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 22nd, 2007, 09:15 PM   #121
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
^ Are these plans legally binding?
They are for Planned Development ordinances.


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

Sponsored Links
Old April 23rd, 2007, 01:50 AM   #122
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
They are for Planned Development ordinances.


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.
^ So the loophole is the interpretation of the word 'consistent', I'm assuming
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2007, 04:21 AM   #123
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
^ So the loophole is the interpretation of the word 'consistent', I'm assuming
No loophole needed. Plan Commission (and DPD staff) just didn't bother to look at the plan.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 23rd, 2007, 11:43 PM   #124
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
No loophole needed. Plan Commission (and DPD staff) just didn't bother to look at the plan.
The only thing arguably that is not consistent with the south side plan would be the height....do the neighbors really want a lot line building (library tower) rather then the thin towers that will let significantly more light onto Prairie and the townhomes that are flanking it?
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 12:09 AM   #125
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Tall & Thin

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
The only thing arguably that is not consistent with the south side plan would be the height....do the neighbors really want a lot line building (library tower) rather then the thin towers that will let significantly more light onto Prairie and the townhomes that are flanking it?
Don't kid yourself, these are tall, but not thin buildings. Each of the two proposed building's may be wider than the Columbian on Michigan. Other developers who developing on the same block, like Central Station, who have a far better reputation, respected the Central Plan and Near South Community Plan enough to know not to go that height on the same Prairie Avenue, even though their site zoning may have allowed it. (30 stories max)

You are going to find the marginal developers who want to desperately go for broke, like Frankel & Giles (only 3rd new building - not counting State Place which was someone else behind the scenes). Buyers really should review the quality history and plan extra money accordingly.

Problem I have with DPD, is if Tall & Thin is the desired, why not revise the plan accordingly, instead of an arbitrary ruling on each project that counters every plan?
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 01:33 AM   #126
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Build them as tall as possible, and as 'illegal' as possible. Written into law huh, thats hilarious. Sorry, I know you guys worked so hard on that plan, you probably should have just left more room for growth, density and height (this is downtown). Then you wouldn't freak from all this development.

The columbian is thin as hell. So is Park Michigan. X/O doesn't look that thin, but it looks more interesting than many buildings of this boom. Anyway, I just hope all these proposals are built and all these ridiculous nimbys and their precious views are assed out. Meanwhile, the area gets tons of businesses and pedestrian traffic, as well as a dope new skyline.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 01:53 AM   #127
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
do the neighbors really want a lot line building (library tower) rather then the thin towers
I don't think 60-foot buildings on a 66-foot-wide street present a real light and air problem.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 02:00 AM   #128
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

^Are you saying you want only 60 foot buildings downtown, Mr Downtown?
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 02:19 AM   #129
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Views?

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
Build them as tall as possible, and as 'illegal' as possible. Written into law huh, thats hilarious. Sorry, I know you guys worked so hard on that plan, you probably should have just left more room for growth, density and height (this is downtown). Then you wouldn't freak from all this development.

The columbian is thin as hell. So is Park Michigan. X/O doesn't look that thin, but it looks more interesting than many buildings of this boom. Anyway, I just hope all these proposals are built and all these ridiculous nimbys and their precious views are assed out. Meanwhile, the area gets tons of businesses and pedestrian traffic, as well as a dope new skyline.
Where do you keep getting this issue of views? No one gives a rat's ass about views, especially in Townhomes, nor has anyone indicated this as a major issue. It is about the city doing what they said they were going to do. Besides, in another 3-4 years, you will not see these towers from Lakeshore Drive as the monsters over the air-rights of the tracks get built. Those hoping for a lake view will be dissappointed and crying. Where as if you buy in Central Station, they deed you garaunteed views...X/O is not part of Central Station, thus they can and will be blocked out.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 03:03 AM   #130
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
Where do you keep getting this issue of views? No one gives a rat's ass about views, especially in Townhomes, nor has anyone indicated this as a major issue.
Surely you cant speak for the entire community now can you? Or do you. And no, people wont say views are their big issue, its normally veiled by something more pressing, like shadows, traffic, or parking. Otherwise they couldn't hope to be taken seriously now could they.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 03:58 AM   #131
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by robituss View Post
^Are you saying you want only 60 foot buildings downtown?
No, 60 feet was the height limit specified for certain street frontages--Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th--within the "Prairie Avenue District" of "Area 2" in the Near South Community Plan.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 04:00 AM   #132
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Besides, in another 3-4 years, you will not see these towers from Lakeshore Drive as the monsters over the air-rights of the tracks get built.
Monsters? You mean the Olympic Village? Isn't the highest only like 16 stories? I'd hardly call those monsters. There is a large height difference between 44 stories and 16 stories, but I don't even think that they're that high.
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 04:01 AM   #133
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

Mr. Downtown, I would like to have a looksee at the Community plan. Do you have or know where I can look at a map of it? Maybe posting it would help to resolve some issues here.
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 04:07 AM   #134
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
Mr. Downtown, I would like to have a looksee at the Community plan.
http://tinyurl.com/2dpkb5
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 04:36 AM   #135
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 04:50 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 06:03 AM   #136
mohammed wong
Registered User
 
mohammed wong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chevanston, IL
Posts: 1,853
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
[taken from website intro page]
Near South Community Plan


The Near South Community Plan will serve as a guide to future development of the South Loop and Near South communities by recommending future land use, open space and transportation improvements.

