CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[Mr Downtown]

^But how does it "enrich his own war chest" for him to not approve a billboard? You've provided no evidence that he approved new billboards for campaign contributors.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^But how does it "enrich his own war chest" for him to not approve a billboard? You've provided no evidence that he approved new billboards for campaign contributors.

It appears that either you are somehow totally oblivious to how Chicago politics work or feigning ignorance. You know exactly how it enriches his war chest: if you don't donate then you don't get the approvals you need. The more powers the aldermen have and the bigger the penalties, the more money they can raise and more entrenched they become. Obviously Reilly has the most to gain from this penalty increase because his ward is the most appealing to those who might want to place a billboard on their building.

This is how it works in Chicago. Aldermen regularly destroy the businesses of people they don't like. The only way to ensure you are liked is to show up at every fundraiser. Try developing a property sometime, unless you've been donating heavily you are not going to get anywhere, it is a prerequisite even if you already have the necessary approvals already. Just look at the recent — Reilly pulled by revoking the long standing zoning for that 18 floor hotel by Trump simply because they didn't come to kiss his — first. Hopefully they will file suit in Federal court (because any challenge to municipal superiority will fall flat on its face in the equally corrupt Cook County Courts) and ruin Reilly financially for it.

[hygge]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^But how does it "enrich his own war chest" for him to not approve a billboard? You've provided no evidence that he approved new billboards for campaign contributors.

He merely provided anecdotal evidence, and with that comes all the usual caveats. But that doesnt mean it isnt true, as you keep implying. To me though, regardless of any illegality that may be happening or is currently happening, it seems that all his actions contradict. Something about him just plain stinks. He is exhibit "A" why the aldermanic system needs massive reform.

[Mr Downtown]

Well, wait until emathias learns that corrupt buffoon Quinn won't let his condo burn historically accurate soft Illinois coal and just vent the smoke out into the Chicago sky. Over a century of TRADITION ruined, all because they didn't contribute heavily enough!

As for "the recent — Reilly pulled by revoking the long standing zoning for that 18 floor hotel," it must be all about the money. Because we all know that developers are never devious; would never hire Daley & George to come up with a rather, um, creative reading of a footnote in a 40-year-old ordinance, passed when every adjoining property was still warehouses, and then try to sneak it through by getting a letter from Patty Scudiero instead of meeting with the alderman. Do you think they went that route because of their innocent faith in good government?

[the urban politician]

Aldermanic prerogative as a system basically guarantees corruption.

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Well, wait until emathias learns that corrupt buffoon Quinn won't let his condo burn historically accurate soft Illinois coal and just vent the smoke out into the Chicago sky. Over a century of TRADITION ruined, all because they didn't contribute heavily enough!

As for "the recent — Reilly pulled by revoking the long standing zoning for that 18 floor hotel," it must be all about the money. Because we all know that developers are never devious; would never hire Daley & George to come up with a rather, um, creative reading of a footnote in a 40-year-old ordinance, passed when every adjoining property was still warehouses, and then try to sneak it through by getting a letter from Patty Scudiero instead of meeting with the alderman. Do you think they went that route because of their innocent faith in good government?

If he has to change it in order to prevent the development, it obviously wasn't that creative was it?

It was either allowed as-of-right, or it wasn't. Which was it?

Also, you are clearly wilfully ignoring the point Emathias is trying to make. What is your deal?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

As for "the recent — Reilly pulled by revoking the long standing zoning for that 18 floor hotel," it must be all about the money. Because we all know that developers are never devious; would never hire Daley & George to come up with a rather, um, creative reading of a footnote in a 40-year-old ordinance, passed when every adjoining property was still warehouses, and then try to sneak it through by getting a letter from Patty Scudiero instead of meeting with the alderman. Do you think they went that route because of their innocent faith in good government?

Or maybe, just maybe, the opposite is true and the developers, not being complete idiots, innocently decided to get a letter from the OZA clarifying what the zoning allows before proceeding with a multi million dollar project which could have been tanked should the zoning later be interpreted differently. I guess it is super shady to ask the people in charge of interpreting zoning to interpret zoning for you isn't it.

I suppose we should just throw out all zoning that was granted 40 years or more ago then? BTW, you of all people should know that your statement about all the adjoining property being warehouses 40 years ago is comically false. Unless maybe you know of some alternate history that I am unaware of where the Wrigley Building was used as a warehouse and where 50 story highrises like the IBM Building are suitable for industrial use... That's a pretty absurd statement especially considering we are talking about a site that is a block from the historical center of the city and a block off Michigan Ave.

