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 April 9th, 2007, 04:22 AM   #61
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
I realize this is a skyscraper forum that gets wood about 'new high rises', cool; it is likely though that many posters here who get the stiffy will probably not even buy or live in these high rises. But the quality issue is real; It is an issue of the continued fraud that goes on with the city and developers. Some people who actually buy are tired of the BS. (I find it ironic that the most vocal Anti-Nimby voice for Chicago posts from New York)

To date, other Residential groups have had too large a territory to disect or support the quality problems, post haste because of the new development being to much to keep up with. THe PDNA has already brought these issues to the forefront with the Mayors Office and DPD with some success, but this is a long haul issue to put some support behind. However, as the South Loop matures and increases in density, it is only natural to look for more input from the respective Districts in the Ward. This input is not usually of the anti-development, but of cursory design and infrastructure review to ensure what needs to get done get's done, and that bonehead mistakes (like putting a garage entrance on Michigan Ave. or adding a red Aluminum barn siding to a 3rd and 4th floor loft) do not happen. If DPD was so thorough, why does this stuff happen time after time?

And Sir Isaac, to your quote
"when we all know that these people had a grossly misguided feeling of entitlement in that they think that they should be allowed to live in a suburbanesque neighborhood less than 2 miles from the Loop...and that no major future developments should be made nearby as it would make their neighborhood less suburban."

This is not entitlement or selfish. Read the Central Plan and Near South community Plan and then get back to me. The plans were prepared by DPD and The Plan Commission, not the current residents. Early development of the area was completed per the plan. This is about the city doing what it paid for and said it was going to do. The plan was vetted with residents and organizations on 2002 and 2003, with specific recommendations to scale, height, character. The intent was so that development had some clear and relative organization and goals, and primarily to avoid these individual development by development NYMBY battles.

Listen, I have no problem with tall and thin, but that is not what is in the current approved plan. When the City spends millions of $$$ in taxpayer money for the consulting plan, has it formally reviewed and adopted by resident groups and Plan Commission, then follow it, or execute the appropriate planning procedures and revise the freaking plan. But the DPD keeps making verbal changes with no clear guidelines, creating this mess.

Also, if the developer in question for X/O was one of the more professional outfits, than folks would have some comfort that it would be done right. I will gladly bet a case of beer on this one turning out for the worse.
You and other certain people on this forum need to get off the Centr4al Area and South Loop plans because they are out of date amd uninspired. So what if they spent taxpayer money. Congress spends taxpayer money all the time on more bullshit than this including a certain war. The city has admitted that they under-estimated the amount of growth in the South Loop and other areas. If a developer wants to amend a PD that's within their right. If the DPD wants to approve the proposed new PD that's within their right. They shouldn't need approval from the residents evey time something needs to be changed, especially residents that have been there less than 5 seconds. People keep bithcing about scale, height and character well ******* get over it. The neighborhood is within walking distance from some of the tallest buildings in North America. There's a 35 story building going up 2 1/2 blocks to the west. 5 years ago there was no neighborhood, there was no street life or real activities south of Congress, it was an industrial wasteland. It hadn't been a real neighborhood for 80 years. As for the sewers, well the city should have replaced them before Central Station was built, it's not the developers job to do so.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 9th, 2007, 06:55 AM   #62
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^Exactly, agree 100%. Also, the plan may have been approved in 2003, but thats still out of date, and probably based on information they were compiling way before the true boom even started to take place. It was a wasteland, so who could have preditcted what would happen in that area?

Anyway, like I said, these neighborhood plans should be used only as guides, and if developers of projects like X/O can get those amendments to planned developments, then so what. Im sorry Ermdiego, it really just sounds like you guys and this PDNA want to limit the growth of the neighborhood for your own selfish reasons. Like shade, views blocked, traffic (ha!) and some other such nonsense.

