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 26th, 2007, 06:20 AM   #161
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
Mr Downtown and ErmDiego are our inhouse NIMBY's, and their presence gives us some good insider rep. They use their intelligent minds for evil (ie NIMBYism) instead of good (kick-ass development that inspires).

Please, no angry replies, I'm just poking some fun here..
Exactly. Even though we may disagree with them, they still deserve to be here so long as they are respectful of other forumers. And what's the common aphorism: "Know thine enemy"?
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 26th, 2007, 07:03 AM   #162
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
Although there has been great focus on this word “must” , the actual community plan (which, by the way, is still in draft form), includes language such as “suggested” and “should”, both words are clearly not mandatory……

Even considering the context in which “must” is used, it is combined with a significant qualifier: “consistent”…..consistent within a master plan is always open to interpretation….
I'm not sure why you claim the plan is still in draft form. It is discouraging that the city's webmaster never updated the PDF or the web page.

Here is the actual language from the approved Near South Community Plan:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments, and guide potential height limitations in or near Landmark Districts.

Now please explain how a 450-foot tower is "consistent" with a 60-foot upper limit on height.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 09:42 AM   #163
hoju
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 59
Likes (Received): 0

Well it sounds like there is plenty of wiggle room in the language there:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments, and guide potential height limitations in or near Landmark Districts.

So thankfully, the city is using some logic and reason to guide and assist us away from this outdated plan that wouldn't let the south loop grow in a way that is consistent with its potential to be a vibrant, dense, urban addition to our city.
hoju no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 02:58 PM   #164
ChiPsy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 68
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoju View Post
Well it sounds like there is plenty of wiggle room in the language there:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments, and guide potential height limitations in or near Landmark Districts.

So thankfully, the city is using some logic and reason to guide and assist us away from this outdated plan that wouldn't let the south loop grow in a way that is consistent with its potential to be a vibrant, dense, urban addition to our city.
Absolutely, and you could have highlighted "potential" in that sentence too, as well as "are intended to" (vs. simply "set"). Unless there's more to this document that Mr. DT hasn't posted yet, it's clearly advisory, not an inscription/codification of a mandatory layer of review.
ChiPsy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 02:59 PM   #165
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Or not so much:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments

I'm curious why none of you commented on the Near South Community Plan during all the years it was under preparation, why none of you decried the height limits at the Plan Commission meeting where they were adopted, only 18 months before Frankel & Giles proposed ignoring them. There are plenty of places in the South Loop where they can build 450-foot buildings. Or they could get their handmaidens, the Near South Planning Board and GSLA, to request the city amend the plan to account for "changed conditions"--when the only thing that's really changed is that they can sell condos faster than they thought they could in 2003.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 03:44 PM   #166
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Or not so much:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments

I'm curious why none of you commented on the Near South Community Plan during all the years it was under preparation, why none of you decried the height limits at the Plan Commission meeting where they were adopted, only 18 months before Frankel & Giles proposed ignoring them. There are plenty of places in the South Loop where they can build 450-foot buildings. Or they could get their handmaidens, the Near South Planning Board and GSLA, to request the city amend the plan to account for "changed conditions"--when the only thing that's really changed is that they can sell condos faster than they thought they cou ld in 2003.
what does it matter? they are commenting on it now, as the neighborhood has experienced and continues to experience explosive growth....

if I recall correctly, the details of the plan, and particularly the suggested building heights were an unresolved issue amongst the various community groups, the DOP, and the SLPB
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 26th, 2007, 06:41 PM   #167
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
Or not so much:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments

I'm curious why none of you commented on the Near South Community Plan during all the years it was under preparation, why none of you decried the height limits at the Plan Commission meeting where they were adopted, only 18 months before Frankel & Giles proposed ignoring them. There are plenty of places in the South Loop where they can build 450-foot buildings. Or they could get their handmaidens, the Near South Planning Board and GSLA, to request the city amend the plan to account for "changed conditions"--when the only thing that's really changed is that they can sell condos faster than they thought they could in 2003.
If I had known about the development of the plan and the idiocy that's written within it, you can bet you ass I'd have said something. But seeing as the city was at least smart enough to adopt only a suggested plan, I, along with other formers will give those suggestions now...