You are right though, no one in 1973 would have anticipated that it might be a reasonable idea to build a hotel across the street from a brand new, 1.3 million square foot state-of-the-art office building occupied by one of the world's corporate giants. Clearly such a notion is absurd because IBM employed no salesmen at all at the time who might need to travel to visit things like the regional headquarters of the company they work for.

[ardecila]

The intent of the Planned Development process is to allow development beyond what is permitted by the underlying zoning, in exchange for a dialogue with the public and with planners.

Obviously this has been corrupted into a new way for developers to kiss the ring of aldermen under the guise of protecting the public interest (because the developers are so evil and the alderman is some white knight preventing abuse ) but the hotel developers' refusal to engage the public ignores both the intent and the reality of Planned Developments.

Is a more laissez-faire process really what we want? It would almost certainly allow Walgreens to put a parking lot at Kimball/Lawrence, among other things. Even in the absence of parking requirements, a laissez-faire process will still lead to poor urban design in most cases.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Is a more laissez-faire process really what we want? It would almost certainly allow Walgreens to put a parking lot at Kimball/Lawrence, among other things. Even in the absence of parking requirements, a laissez-faire process will still lead to poor urban design in most cases.

I don't follow this leap of logic, unless the underlying codes are incredibly permissive as well. A mixed-use zoning classification, as might reasonably applied at Kimball/Lawrence, could rather easily specify that curb cuts/accessory parking access onto any roadway other than an alley are not permitted without a variance or Planned Development, and could also specify various means such that on parcels at intersections, the building massing must predominantly hug the corner without major setbacks. It's hard to see the downsides* of a well-written zoning code that is consistently applied, particularly relative to a system that forces even the must mundane and routine matters to go through a variance or special use process.

*The main risk would be for preservation purposes, but landmarking can and should occur distinct from the zoning/entitlement process other than the extent to which zoning codes accommodate the rehabilitation of historic buildings without the need for each and every bit of work to require zoning amendments to be legal. Chicago Shawn often points out that Chicago's beloved courtyard apartment buildings are not even remotely building under anything but the densest existing zoning classifications, which also means that all kinds of rehabilitation work require absurd bureaucratic busywork for temporary zoning changes and variances.

[wierdaaron]

If all this outrage is over that Hyatt House getting nixed, it's worth remembering that I believe there was never any designs shown and that is a terrrrible location for an extended stay hotel flag. Those usually go by airports and convention centers; right on Magmile and the river just seemed ridiculous. I'm not shedding tears over the loss, aldermanic shenanigans aside.

[kemachs]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

If all this outrage is over that Hyatt House getting nixed, it's worth remembering that I believe there was never any designs shown and that is a terrrrible location for an extended stay hotel flag. Those usually go by airports and convention centers; right on Magmile and the river just seemed ridiculous. I'm not shedding tears over the loss, aldermanic shenanigans aside.

If it were a good design, I don't see how an extended stay hotel would be a bad thing. Their clientele is usually business travelers, who would only add to the growing food and retail presence downtown... theoretically. No reason they should have to suffer out in the burbs just because they're here for work.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

As for "the recent — Reilly pulled by revoking the long standing zoning for that 18 floor hotel," it must be all about the money. Because we all know that developers are never devious; would never hire Daley & George to come up with a rather, um, creative reading of a footnote in a 40-year-old ordinance, passed when every adjoining property was still warehouses, and then try to sneak it through by getting a letter from Patty Scudiero instead of meeting with the alderman. Do you think they went that route because of their innocent faith in good government?

A permitted use is a permitted use; its not just a footnote. The PD, a customized zoning for this site allowed for 2 buildings and a hotel was among the permitted uses. The developers went through the department of zoning to verify the underlying zoning permits the concept, and it does. The developers now have vested rights on that property. If they went to the alderman and the community first, then any community or aldermanic disapproval could lead to a downzoning. Developers in Chicago know this, and as such, a local court would agree that you had prior knowledge of a possible downzoning if you went before the community with your plans. Case in-point: The New York in Lakeview, this is why the second tower was never constructed.

