[SamInTheLoop]

^ For the "this will block our view" theory to make sense it means that this must have slipped under the radar of the 910 condo board when the tower was originally up for entitlements as it has essentially the same envelope/massing as the approved PD version. (or they did press the issue and it was either not reported on or I just missed it.......or I suppose it's a much different board or residents weirdly had some sort of recent change of heart).

I haven't read the article but if their gripes are mostly about it changing to all rental, that should be a non-starter in terms of the Alderman entertaining them. That's just ridiculous and doesn't deserve a serious response. I don't know what they mean by a transient population, but to be clear the probability of a substantial number of very short-term rentals is probably greater with having a tower of 500+ individually-owned units - you would have a high percentage of investor-owned units rented out according to whatever/whenever length of lease individual owners decide, possibly with many being used as vacation rentals (I realize there would be board with some rules but might end up being very investor owner friendly) - particularly with that larger number of quite small units that were added by the developer while still a condo project, but with the 'standard' units to some extent certainly as well.

With an all rental tower comes professional, institutional management. This is an expensive, high end project and would be not just at the top of the market in the South Loop but would be in the top tier among all Class A buildings downtown. The developer would very likely hire one of the larger very established apartment leasing and management firms to run it - or they would sell to a (likely) institutional or REIT owner that would do the same (either in-house or also third party).

If the gripes are about just overall density of the project, that should clearly be a non-starter of an argument at this location. This is a walk and transit to everything type of location and is obviously supportive of very high density. I wonder what Ald King does here. Her ward just picks up this portion of downtown but primarily covers completely different neighborhoods (granted it's in relative terms a very fast growing section of her ward/gaining market share in terms of constituents represented). She might not be too terribly concerned by the complaints as to move to pander to the NIMBYs here, particularly if she's presented with arguments that this change/densification of the project is necessary to keep it alive given changing market conditions (the developer's previous programmatic/pricing misfire).


On the other hand, perhaps this is the classic kabuki theater between developer and alderman. They could have a unit count in mind, say 625-675, that still might pencil out well for them and that the alderman can get behind amending to once any tussle with the 910 board plays out, and a choreographed compromise is reached.

What would be really sad would be a situation in which the developer didn't make any such approach, they took a chance on this solid boost in density here representing what will truly pencil out for them with not a ton of room for error, and King ends up being persuaded by the NIMBY board on this one and rebuffs the amendment. If that were to happen - following the poor judgement/lack of homework with their initial program......they should probably consider an altogether different line of work.

Would be very curious as to how Mr Downtown sees this one and thinks it's likely to play out and what Ald King is likely to do.