SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   Midwest (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=39)
-   -   CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=213683)

left of center Apr 16, 2018 5:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emprise du Lion (Post 8155613)
The majority of pensioners in Illinois are on the municipal, not state, level. Those municipalities can be allowed to go bankrupt if necessary, but even then those pensioners are not likely to get "screwed." If large level municipal bankruptcies start occurring here in Illinois, we'll likely see something similar to the grand bargain that Detroit came up with. That came with a restructuring and haircuts, but the pensioners didn't get told to take a hike. Michigan also has a similar state level constitutional amendment as Illinois does, and they managed to come up with their bargain nonetheless.

Detroit's bankruptcy left plenty of unanswered questions though, and the district courts here and the 7th Circuit might handle things differently than what happened up in Michigan. Who knows.

Filing for chapter 9 bankruptcy supersedes state constitutions because it is done in a federal court. Municipalities have that right, but states as we know it do not.

bnk Apr 17, 2018 11:55 PM

I like this idea of use of money to keep the museum from raising prices every few years. Id like to see them lock in the current rates for at least another decade or longer, till 2030 would be nice, especially for international and out of state visitors IMO. That's what the donors would really like to happen, all cost raises, but gave most of the money without restrictions.

I would also like to see a big portion of the 50 M used in an endowment or used to create wealth in a mutual fund of some sort to grow larger over the years and make it untouchable for a long time and not blow it all in one stupid Warhol POS purchase or something like that. I'm ok if they use the rest of the non invested money to cover the rail tracks and create an additional wing for their Asian art and ancient Indian sculpture collections and free up that space for their other art that is just stored away. That would expand the footprint and allow more visitors access at the same time.




http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...418-story.html



Art Institute lands largest cash donation, $70 million in total







The Art Institute of Chicago publicly revealed the largest announced monetary gift in its history Tuesday, an unrestricted $50 million donation from trustee Janet Duchossois and her husband, Craig Duchossois, officials said.

In addition, trustees at Tuesday’s board meeting received news that board Chairman Robert Levy and his wife, Diane v.S. Levy, had ponied up another $20 million for operations and acquisitions at the not-for-profit institution.


..

There are no specific, immediate plans for the new money, Rondeau said, but he suggested it could be influential in shaping the museum’s future. The museum’s long-range plan has included hopes to put up a new building, possibly devoted to Asian art.

...

Levy said he hopes one of the things his family’s gift will do is “provide support to limit future price increases. … For us, access is a very important issue.”

The museum has had at least two price increases this decade. Most recently, in June 2015 general admission went up to $20 for Chicago adults, $22 for Illinoisans and $25 for those from outside the state.

Emprise du Lion Apr 18, 2018 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sukwoo (Post 8155711)
A lot, if not most of those municipal pensioners have pensions paid for by the state (ie school teachers.)

My mistake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 8155937)
Filing for chapter 9 bankruptcy supersedes state constitutions because it is done in a federal court. Municipalities have that right, but states as we know it do not.

Detroit's entry into Chapter 9 wasn't this cut and dry though. It was actually uncharted territory. Prior to Judge Rhodes' ruling, there had even been a popular assumption that the pensions would be given heightened protection rather than getting treated like any other contract.

Due to the uncharted nature, a different bankruptcy court in a different district might rule differently, but Detroit's precedent will certainly be taken into consideration either way.

glowrock Apr 18, 2018 1:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 8158446)
I like this idea of use of money to keep the museum from raising prices every few years. Id like to see them lock in the current rates for at least another decade or longer, till 2030 would be nice, especially for international and out of state visitors IMO. That's what the donors would really like to happen, all cost raises, but gave most of the money without restrictions.

I would also like to see a big portion of the 50 M used in an endowment or used to create wealth in a mutual fund of some sort to grow larger over the years and make it untouchable for a long time and not blow it all in one stupid Warhol POS purchase or something like that. I'm ok if they use the rest of the non invested money to cover the rail tracks and create an additional wing for their Asian art and ancient Indian sculpture collections and free up that space for their other art that is just stored away. That would expand the footprint and allow more visitors access at the same time.




http://www.chicagotribune.com/entert...418-story.html



Art Institute lands largest cash donation, $70 million in total







The Art Institute of Chicago publicly revealed the largest announced monetary gift in its history Tuesday, an unrestricted $50 million donation from trustee Janet Duchossois and her husband, Craig Duchossois, officials said.