The plan provides development goals and projections for a two-square-mile area between Congress Parkway, Lakeshore Drive, the South Branch of the Chicago River and the Stevenson Expressway (I-55), not including Grant Park or the Chintown area southwest of Cermak Road and Clark Street.

Residents, business owners, land owners and interested members of the public are invited to review and comment on the final draft of the plan. Subsequent to public feedback, the Department of Planning and Development will submit it to the Chicago Plan Commission for review and adoption.

Copies of the current draft are available for pick-up at City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle St., Room 1000, Chicago. PDF versions of the plan can be downloaded below.

Written comments can be mailed to Benet Haller, Dept. of Planning and Development, 121 N. LaSalle #1101, Chicago, Illinois 60602, or emailed to [email protected].

[is there a final draft?, looks like this is purposely just guidelines with some far off supposed final draft, heavy on the draft, nothing is permanent, which is one thing i have learned thru this site and just watching chicago grow and change, which i do accept and dont mind so much anymore, anyways i dont think it was the intention at all of making some rule book for alltime for zoning for this area of chicago, especially for it being downtown adjacent]
mohammed wong no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 05:09 PM   #137
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
No, 60 feet was the height limit specified for certain street frontages--Prairie, Cullerton, and 18th--within the "Prairie Avenue District" of "Area 2" in the Near South Community Plan.
There appears to be some confusion about the historic district....

Just wanted to point out that XO is NOT in the historic district but rather adjacent to it.....it is part of the Prairie Avenue District which includes the historic district....

The South Loop plan clearly anticipates tall residential towers adjacent to the historic district (as opposed to the Prairie Avenue district)
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 06:02 PM   #138
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Near South Community Plan

Quote:
Originally Posted by slooparch View Post
There appears to be some confusion about the historic district....

Just wanted to point out that XO is NOT in the historic district but rather adjacent to it.....it is part of the Prairie Avenue District which includes the historic district....

The South Loop plan clearly anticipates tall residential towers adjacent to the historic district (as opposed to the Prairie Avenue district)
http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/w...OID=-536886455

slooparch, you may want to read the plans a little closer. The plans are relevant for the entire District, not just the Historic Portion. The height, material, and character recommendations were for area outside the Historic District as well. Frankel & Giles try to say the same thing, but then their advertisment claims the are in the middle of this Historic District...a little misleading.

The South Loop Community Plan called for less than 100 feet on Prairie, 18th, Cullerton, and 285 feet elsewhere, with consideration for set-back, while a gradual progression in height to 16th. 45 stories is not gradual, and not even close to what was envisioned. But for the right amount of money to the Alderman, and someone else in City Hall, you too can do whatever you want.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 06:05 PM   #139
Sir Isaac Newton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 346
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
Where do you keep getting this issue of views? No one gives a rat's ass about views, especially in Townhomes, nor has anyone indicated this as a major issue. It is about the city doing what they said they were going to do. Besides, in another 3-4 years, you will not see these towers from Lakeshore Drive as the monsters over the air-rights of the tracks get built. Those hoping for a lake view will be dissappointed and crying. Where as if you buy in Central Station, they deed you garaunteed views...X/O is not part of Central Station, thus they can and will be blocked out.
Actually, quite recently one of my coworkers told me about a friend who bought a condo in Central Station where she was guaranteed lake views "for life". Only to have Central Station build another high rise a year or two later that blocked those guaranteed lake views. I can't remember exactly what my coworker said the deal was, but I remember at the very least that some residents were considering taking legal action; not sure if they actually have (or will) take legal action yet. To me, that seems extremely shady - not only did they guarantee views when they thought that it was possible that some other developer's building could block those views; they guaranteed views when they themselves built a new building that blocked those views.

So ErmDiego - I find it funny that rip on Frankel & Giles, and other developers, yet constantly praise the developers of Central Station...considering the shady sh*t that they pulled (not to mention, all of their comleted buildings are friggin' ugly (the OMP buildings look like they should be nice, at least)). I am guessing that this might be a clue your ulterior motives, which would help explain your arguments and rants against X/O.
Sir Isaac Newton no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 24th, 2007, 06:10 PM   #140
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

read it closer?....I was part of the development of that plan and I am not sure what you think I misstated....

xo is NOT in the historic district....

F&G's marketing is irrelevant....
slooparch 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 03:19 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