And I'd agree with you that there are plenty of places in the South Loop for a 450-foot building, this site just happens to be one of them. Things are being amended. They are just doing it project bu project instead of the whole thing at once. I bet you this though, if the Near South Planning Board and GSLA, requested the city to amend the plan to account for "changed conditions", you and many others in the South Loop would be up in arms because of the currently approved suggested plan was adopted. It would be no different.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 09:26 AM   #168
Latoso
C.B.P.
 
Latoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,189
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Or not so much:

The suggested building heights are intended to set upper limits to assist in the review of proposed Planned Developments
Yes, it does indeed say intended. But that doesn't mean anything concrete or legally binding. I think you misunderstand the meaning of intended. Here's a little something to help you out. When I go to the store to buy a MegaMillions Lottery ticket, I fully intend to win. Unfortunately, my intending to win hasn't made it so.
__________________
LATOSO
C.B.P. - Citizens for Better Planning

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood and probably will themselves not be realized. Make big plans; aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will not die. - Daniel Burnham
Latoso no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 04:49 PM   #169
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 Sir Isaac Newton View Post
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.
if it sounds to good to be true than it probably is,
that sounds so ridiculous, if there is developable land in front of a condo and the condo isnt that high up, i would find inconceivable for such a claim to be remotely possible, real estate guys are just like car salesmen, (some of them)
he just wants his comission and to sell the damn thing.

the only way to guarantee a lake view for life is to buy a building adjacent to the lake, or a condo there, there have been some stunning condo conversions on the lake in rogers park east of sheridan, thats where someone should buy if they are gunning for lakeview for life.
mohammed wong no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 10:21 PM   #170
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Other areas of Plan Divergence

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
If I had known about the development of the plan and the idiocy that's written within it, you can bet you ass I'd have said something. But seeing as the city was at least smart enough to adopt only a suggested plan, I, along with other formers will give those suggestions now...

And I'd agree with you that there are plenty of places in the South Loop for a 450-foot building, this site just happens to be one of them. Things are being amended. They are just doing it project bu project instead of the whole thing at once. I bet you this though, if the Near South Planning Board and GSLA, requested the city to amend the plan to account for "changed conditions", you and many others in the South Loop would be up in arms because of the currently approved suggested plan was adopted. It would be no different.
On the flip side, while trying to place a monster in the middle of a residential neighorhood, a similar failing could be said for the lack of attention on Cermak where the goal was to create taller buildings, per the Central Plan. The Lexington is a great start to the goal of building tall on Cermak to frame the South Loop, but then why continue with a cheap 1 floor structure across the street on Northwest corner of Cermak & Michigan (think it is some small shops called "Convention" something) in addition to the small commerical spaces on the South Side of Cermak with the dry-cleaners, chicken-shack etc. Suddenly the goal of the plan is not worthy?

Your comment on they are doing it project by project is scary as is the cry here to leave planning and development to DPD officials. Besides the documented corruption issues, the DPD head and the Chairwoman of the Plan Commission admitted they fail frequently in reviewing how each project fits within each neighborhood or area. (Sun Times - Roeder 2006) A benefit of the plans was to avoid the project by project "NIMBY" attitude thou claim is prevelent of residents.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 10:48 PM   #171
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
If I had known about the development of the plan and the idiocy that's written within it, you can bet you ass I'd have said something. But seeing as the city was at least smart enough to adopt only a suggested plan, I, along with other formers will give those suggestions now...
Sounds like Ermdiego and Mr Downtown may soon be making plans to move to the west loop and join up with WLCO. Their brothers from different mothers.

But really, we're arguing semantics now but I think its pretty clear that the language used is not concrete enough to warrant strict adherence to any plan. If it did, it would say "shall" and "will" and "must", like contract docs and specs do. And keep in mind, this is what neighborhood plans are supposed to do, merely provide a guide. They allow room for the economic conditions to change, since obviously no one can predict frequent market changes (if we could we would all be rich). If development is far faster than anticipated, why not take advantage? Only selfish nimby's would disagree.