In addition, trustees at Tuesday’s board meeting received news that board Chairman Robert Levy and his wife, Diane v.S. Levy, had ponied up another $20 million for operations and acquisitions at the not-for-profit institution.


..

There are no specific, immediate plans for the new money, Rondeau said, but he suggested it could be influential in shaping the museum’s future. The museum’s long-range plan has included hopes to put up a new building, possibly devoted to Asian art.

...

Levy said he hopes one of the things his family’s gift will do is “provide support to limit future price increases. … For us, access is a very important issue.”

The museum has had at least two price increases this decade. Most recently, in June 2015 general admission went up to $20 for Chicago adults, $22 for Illinoisans and $25 for those from outside the state.

While I do agree that price increases should be kept to a minimum when it comes to Chicago's major cultural facilities, especially its world-renowned museums, I'd still say that the Art Institute prices are amazingly inexpensive given the quality and quantity of art that is on display. Let's face it, we're talking about one of the world's great art museums, one with very, very few equivalents, not only in this country but throughout the world.

I do like the idea of adding additional space for their Asian collections, though. The one thing that seems to be relatively lacking is modern, contemporary art, even with the large amount of space in the Modern Wing. By moving some of what is in the Modern Wing to the current Asian galleries if and when a new wing is constructed for those works, it would be an overall win-win situation.

Aaron (Glowrock)

i_am_hydrogen Apr 18, 2018 3:00 PM

Aldermen's absolute veto power over ward projects gets unlikely court challenge
Posted By Maya Dukmasova on 04.16.18 at 02:55 PM

GlenStar, the luxury developer at odds with 41st Ward alderman Anthony Napolitano over a proposed 299-unit apartment building near the Cumberland Blue Line, has sued the city in an attempt to secure the necessary zoning changes to proceed with construction. But buried in its demands that a judge find city officials' actions regarding its proposed building unlawful is a major legal challenge to the age-old practice of "aldermanic prerogative."

This tradition, while not articulated anywhere in city code, has historically given aldermen veto power over developments in their ward. As the case of GlenStar's proposal has shown, when Napolitano decided he didn't want its apartment building in his ward, the City Council's zoning committee complied and didn't grant the developer a hearing or vote on its proposal...

https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ourt-challenge

left of center Apr 18, 2018 3:06 PM

^ Interesting... if this case works out in the favor of GlenStar, it could set a powerful precedent that aldermanic prerogative is no longer acceptable in Chicago... which would be absolutely fantastic!

ardecila Apr 18, 2018 3:28 PM

^ I feel like we’ve seen this movie before re:lawsuits... even a victory for the developer would be narrow and only apply to the project in question, not aldermanic prerogative generally. Aldermanic prerogative is just a shortcut that enables City Council to function, imagine if every alderman had to weigh the pros and cons of every zoning change across the city. Now, aldermen generally have an obligation to conduct a predictable and consistent process for evaluating zoning changes before rendering a decision of support or no support, but this development did not really receive that.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chi...media=AMP+HTML

The development went through the community process and was generally supported, Ald. Napolitano even wrote a letter of support before suddenly getting cold feet and deciding his ass was on the line if the new development brought more traffic and poor people into his ward. Basically he got scared after the NW Side racist NIMBYs turned out in force against a different affordable housing proposal in Jefferson Park.

west-town-brad Apr 18, 2018 3:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen (Post 8158996)
Aldermen's absolute veto power over ward projects gets unlikely court challenge
Posted By Maya Dukmasova on 04.16.18 at 02:55 PM

GlenStar, the luxury developer at odds with 41st Ward alderman Anthony Napolitano over a proposed 299-unit apartment building near the Cumberland Blue Line, has sued the city in an attempt to secure the necessary zoning changes to proceed with construction. But buried in its demands that a judge find city officials' actions regarding its proposed building unlawful is a major legal challenge to the age-old practice of "aldermanic prerogative."