As far as holding the developers to higher standards of work, Im all for that, maybe PDNA should focus on that. But I want to live in an area thats growing and will have tons pedestrian activity, and I dont care if sunlight is blocked by brand new gleaming highrises. Its 'the city'.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2007, 07:06 PM   #63
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
^Exactly, agree 100%. Also, the plan may have been approved in 2003, but thats still out of date, and probably based on information they were compiling way before the true boom even started to take place. It was a wasteland, so who could have preditcted what would happen in that area?

Anyway, like I said, these neighborhood plans should be used only as guides, and if developers of projects like X/O can get those amendments to planned developments, then so what. Im sorry Ermdiego, it really just sounds like you guys and this PDNA want to limit the growth of the neighborhood for your own selfish reasons. Like shade, views blocked, traffic (ha!) and some other such nonsense.

As far as holding the developers to higher standards of work, Im all for that, maybe PDNA should focus on that. But I want to live in an area thats growing and will have tons pedestrian activity, and I dont care if sunlight is blocked by brand new gleaming highrises. Its 'the city'.
Out of date? I am not sure you have ever read either plans. What specifically or factually in the plan is out of date? Most of the projects east of Michigan are identified in the plan. The plans clearly predicted and charted most of the development to date that has been completed, or that was proposed. How is that out of date again?

The 'True Boom' started in 2003? The Boom in the South Loop started in 1999-2000...most who were down here in 1996 to 1998 saw it coming. That is why the city started drafting the plans in 2000, and then an exhaustive review with residents, architects, neighborhood planning experts, developers, business leaders, etc. in 2001-2002.

Where has it been stated that group wants to slow growth? Most are all for the development that is sound, well thought out, well built. Not fast, cheap, poor quality that leaves problems for buyers, residents, city, neighborhoods. Compounding the problem, it is the same 3-4 developers churning out the problematic develpments (Frankel & Giles, Warman/Barr, DiPazza). Developers in the South Loop are focusing on initial cost per sq foot, with quality far lower than Central, North Loop, or River East.

Build what you want, but build freaking quality stuff. As to developers, getting changes to the plan, I am all for that if it is quality development based on architectural or planning merit, not play for pay formula with the Alderman, and members of the Plan Commission, which is what is happening. Lori Heally has been the worst thing for development quality in Chicago.

There is a reason that Central Station/Fogelson does not have to donate money to the campaigns...they usually build decent buildings, and if there are problems, they take care of it, without the drawn out legal bull shit.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2007, 07:38 PM   #64
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 04:25 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2007, 08:30 PM   #65
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

What about the "lifetime lake views" that Central Station guaranteed to so many of its buyers of the earlier Central Station buildings...only to build future high-rises a year or two later that completely blocked those lifetime lake views?
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2007, 09:09 PM   #66
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
You and other certain people on this forum need to get off the Centr4al Area and South Loop plans because they are out of date amd uninspired.
If not an approved, official city plan adopted by the Plan Commission, what criteria should the city use in determining whether to approve a specific building or not? Ask the alderman? Take a poll on SSC?

Wouldn't it be wiser to amend the plan if conditions have materially changed rather than dismiss it?


Quote:
If the DPD wants to approve the proposed new PD that's within their right.
No, it isn't. Ours is a nation of laws, not men. We have actual, written-down rules that you can go and read:

Chicago Municipal Code 17-08-0903: Approved Plans
Planned developments must be consistent with plans that have been adopted by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2007, 09:43 PM   #67
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
If not an approved, official city plan adopted by the Plan Commission, what criteria should the city use in determining whether to approve a specific building or not? Ask the alderman? Take a poll on SSC?

Wouldn't it be wiser to amend the plan if conditions have materially changed rather than dismiss it?




No, it isn't. Ours is a nation of laws, not men. We have actual, written-down rules that you can go and read:

Chicago Municipal Code 17-08-0903: Approved Plans
Planned developments must be consistent with plans that have been adopted by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council.

Take a poll here? Probably wouldn't hurt...

And that's the point----Conditions have materially changed

Looks like Chicago Municipal Code 17-08-0903 is out of date and needs to be changed.