Case by case, yes, I think the city will occasionaly miss some projects, but if it means allowing room for grander ones that will improve the density and add livelihood to the neighborhood, I think most should be willing to live with that. Anyway, no one here is complaining about the small stores on cermak (at least to the extent that ermdiego and Mr DT are arguing against this project anyways).
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 12:25 AM   #172
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
On the flip side, while trying to place a monster in the middle of a residential neighorhood, a similar failing could be said for the lack of attention on Cermak where the goal was to create taller buildings, per the Central Plan. The Lexington is a great start to the goal of building tall on Cermak to frame the South Loop, but then why continue with a cheap 1 floor structure across the street on Northwest corner of Cermak & Michigan (think it is some small shops called "Convention" something) in addition to the small commerical spaces on the South Side of Cermak with the dry-cleaners, chicken-shack etc. Suddenly the goal of the plan is not worthy?
What's good about the cheap 1-story structure is that it's easily torn down if a better opportunity presents itself in the future. There's still plenty of room of Cermack for highrises. Lexington Park is a start, then there's the building that will go around the corner from it on Indiana, then there's the potential for another McCormick Place Hotel.
BVictor1 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 12:38 AM   #173
High Life on LSD
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 64
Likes (Received): 2

I am not sure what Ermdingo is so bent up about. The streets that run closer to Lakeshore Drive are built up with tall buildings all the way to Rogers Park. Why should this area be any different? One of the most amazing things about the City of Chicago is getting closer and closer via boat on Lake Michigan. When you see that wall of building from a distance, it blows away those cheesy Southern California views from a hilltop. It's unfortunate that everyone doesn't get a chance to see it (outside of a picture at some tourist shop). These two towers will do so much to add to that view, I can't believe that some people can be so selfish and complain about traffic and shade. You don’t love the City and it’s beauty, you just love your own home. Seriously, there is nice place called Inverness, IL, which is near where I grew up. It’s been there for over a hundred years designed specifically, for people like you. Please leave, it’s the best thing for everyone.
High Life on LSD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 10:01 AM   #174
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Read More, Post Less

Quote:
Originally Posted by High Life on LSD View Post
I am not sure what Ermdingo is so bent up about. The streets that run closer to Lakeshore Drive are built up with tall buildings all the way to Rogers Park. Why should this area be any different? One of the most amazing things about the City of Chicago is getting closer and closer via boat on Lake Michigan. When you see that wall of building from a distance, it blows away those cheesy Southern California views from a hilltop. It's unfortunate that everyone doesn't get a chance to see it (outside of a picture at some tourist shop). These two towers will do so much to add to that view, I can't believe that some people can be so selfish and complain about traffic and shade. You don’t love the City and it’s beauty, you just love your own home. Seriously, there is nice place called Inverness, IL, which is near where I grew up. It’s been there for over a hundred years designed specifically, for people like you. Please leave, it’s the best thing for everyone.
By the time, if these things ever get built, they will be blocked from the lake view by Central Stations next phase to be announced later this year. 7-9+ Towers and 300-400 Townhomes over the train track air rights from about
14th Street to just past 18th.

As to the area you speak of, Rogers Park, etc. ok, snicker, You go ahead and live in Rogers Park, it may be about your speed.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 10:03 AM   #175
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

You are talking about Rokas 21st and Indiana

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVictor1 View Post
What's good about the cheap 1-story structure is that it's easily torn down if a better opportunity presents itself in the future. There's still plenty of room of Cermack for highrises. Lexington Park is a start, then there's the building that will go around the corner from it on Indiana, then there's the potential for another McCormick Place Hotel.
I think, for some reason it will be a tough sell at the prices I have seen, and with the area inventory.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 11:13 AM   #176
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; May 18th, 2010 at 04:48 AM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 01:09 PM   #177
hoju
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 59
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErmDiego View Post
As to the area you speak of, Rogers Park, etc. ok, snicker, You go ahead and live in Rogers Park, it may be about your speed.
What the hell are you snickering about? You got some problem with Rogers Park? Or are you just revealing more of your prentenious attitude and general ignorance of our city?

-edit- Apologies for going off topic.

Last edited by hoju; April 28th, 2007 at 10:38 PM.
hoju no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 06:11 PM   #178
trvlr70
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 258
Likes (Received): 0

This thread has been hijacked long enough with endless bullshit discussions that have very little to do with X/O. It's boring and rude.

Let's get this back on track, please.
trvlr70 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 08:30 PM   #179
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

^Yes I agree. It seems obvious that no one is going to change their mind so what is the point of going back and forth over these things?
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2007, 09:22 PM   #180
BVictor1
Chicago's #1 Fan
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,186
Likes (Received): 882

Quote:
Originally Posted by spyguy View Post
^Yes I agree. It seems obvious that no one is going to change their mind so what is the point of going back and forth over these things?
Agreed.

X/O will be built and hopefully other tall buildings in the area. But I must say that It's been interesting to learn peoples ignorance about other parts of the city.
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 12:07 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