This tradition, while not articulated anywhere in city code, has historically given aldermen veto power over developments in their ward. As the case of GlenStar's proposal has shown, when Napolitano decided he didn't want its apartment building in his ward, the City Council's zoning committee complied and didn't grant the developer a hearing or vote on its proposal...

https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleade...ourt-challenge

Maybe he blocked it because it has the design ascetic of an airport Hojo outside Cleveland.

left of center Apr 18, 2018 3:51 PM

The design isn't pushing any boundaries, but it *is* Jefferson Park after all. Anything remotely interesting being proposed there would probably ruffle even more feathers and add to the ranks of the zombie NIMBY horde.

Although if that surface parking lot is part of the development, then there goes my support for this project. They should at least spring for a garage of some sort.

LouisVanDerWright Apr 18, 2018 4:32 PM

Interesting, we were just discussing how aldermanic perogative is probably illegal at a policy event last week. No one has ever challenged it before and it is possible that the current practice is illegal. It's just hard to sue over it because it's not written down. You can't say that cities can't have the council vote on zoning matters and they all just decide to go along with it on their own volition, so how do you sue over it?


Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaccer05 (Post 8158624)
Depends on where you're going in the West Loop. Just take the Blue Line through the loop to UIC Halsted or Racine stop. Actually is quite accessible to southern half of West Loop. UIC Halsted stop is just a couple blocks from Greektown and 0.4 miles (~8 min walk) to Mary Bartelme Park. More of a jaunt to Randolph but within 15 min walk. But would need to transfer at Grand if you're going heart of Fulton Market where office demand is blowing up. In which case Pink Line is far superior as you highlight.

Yeah, but if you go through the loop on the Blue that basically doubles the travel distance and time from somewhere like Logan Square. That's like 5 more stops than just getting off at Grand.

The West Loop really is just poorly connected to other sides of the city just as pretty much every corner of the city is. Only certain lines cut through downtown each connecting only certain sides of the city. We are a hub and spoke city at the end of the day which means it's hard to go from one quadrant to the others. This is why I'm so bullish on that entire side of downtown. The forces of development have decided that, now that the north side and NW side are pretty much filled up, they will push West and SW.

Baronvonellis Apr 18, 2018 4:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 8158574)
While I do agree that price increases should be kept to a minimum when it comes to Chicago's major cultural facilities, especially its world-renowned museums, I'd still say that the Art Institute prices are amazingly inexpensive given the quality and quantity of art that is on display. Let's face it, we're talking about one of the world's great art museums, one with very, very few equivalents, not only in this country but throughout the world.

I do like the idea of adding additional space for their Asian collections, though. The one thing that seems to be relatively lacking is modern, contemporary art, even with the large amount of space in the Modern Wing. By moving some of what is in the Modern Wing to the current Asian galleries if and when a new wing is constructed for those works, it would be an overall win-win situation.

Aaron (Glowrock)

How do you figure it's amazingly inexpensive? If anything it's pretty expensive. The Met in NY is way bigger and better, and it's free with a suggested donation.

The Louve is much bigger and better and is only 15 euros.
The 5 museums in Berlin on Museum Island together are only 18 euros.
My favorite museum The Prado in Madrid is only 15 euros.

I'm not interested in Asian art. Most of the contemporary art they buy is a huge rip off! Millions for a couple paint splatters on a huge canvas, a neon sign with a snarky comment, or some random photos that look like something any art student could come up with.

The Reina Sofia National Art museum in Madrid is my favorite modern art museum, It has a very excellent quality collection of Modern art. It's only 10 euro

Vlajos Apr 18, 2018 4:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 8159005)
^ Interesting... if this case works out in the favor of GlenStar, it could set a powerful precedent that aldermanic prerogative is no longer acceptable in Chicago... which would be absolutely fantastic!

Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

Vlajos Apr 18, 2018 4:50 PM

^ it's not really fair to compare European art museums to US art museums in terms of cost. As we all know, Europe provides large subsidies to many things that US does not. It's like public transport there vs. the US. Just not comparable.

I personally think the Art Institute is one of the greatest art museums in the world. I love the Prado too, I honestly think AI is better though. Of course the Louvre is the best in the world to me.

k1052 Apr 18, 2018 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos (Post 8159157)
Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

Though NYC has Community Boards screwing up basically everything they can get their hands on. I'll let the oversized city council live if that's an alternative.

left of center Apr 18, 2018 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos (Post 8159157)
Maybe we could finally get rid of our way too big city council. LA seems to be fine far fewer members and over 1 million more people. NYC has the same size council with over 5 million more people and that city seems to be ok.