The speed limit on LSD is 45mph. Doesn't mean people are going to obey it. There have been on many occasions of outdated Municipal Codes being on the books, not only here in Chicago, but across the country.

Daniel Burnham has a plan back in 1912 that was adopted. That doesn't mean that every thing within it was positive. I don't think anything in his plan was above 10 floors.

There was a plan for IRAQ approved and adopted by Congress also. As you can see it really hasn't been followed. Things have been changed over and over again, and they didn't need to go to the people and ask for permission.

So while you may have a point about the codes, that doesn't mean that it's benificial to the city in all ways.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2007, 10:33 PM   #68
Steely Dan
born again cyclist
 
Steely Dan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: old style city
Posts: 3,381
Likes (Received): 1295

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
No, it isn't. Ours is a nation of laws, not men.
you should know by now that the above doesn't apply to chicago. perhaps in the rest america..... perhaps...... but in chicago? no way, jose. laws are useless in this town.

"i've said it before, and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work"
__________________
"I wish they'd hurry up and just destroy humanity already........... it's the waiting that I can't stand" - Philip J. Fry
Steely Dan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 9th, 2007, 11:04 PM   #69
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
you should know by now that the above doesn't apply to chicago. perhaps in the rest america..... perhaps...... but in chicago? no way, jose. laws are useless in this town.

"i've said it before, and i'll say it again, democracy simply doesn't work"
And I'll have to say a big AMEN to that. If it worked, we wouldn't get shit done here.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 12:34 AM   #70
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Is the Central Plan only good when the Developer mentions it?

BVictor1 - seems you are being a hypocrite. When a developer argues that his project his per the Central Plan (see your 2005 post below) , it is ok as a justification, especially considering preservation issues. Yet when the residents who also reviewed and approved the plan refer to it, suddenly they are NIMBY's? So are developers allowed different rules?


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=151

July 22nd, 2005, 09:31 AM #151
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan


Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,459 7/20/2005 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
Mixed reviews for S. Michigan tower
Some fear it compromises South Loop’s character

By HAYDN BUSH, Staff Writer

Photo courtesy of Michael Moran
1355 S. Michigan.

A Central Station plan for a 30-story condo tower at 1355 S. Michigan got a mixed reception during its unveiling in front of the Greater South Loop Association July 16, with some residents wondering if the neighborhood needed another modern high-rise. The building, which would be built on the site of a 90-year-old, terra-cotta-clad building, would have 260 apartment units.

While few spoke out in favor of saving the structure as it is currently composed, GSLA President Jeffery Key said residents were worried about the "loss of character" with the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new high-rise. And several South Loop residents said they were concerned that the moderately scaled neighborhood they moved into would soon be dominated by staid condo towers.

Central Station founder and co-chairman Gerald Fogelson, though, said that while the city is promoting eclectic mix and height in the area south of 14th Street, the area between 14th Street and Roosevelt Road will soon play home to several new high-rises, including a handful developed by Central Station.

"This is consistent with the Central Area Plan," Fogelson said, adding that the city is pushing more moderately scaled development starting with the Chicago Firehouse restaurant on the other side of 14th Street from the proposed tower.
Also at issue is whether the existing building, which currently houses the Strictly Business nightclub, can be preserved. The building was constructed in 1909 by Jenney, Mundie and Jensen, the same firm that designed the now-demolished Home Insurance Building, considered the city’s first modern skyscraper . Preservation Chicago Vice President Mike Moran said the building was originally used as a showroom for the Kenmore automobile company, and was once adjacent to two other automobile showrooms in what he termed "the noncontiguous Motor Row District."

"It’s a no-brainer that the facade should be saved," Moran said.

At first, Central Station President Tim Desmond said, the company had every intention of saving the existing building. After purchasing it more than two years ago, Desmond said, Central Station discussed ways of saving the building with the city Department of Planning and Development, before deciding it wasn’t possible.

"We couldn’t make it work financially," Desmond said. "...We spent all of 2003 with DPD trying to reuse the building."

