The problem is that they often do, especially when it comes to the aldermanic persuasion.

Well that's a real shame if it does. It's very un-Chicago for a building to be downsized by NIMBY's. That's something you'd expect more in Boston or SF.

not as many NIMBYs as you think
 

I live in the building next door (910 S. Michigan). My neighbors are going to have their south views blocked due to this proposal.

Their thoughts?

They think it's an excellent project. They appreciate that it is slender and won't obstruct the entire south face of 910 S. Michigan, they think it fits the neighborhood, they think it'll help the area, and they think that south loop residents shouldn't complain about density since it's not even close to river north or even Lincoln park. Traffic? They say you can lay in the middle of 9th street and not get hit. On top of that, my neighbors are retirees, looking to sell their unit soon. [Mind you, they vehemently opposed the previous proposal at this site, but their opposition was intelligent, in my view, as the previous proposal was super bulky and didn't consider the surroundings.]

The problem is, they are too busy, and don't feel they should have to show up to a meeting to advocate for a private developer. In my case, I don't have time to use 2 hours of my evening to advocate for a private developer, either, despite my skyscraper/density/city/Chicago enthusiasm. The whole process is ridiculous, the developers own the land, they should be able to build a suitable use that is zoned for the land, that's it.

Aldermen should know people with narrow self-interests will show up at these things. For every NIMBY voice, there are 25 normal people who are either 1) too busy to show up to tea party town halls; or 2) are indifferent, which functionally counts as a "yes" vote.

It's scary that aldermen are either hopelessly naive to think that the groups that show to these meetings are an accurate representation of their ward and the opinions carried, or that they knowingly cave to minority opinions.

^ Requoted for its truthfulness.

Fuck Dearborn Park. And I'm also tired of all the Sandburg Village defenders. Sandburg Village is a joke. It is pure, unadulterated, useless crap.

No more inward oriented communities that present brick walls to the sidewalk. That's not "innovative", that's selfish, conservative, and spiteful of the surrounding city.

i would never defend sandburg village as an example good urban planning, but it's much less offensive to me than dearborn park.

while this may not be perfect:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9076...7i13312!8i6656

it's still better than this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8689...7i13312!8i6656

I strongly encourage you to email your Alderman's ward office and thoughtfully reiterate these points. Feel free to cc your neighborhood organization too.

To be fair, you posted a view from the outside of the development. It's meant that way. It was built as an urban cocoon, so when you post a view of it from State, in 2015, in the middle of a period of re-urbanization, of course it looks out of synch. Well, it is... but I'm saying, even more so...

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8708...7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8639...7i13312!8i6656

This is Dearborn Park. It's still a suburban piece of shit. I'm not defending it.

^Please don't inspire my nightmares, Tom.

There are denser apartment developments in suburban sleeper communities, and they're much more comely than these Dearborn Park whosee-whatsits.

^^ dearborn park is FAR more of a cancer on our city than one bennett park could ever hope to be.

sandburg village isn't great, or even good, but it's definitely better than dearborn park from an urban design perspective.

Yeah, DP sucks... always has, always will... :cheers: :haha:

100%

Though the leveling of SV is still included in my master vision for Chicago. :cool:

the city should bust open some of the easier street connections into that place. i want them to cry.

In addition to expressing views to the alderman, perhaps consider joining the local neighborhood groups and participating that way. If people don't find a way to engage and have their voices heard (on development and any other subject), decisions will continue to be driven by those with the loudest voices or most money. Sitting on the sidelines and saying 'can't this just figure itself out' won't get it done. And while today might be advocating for a developer, tomorrow it might be important to stop one.

Here Here!:cheers:

Except that election after election shows that those are the people who show up to vote. The people who are too busy or who don't think they should have to show up are the ones who also don't bother to vote.

Equating not showing up to town halls as the same as not voting is absurd. The point of representational government is to yes, vote, and then have your representatives, or administrative agencies empowered by law, carry out what's best for the city through objective standards (based off of the platforms they campaigned on).