I think reducing the city council to 25 members would be pretty good in terms of representation as well as cost savings to the city. That would allow for roughly 1 alderman to represent 100,000 residents. That compares to 1 alderman per 170,000 residents in New York and per 250,000 residents in Los Angeles. The current ratio of 1 per 50,000 residents is frankly a pretty inefficient use of city resources...

Khantilever Apr 18, 2018 6:29 PM

Let’s be careful with what we wish for. Aldermanic Privilege empowers NIMBYism in some cases, but also makes development easier in many cases. First of all, with a centralized process we run the risk of a more restrictive zoning map applied to the entire city and a much more difficult re-zoning process. Second, the highly non-compact Ward boundaries allow for Aldermen to approve developments in areas under their jurisdiction which are relatively far from their core constituencies - I think Hopkins Ward 2 is a prime example of this, and I’ve heard stories about how Luis Gutierrez intentionally focused development in such parts of his ward when he was an Alderman.

I’m a PhD candidate in economics and I have a paper where I used this feature of Chicago’s process to look at development in the city, trying to find this effect in the data. And I see it. Homeownership rates are the prime predictor of opposition to development. But what I find is that when I have two block groups with similar homeownership rates and other characteristics which only differ in terms of which Ward they’re associated with, the one in the relatively renter-dominated Ward experiences faster and larger re-zonings.

I’m currently working on a model that will allow for some counterfactual simulations where I can redraw Ward boundaries or change the number of wards or even dissolve city council. But my intuition based on my existing results is that Aldermanic Privilege May well be generally beneficial to development. In general, Aldermen probably have an incentive to approve developments, thanks to the contributions they get — perhaps an instance of what we sometimes call efficiency-improving corruption. So even though they’ll cater to NIMBYs quite often, they also play a role in redrawing wards in a way that makes future development easier. I can’t claim to be privy to the details of the last redrawing, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the North Branch got lumped with a bunch of disparate areas. Obviously the big goal was to screw Fioretti, but it also gives surrounding Aldermen political cover to allow large-scale redevelopment to occur since its outside of their control.

And then of course we have the classic Tiebout sorting view that also suggests the system is better for us overall. You want low-density neighborhoods? There’s a ward for you. You want high density? We got you. If we were to instead create one standard for the city, because of their higher incomes and political participation the preferences of NIMBY homeowners are likely to be more influential than others’.

Vlajos Apr 18, 2018 6:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 8159297)
I think reducing the city council to 25 members would be pretty good in terms of representation as well as cost savings to the city. That would allow for roughly 1 alderman to represent 100,000 residents. That compares to 1 alderman per 170,000 residents in New York and per 250,000 residents in Los Angeles. The current ratio of 1 per 50,000 residents is frankly a pretty inefficient use of city resources...

I'd go with 10, but 25 is better than 50.

emathias Apr 18, 2018 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock (Post 8158574)
While I do agree that price increases should be kept to a minimum when it comes to Chicago's major cultural facilities, especially its world-renowned museums, I'd still say that the Art Institute prices are amazingly inexpensive given the quality and quantity of art that is on display. Let's face it, we're talking about one of the world's great art museums, one with very, very few equivalents, not only in this country but throughout the world.

I do like the idea of adding additional space for their Asian collections, though. The one thing that seems to be relatively lacking is modern, contemporary art, even with the large amount of space in the Modern Wing. By moving some of what is in the Modern Wing to the current Asian galleries if and when a new wing is constructed for those works, it would be an overall win-win situation.

Aaron (Glowrock)

Not that long ago, entry fees to the Art Institute were "suggested." It's relatively recent that they became "enforced."

Vlajos Apr 18, 2018 7:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 8159428)
Not that long ago, entry fees to the Art Institute were "suggested." It's relatively recent that they became "enforced."

I didn't realize they were enforced now. I've always paid either way so it never mattered to me anyway.

left of center Apr 18, 2018 8:19 PM

^ Same here, I was under the impression that the voluntary suggested donation was still in force. I haven't been to the AI for a number of years however... I really should reacquaint myself with the city's cultural institutions...


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.