Desmond said Central Station also hired local architectural consultant Phillip Krone to work with Daniel Bluestone, dean of architecture at the University of Virginia, and review the historical significance of the building. Desmond said the pair discovered that the building was originally in the middle of the block, when 14th Street was narrower. The southern wall includes brick facing that once fronted another building, Desmond said.

"That diminished it as a historic building," Desmond said.

Desmond added that while the building was constructed by Jenney, Mundie and Jensen, firm founder William Le Baron Jenney, considered the father of the American skyscraper, had died three years earlier. And Fogelson said the building was badly dilapidated, and had been nearly condemned by the city before Central Station purchased it.

"This building has been a blight on the neighborhood," Fogelson said.

Moran, though, argued that building had stood for 90 years, and noted that Jenney, Mundie and Jensen built several other significant buildings after Jenney’s death. He said later that the city often uses condemnation proceedings as a ploy against inattentive owners, and that many nearly condemned building are eventually rehabbed.

At least one preservation concept did attract the interest of Desmond and Fogelson. Laughing Iguana owner Marifran Carlson asked the developers if the building’s terra cotta could be used in some form in the building’s interior, an idea they said they would look into.

"Preserving the materials is an excellent idea," Desmond said, adding that he thought the terra cotta facade could be integrated into a doorway over an elevator.

The tower’s condominiums would be sold for roughly $310 per square foot. In addition, 10,000 square feet of retail space would be developed on the ground floor.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 01:08 AM   #71
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
BVictor1 - seems you are being a hypocrite. When a developer argues that his project his per the Central Plan (see your 2005 post below) , it is ok as a justification, especially considering preservation issues. Yet when the residents who also reviewed and approved the plan refer to it, suddenly they are NIMBY's? So are developers allowed different rules?


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=151

July 22nd, 2005, 09:31 AM #151
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan


Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,459 7/20/2005 10:00:00 PM Email this article • Print this article
Mixed reviews for S. Michigan tower
Some fear it compromises South Loop’s character

By HAYDN BUSH, Staff Writer

Photo courtesy of Michael Moran
1355 S. Michigan.

A Central Station plan for a 30-story condo tower at 1355 S. Michigan got a mixed reception during its unveiling in front of the Greater South Loop Association July 16, with some residents wondering if the neighborhood needed another modern high-rise. The building, which would be built on the site of a 90-year-old, terra-cotta-clad building, would have 260 apartment units.

While few spoke out in favor of saving the structure as it is currently composed, GSLA President Jeffery Key said residents were worried about the "loss of character" with the demolition of the existing building and construction of a new high-rise. And several South Loop residents said they were concerned that the moderately scaled neighborhood they moved into would soon be dominated by staid condo towers.

Central Station founder and co-chairman Gerald Fogelson, though, said that while the city is promoting eclectic mix and height in the area south of 14th Street, the area between 14th Street and Roosevelt Road will soon play home to several new high-rises, including a handful developed by Central Station.

"This is consistent with the Central Area Plan," Fogelson said, adding that the city is pushing more moderately scaled development starting with the Chicago Firehouse restaurant on the other side of 14th Street from the proposed tower.
Also at issue is whether the existing building, which currently houses the Strictly Business nightclub, can be preserved. The building was constructed in 1909 by Jenney, Mundie and Jensen, the same firm that designed the now-demolished Home Insurance Building, considered the city’s first modern skyscraper . Preservation Chicago Vice President Mike Moran said the building was originally used as a showroom for the Kenmore automobile company, and was once adjacent to two other automobile showrooms in what he termed "the noncontiguous Motor Row District."

"It’s a no-brainer that the facade should be saved," Moran said.

At first, Central Station President Tim Desmond said, the company had every intention of saving the existing building. After purchasing it more than two years ago, Desmond said, Central Station discussed ways of saving the building with the city Department of Planning and Development, before deciding it wasn’t possible.

"We couldn’t make it work financially," Desmond said. "...We spent all of 2003 with DPD trying to reuse the building."