When the department of aviation wanted to expand O'Hare and build more runways, aviation geeks on the airliners.net forum (skyscraper page for aviation enthusiasts) didn't deride Chicagoans for sitting at home while Bensenville residents packed town halls and screamed at the city and airlines. City, state, and FAA officials pretty much assumed such town halls would be NIMBY festivals and weren't naïve enough to think the future of the region's air transport should be decided by town hall screamers. Chicagoans just expected that the city would get shit done, and it did.

For a major public works project like CTA expansion, I might be inclined to voice my opinion and prevent NIMBYism from blocking transit, like BRT. But for a private developer, I just don't see it as the same.

I expect my alderman to have enough sense to analyze what's good and bad and vote for this building, especially in a location that is so obvious for what is proposed. If he doesn't have the sense, then hopefully I'll have a chance to vote against him.

Now when it comes to voter apathy, I agree, everyone should be responsible and vote for pro-development and pro-density aldermen, but that is in no way the same as showing up to every town hall. There are public comment meetings, town halls, almost daily for various issues, and it is entirely subjective what is more important. Every week I read about one concerning the airports (noise), metra/transit expansion, union station development, local art and theater, school openings and closings, crime, developments and skyscrapers, parks and recreation, road closures, and probably snow removal soon. You would have to be either unemployed or a loser to go to each one, and you'd be known as "that" guy.

I'll be a minority on this forum to say this, but it needs to be said. If I had the choice to spend 2 hours with my wife and kids, or spend 2 hours at a town hall that would be THE deciding vote on this tower, I would spend it with family. If I was single, then yeah sure I'd go, but other things matter to me too (and to most people not on this forum, i.e. everyone). Understand people have different lives than you; that doesn't mean they don't care or are apathetic.

My job isn't to administrate government on a day to day basis--there should be clear objective standards for approving tall buildings, like normal cities around the world do, rather than straw polls. There should be a Department of Development or something that decides yes/no on proposals based on objective, intelligent standards, so that development decisions are decided by unelected bureaucrats and development professionals who don't have to face the masses for re-election. It's like Aldermen having a voice in snow removal rather than the Department of Streets & Sanitation - you're guaranteed a shit show if that was decided by town hall input. So it perplexes me why development proposals have to go through the same thing. If this new "Department of Development" approves crap or does a bad job, then the mayor can face the consequences come election time just as he might if the Police Department (or Streets & Sanitation) does a bad job.

My job is to vote government in OR out, maybe participate in very serious local issues and voice my opinion, and otherwise hold the government accountable during the next election (or campaign season when they ask for donations).

So when your representative sets up a public process to solicit the opinions of his constituents on how to best represent their interests your plan is to remain silent? A representative is only effective if he or she understands the wants and needs of his or her constituents. By being deliberately disengaged you're ensuring that the elected official will be a less than optimal representative of your interests. How you expect a representative to effectively represent you, when you refuse to engage the representatives when they solicit your opinions, not only defies logic but it is entirely unreasonable.

Shame that the NIMBYS are complaining about this. They should move to Lagos, Nigeria and live in mud huts. Ungrateful bastards. They don't realize that its an honor for a city to receive a super tall. Even in a time of unprecedented super tall growth, its still a rarity for a city to get one when we factor in every city. Hopefully this will happen, and at its current specifications. On a side note, its great to see Chicago continuing the super tall trend. Hopefully Wolf Point gives the city another one. Then there's that LSD site which looks like it has enough air rights for a super tall. :fingerscrossed:

Right right, except you only have to go to Appalachia to find mud huts, even southern IL hill country.

And that may be the crux of the matter: what is obvious to you may not be obvious to everyone
More broadly, if conversations are taking place regarding the degree and nature of density and associated infrastructure needs (water/sewer, schools, parks, fire dept, transportation, etc.) for a section of the city, that is an opportunity for citizens to understand the issues and become engaged in planning for their communities.