that's basically dead and will be because it's oversaturated...???
Helmet Yawn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 2nd, 2007, 07:07 PM   #293
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

2 letters to this week's Chicago Journal regarding the X/O project

South Loops needs variety in housing

Am I missing something? There are three types of housing in the South Loop: town-homes, lofts and condos, everything else is just a shade of grey. I live in a town-home and my windows will face directly at the proposed X/O towers. If they are 30 stories or 45 stories is immaterial from the street level...
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...74&TM=43343.43
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2007, 02:47 AM   #294
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
South Loops needs variety in housing

Am I missing something? There are three types of housing in the South Loop: town-homes, lofts and condos, everything else is just a shade of grey. I live in a town-home and my windows will face directly at the proposed X/O towers. If they are 30 stories or 45 stories is immaterial from the street level...
http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...74&TM=43343.43
Saw that. How did they get away with not putting their name on the letter to the Editor? BVA?
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2007, 04:51 AM   #295
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Prairie Avenue View Post
Saw that. How did they get away with not putting their name on the letter to the Editor? BVA?
maybe he/she is afraid of the PDNA NIMBYS
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2007, 05:39 AM   #296
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
maybe he/she is afraid of the PDNA NIMBYS
Oh yeah, I'm sure they're terrified
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 3rd, 2007, 04:44 PM   #297
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
Oh yeah, I'm sure they're terrified


Bvictor, BVA, makes you say Hmmmmmmmmmm.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 9th, 2007, 08:52 PM   #298
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

NIMBY Letter

It's interesting how the Prairie Ave NIMBYS would rather endulge in personal attacks and rewrite history rather then take on he Chicago Journal editorial board that reflected the community consensus and supports the project...

X/O approved without community support

This message is in response to the article entitled "Ordinance could downsize X/O" that ran in the July 26 issue.

Steven Ward of the Greater South Loop Association is covering up the facts or simply naive as to how this project was initially approved. His comment indicating that there was no opposition from residents present at the meetings is simply wrong.

On March 18, 2006, the GSLA held a meeting in which this project was first proposed. Very little notice was given to the Prairie Avenue residents who are most directly affected by this inappropriate project. Of the approximate fifteen attendees present-six of which were Prairie Avenue residents-five of them spoke out against the project.

On June 5, 2006, former Alderman Madeline Haithcock set up a meeting with specific regard to the X/O project; approximately 90 to 100 residents were present. The majority in attendance was from the Prairie District area and the vast majority was opposed to this project for numerous reasons. Jeff Key, former president of GSLA, was in attendance that day and witnessed the outcry of opposition.

While Ms. Haithcock's staff was advising the community the project is in limbo until the developer makes major changes to his plans her office stated, "There may not be need for another meeting until there are some updated plans." In addition, the Department of Planning was telling the community that the project's approval was not on the agenda month after month.

Come August 2006, this project as previously presented was approved by the Alderman, GSLA and Near South Planning Board, although officially not on the original agenda.

I applaud the current Alderman, Bob Fioretti, who was voted in by the majority (66%) of 2nd Ward residents and the Prairie District Neighborhood Alliance (PDNA) who is represented by an overwhelming majority of association leaders in the district for sticking up for what is right for the residents of the South Loop, specifically the Prairie Avenue residents in this case.

We need more South Loop residents to stand behind them on key issues, especially, as it relates to how we decide to develop our neighborhoods. The needs of the people who live here have to be kept the top priority.

This situation makes me question who the GSLA represents. It appears they do not represent the residents of Prairie District and I wonder if they really represent the rest of the South Loop, as they claim. Does Mr. Ward understand the concept of a community group? Clearly, he doesn't.

I encourage other residents of the South Loop to form community groups so their interests may be represented properly. Otherwise, the GSLA will continue approving projects without regard for infrastructure, congestion, parking, character within neighborhoods, or concern for those of us who must live in the South Loop.

Mark Kieras
Prairie Avenue Resident
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007, 12:47 AM   #299
Prairie Avenue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 0

Slooparch

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
It's interesting how the Prairie Ave NIMBYS would rather endulge in personal attacks and rewrite history rather then take on he Chicago Journal editorial board that reflected the community consensus and supports the project...
Journal Editorial Board? Who makes that up? Hayley Graham is essentially charged with creating all the content other than the guest contributors. So because she prints an editorial in support of XO that equates with community support?

On community consensus what is your factual basis that the surrounding community favored XO? When Haithcock called for a show of hands from neighbborhood residents at the Glessner House meeting there was overwhelming opposition. So much so that she stated that evening that she would not allow the proposal to be on the agenda until substantial changes to the design were made and traffic and infrastructure issues had further study. Of course she then supported the project without living up to these promises.

During the aldermanic election Haithcock understood the community opposition to the project. She went so far as to lie and state that she did not support the project but couldn't do anything about it, being only one vote on a matter the COUNCIL wanted. When that lie was exposed she stated publicly in three different forums that she would not allow XO to go forward by preventing them from getting permits. All of this anti Fioretti on XO is funny from the perspective of how could he do such a switch on XO after the election -- in reality all he is doing is carrying out Haithcock's promises/rhetoric from her campaign.

Set aside the NIMBY name calling and the personal attacks to focus on the single issue as to whether there is community support for XO. From the surrounding residents, the answer is clearly no. Now, you can take a position that no tower would ever get built if those in its shadow can veto it, or that the community as you define it has a majority that support XO, those can be debated here. But to say if the Journal has an editorial in favor of a building that equals majority community support, that's a bit of a stretch. Also interesting in that many here who favor density were taking the Journal to task for being a NIMBY publication over McGrath's, certainly if they oppose a building you wouldn't be proclaiming them as the voice that ought to be followed because they speak for the community.
Prairie Avenue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 10th, 2007, 01:00 AM   #300
Rascacielos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 0

Explain how a show of hands at a given meeting proves one way or the other what the mood of the community is. The truth is without a scientific poll we probably don't know what the level of support is, but it certainly tends to be the case that those in opposition are louder than those in favor. There's not as much reason to speak up if what's being proposed is acceptable to you. I live at 18th and Indiana and will stare right at these towers and I am 100% in support of them, but I wasn't at the meetings.

But isn't the bottom line that at this point that the project has been approved and the developer has surely incurred significant cost and expense? Can't you see that Fioretti is pandering to you when he advances this proposed rezoning since he surely knows that it will go nowhere? By the way, do you really think it's worth your tax dollars and mine to fight the lawsuit that would inevitably result from this?
Rascacielos 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 01:02 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