Desmond said Central Station also hired local architectural consultant Phillip Krone to work with Daniel Bluestone, dean of architecture at the University of Virginia, and review the historical significance of the building. Desmond said the pair discovered that the building was originally in the middle of the block, when 14th Street was narrower. The southern wall includes brick facing that once fronted another building, Desmond said.

"That diminished it as a historic building," Desmond said.

Desmond added that while the building was constructed by Jenney, Mundie and Jensen, firm founder William Le Baron Jenney, considered the father of the American skyscraper, had died three years earlier. And Fogelson said the building was badly dilapidated, and had been nearly condemned by the city before Central Station purchased it.

"This building has been a blight on the neighborhood," Fogelson said.

Moran, though, argued that building had stood for 90 years, and noted that Jenney, Mundie and Jensen built several other significant buildings after Jenney’s death. He said later that the city often uses condemnation proceedings as a ploy against inattentive owners, and that many nearly condemned building are eventually rehabbed.

At least one preservation concept did attract the interest of Desmond and Fogelson. Laughing Iguana owner Marifran Carlson asked the developers if the building’s terra cotta could be used in some form in the building’s interior, an idea they said they would look into.

"Preserving the materials is an excellent idea," Desmond said, adding that he thought the terra cotta facade could be integrated into a doorway over an elevator.

The tower’s condominiums would be sold for roughly $310 per square foot. In addition, 10,000 square feet of retail space would be developed on the ground floor.

Um, excuse me SIR!!!

I'm not all being a hypocrite. All I did was post an artice, I never said that I agreed with the statements. No where in the article do you see my name quoted.

To be honest I would have rather see the facade of the demolished building preserved, but I'm not not going to sleep tonight.

I'd have been cool if the building was 60 floors
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 04:52 AM   #72
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

Just out of curiosity, what building was that?
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 02:48 PM   #73
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
Just out of curiosity, what building was that?
1400 Museum Park is rising on the site where these buildings once stood.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 05:28 PM   #74
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
Fogelson pays to play just like everyone else.

He gave money to Natarus and Kelleher gave money to Haithcock. It works great, everyone is fooled!
The other partner in Central Station, Forest City pays to play. Big time!
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 05:41 PM   #75
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

D zoning

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
The area per the Zoning Plan was supposed to be Residential, not Downtown Mixed (DX) use. The city did not do a good job of communicating the changes and let the developers drive the cart, as much of the vacant land was snapped up by Political Cronnies and folks like Pappageorge who bent the mayors ear to change to DX while many were moving in.
I am pretty sure D zoning did not exist 03. It was set up to modernize the zoning and differentiate between Central Area and neighborhood areas. It was meant to allow for taller structures, while keeping density similar in the areas considered downtown. It is ubiquitous throughout the Central Area since the change was made. This goes from 55 to North Ave (I think) and west from downtown to Racine. There is no R zoning in the Central Area.
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 06:01 PM   #76
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hightower View Post
I am pretty sure D zoning did not exist 03. It was set up to modernize the zoning and differentiate between Central Area and neighborhood areas. It was meant to allow for taller structures, while keeping density similar in the areas considered downtown. It is ubiquitous throughout the Central Area since the change was made. This goes from 55 to North Ave (I think) and west from downtown to Racine. There is no R zoning in the Central Area.
On top of that, "mixed use" zoning is absolutely compatible with the holy Near South Plan, which states, "Surrounding the historic district, taller residential and mixed-use buildings are appropriate."
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 06:45 PM   #77
Mr. Hightower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY / Chicago, IL
Posts: 20
Likes (Received): 0

Traffic

The PDNA NIMBYs who are worried about traffic should rethink how they treat the Plans as the Bible. The Near South Plan states, "an additional connection to Lake Shore Drive between 16th and Cullerton Streets should be provided if feasible."

Wow, that is the only logical way a traffic problem could be created in the area.

