Nice – I'll gladly take another 5-10 years of seeing The Chandler's party wall if it means they slip a narrow mid-rise in there. It's exactly the kind of granular development lacking in an area like LSE.

For those interested in the slideshow presentation and sending in comments:

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...arcelsIJKL.pdf

http://www.ward42chicago.com/documen...ToAlderman.pdf


Email: development@ward42chicago.com

Thanks BVic!
I love the fact that they included a number of drawings related to view corridors, to shut up people who bring up that issue during community meetings...unless that's now fairly common, to which I was unaware of..

I remain deeply disturbed by the party wall on the Chandler. According to all these diagrams, there is no intention of building anything to cover up that ugly (and so visible) scar.

.

delete

Taking care of that is not going to be an issue if there is a will to eliminate it

Send an email to the alderman with your aesthetic concerns.

Cutting edge design, great spot for more density.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...213-story.html

Plan for 80-story tower, two others in Lakeshore East hits roadblock

Ryan OriContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune
December 13, 2017

Do we get to know what the concerns are? Or should we just assume it's parking, traffic, density and sunlight.
You know, the four horsemen of the apocolypse.

Nothing specifically pointing out issues with density, height or traffic concerns.

None of the demands seem insurmountable or a deal breaker by any means. Hopefully this is only a minor bump on the road to approval.

^those were my thoughts as well also I don't know if they even have the power to go after density given the PD is already in place.

I always thought this would break ground when Vista is at or near completion, so plenty of time to iron out kinks.

SkyscraperPage: Where asking a developer—one who's applying for a PD amendment—to improve minor urban design aspects of its site plan is considered an outrage.

The crime here is that Chicago's planning department is so badly understaffed that the alderman has to be the one doing site plan review.

Sorry Mr. FOT Parking Lot Representative,

But I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that the aldermen have too much power, and they abuse their power frequently. If the aldermen had less power then the city could create a truly powerful planning committee.Then we could get rid of NIMBYism once and for all.

I may not agree with the decisions often make planning wise and I certainly am in favor of dense urban design but I'm not comfortable with solving these problems by isolating zoning & planning from the democratic process.

I share your goals, and there are many problems associated with the amount of power we have granted Alsermen over zoning. But I have to push back against the idea that taking away that power would reduce NIMBY power.

If zoning was really controlled by the urban planners, we might end up following the lead of other major US cities which end up zoning almost everything too tightly. The advantage of Chicago’s locally-controlled, parcel-by-parcel zoning is that it allows experimentation and a case-by-case evaluation of the costs and benefits.

And, most importantly, it allows for more lobbying by developers. Some people call that a form of corruption, but democracy requires that all stakeholders’ voices be heard. If the benefits to society of a dense development are sufficiently large, it’s tbe developer’s lobbying that helps gain the Alderman’s approval over the voices of a handful of NIMBYs. It’s unlikely that developers would lobby sufficiently for more relaxed zoning if it was controlled centrally.

^ I understand where you are coming from. The main reason I want to centralize zoning powers is the hope that the government would encourage more affordable developments. These dense, affordable developments would encourage diversity (of economic status) and therefore help stop NIMBYism. Albeit, that is a bit of a perfect world.

We shouldn't isolate from it completely, but clearly leaving each individual zone at the whim of aldermen who bend over for cries of "my views" and "so much shadow!" has shown that the city overall suffers. There should be fair input from both sides. The continued development of the second largest CBD of the country should not be stifled in this way. Chicago is known for big and tall, and yet we have these people constantly treating it like some midrise resort town and how dare buildings be built taller than 30 floors.

I'm with Mr. D on this. Density was only a minor footnote in Reilly's communique.

Overall it seems like he's genuinely trying to make the development of this site into a better gateway to the lakefront. Maggie Daley Park improved the connection from Millennium Park to Navy Pier somewhat, but this site is still a huge missing link for tourists and Chicagoans alike.

I had similar concerns when Magellan first unveiled the site plan. It's a hugely suburban layout, it just has very tall and sleek buildings in place of squat little garden apartments. Literally half of the so-called "open space" is taken up by individual car dropoffs and private fenced pool areas. I do think the site planning would be better if the buildings were pushed to the edges and a larger green space (or plaza, etc) created in the middle.

Seriously, at such an important site, there's no reason the architects should take this as inspiration:
https://g5-assets-cld-res.cloudinary...erial-home.jpg
src