This connection to LSD has been an objective of the City for a looong time. (Before 95% of the residents were in the neighborhood.) I worked on one feasibility study for this in 02 as part of the busway project to McCormick Place. In fact, my understanding is that as part of the original development agreement from way back when, Central Station developers are required to provide this access. Someone else may know the details better than I do.

I can see PDNA fighting this idea with all their might. But they will conveniently forget the precious Plans when that fight arrives.

Maybe they will just say, " alot has changed since then." Sounds familiar.
Mr. Hightower no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 09:42 PM   #78
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Hightower - You comment on Zoning and Near South Plan

1. Regarding Zoning - see Lori Healy's presentation
she gives all the time (see the slide with the downtown map)
You will note that Central Station and Prairie District were to be
Downtown Residential (at least that what was agreed on). Not DX.
When your DPD head can't even get it right, WTF?

http://www.phil.frb.org/cca/conf/cca...des_healey.pdf

2. Near South Plan
At least be intelectually honest and present the entire plan (page 8). They had height recommendations on the entire District, not just the Landmarked portion. This would equate to about 20 stories, not 45, which is what all the other developers decided to respect, except for one.

The Prairie Avenue Chicago
Landmark District should be preserved and enhanced as
the “centerpiece” for this District. Low-rise structures are most
appropriate in 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.

Suggested building heights for this area should be in context
with development along the block face and immediate
surrounding area. Taller buildings should be approximately
60 feet along the Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th Street frontages:
and up to 250 feet elsewhere in the Development District



http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...ad_to_I-55.pdf


3. 16th Street Bridge - will not happen anytime soon, if the the St.
Charles line is not moved. There is not the same amount of room as
Roosevelt Drive's 4+ lanes. It will also depend on Central Station's
development/Air right plans to be released in 2008. Simple solution is
is to make Prairie one-way, problem solved. The residents could always
pull a Haithcock and say "Well those plans are not always followed"
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 09:54 PM   #79
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^I have a question, why do you care if its 45 instead of 20 floors? And dont say because "the plan says so!". Give me your honest opinion please.

I personally would be elated to hear a buildings height increased, not just because I like skyscrapers, but it would increase the tax base and density of the area, which would eventually lead to better schools, more retail, improved infrastructure, more political power etc. How about you?

And also, your frustration sounds like it comes from non-adherence to this plan. Well, what if the plan underestimated the growth (which it clearly did), wouldn't you think it needs to be updated or revised to accomodate this demand?
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 10th, 2007, 10:50 PM   #80
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,185
Likes (Received): 878

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
1. Regarding Zoning - see Lori Healy's presentation
she gives all the time (see the slide with the downtown map)
You will note that Central Station and Prairie District were to be
Downtown Residential (at least that what was agreed on). Not DX.
When your DPD head can't even get it right, WTF?

http://www.phil.frb.org/cca/conf/cca...des_healey.pdf

2. Near South Plan
At least be intelectually honest and present the entire plan (page 8). They had height recommendations on the entire District, not just the Landmarked portion. This would equate to about 20 stories, not 45, which is what all the other developers decided to respect, except for one.

The Prairie Avenue Chicago
Landmark District should be preserved and enhanced as
the “centerpiece” for this District. Low-rise structures are most
appropriate in 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.

Suggested building heights for this area should be in context
with development along the block face and immediate
surrounding area. Taller buildings should be approximately
60 feet along the Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th Street frontages:
and up to 250 feet elsewhere in the Development District



http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webpor...ad_to_I-55.pdf


3. 16th Street Bridge - will not happen anytime soon, if the the St.
Charles line is not moved. There is not the same amount of room as
Roosevelt Drive's 4+ lanes. It will also depend on Central Station's
development/Air right plans to be released in 2008. Simple solution is
is to make Prairie one-way, problem solved. The residents could always
pull a Haithcock and say "Well those plans are not always followed"
The people over there need to quit bitching about traffic since there is barely any, and what it created, they added to when they bought their shit designed townhomes.

By the way, would you happen to be the Jeff that TUP recently renamed?
BVictor1 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 05:26 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