If the original PD language permits the concept plan, then just like standard neighborhood zoning, submit your plans, make adjustments as required and get a building permit. Plain and simple. The developers were doing just this, but were first getting verification. Now after that plan has come to light, the "technical amendment" is proposed and moving towards approval. If this goes to court, chances are the developers will win because this could be constituted as a taking and/or a violation of the equal protection clause in the 14th amendment because this move is very cleared aimed at the Hyatt House and was done so only after the proposal became public, taking away development rights already listed in the PD and verified by the Dept of Zoning.

Now, there could be more to the story which will complicate the issue of how and what could, or is to be constructed at River Plaza. My understanding, (but I may be mistaken), is that when River Plaza went condo, the condo board was offered the opportunity to purchase the air rights over the garage, and they declined. Those air rights for the second tower (which was allowed since the creation of the PD in 1974) were sold off at some point, and thus we had the 403 N Wabash condo project from the pre-recession days and now the Hyatt House. It is also possible that the change is small enough, that the court would disagree that this move causes significant hardship to the developer, as residential and the second building would still be permitted in the PD. The technical amendment only strips the permitted hotel use language out of the ordinance.

It is not at all out of the ordinary to have Daley & George representing the developer. Every single project using a new or amended PD uses a law firm specializing in zoning to chaperone the entire process. They know the zoning ordinances and they know how to structure PD applications. They also know the basic rundown of meeting with the alderman, community meetings and so forth. They are there every step of the way.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

If all this outrage is over that Hyatt House getting nixed, it's worth remembering that I believe there was never any designs shown and that is a terrrrible location for an extended stay hotel flag. Those usually go by airports and convention centers; right on Magmile and the river just seemed ridiculous. I'm not shedding tears over the loss, aldermanic shenanigans aside.

Originally Posted by kemachs

If it were a good design, I don't see how an extended stay hotel would be a bad thing. Their clientele is usually business travelers, who would only add to the growing food and retail presence downtown... theoretically. No reason they should have to suffer out in the burbs just because they're here for work.

Yeah, I'm with kemachs on this. What possible reason would the City have for relegating business travelers to somewhere outside the City?

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

If all this outrage is over that Hyatt House getting nixed, it's worth remembering that I believe there was never any designs shown and that is a terrrrible location for an extended stay hotel flag. Those usually go by airports and convention centers; right on Magmile and the river just seemed ridiculous. I'm not shedding tears over the loss, aldermanic shenanigans aside.

I forget what member says they saw the renderings and said they were mediocre which is too bad. Still, there is a strong possibility that with the ARA and Northbridge plaza getting major overhauls in the near future.

For a truly great pedestrian square to reach its full potential and not look awkward that those buildings and River Plaza sit on then the base of River Plaza will have to be redeveloped as well. It sounds like that may be a missed chance to do exactly that and who knows what other developers will come along wanting to take on that task.

[Mr Downtown]

I think if the issue were so clear-cut—that hotel had always been listed as a straight-up permissible as-of-right use for the subzone—we wouldn't have this rather curious situation with the local alderman. It seems obvious that legal opinions differ on the matter. But I'm out of town and can't go get a copy of the PD to actually read it. If someone else can, it's PD 113.

As for an inverse condemnation suit, that's quite a long shot under these circumstances. Land is always owned by somebody when its zoning classification is changed. As Chicago Shawn notes, the municipality will not have precluded "all reasonable use of the land," nor has the landowner sufficient "distinct investment-backed expectations" to give rise to vested rights in the particular use.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I forget what member says they saw the renderings and said they were mediocre which is too bad. Still, there is a strong possibility that with the ARA and Northbridge plaza getting major overhauls in the near future.

For a truly great pedestrian square to reach its full potential and not look awkward that those buildings and River Plaza sit on then the base of River Plaza will have to be redeveloped as well. It sounds like that may be a missed chance to do exactly that and who knows what other developers will come along wanting to take on that task.

Not necessarily. The Realtors project will likely include all sorts of elevated plazas, decked streets, and a mix of towers and pavilions (if the Rockefeller Ceter pattern is followed) so maybe a few one-story retail pavilions can be built up against the blank wall of River Plaza, in the public right-of-way. Worst case scenario, vines or hedges can be planted to screen the blank walls.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Not necessarily. The Realtors project will likely include all sorts of elevated plazas, decked streets, and a mix of towers and pavilions (if the Rockefeller Ceter pattern is followed) so maybe a few one-story retail pavilions can be built up against the blank wall of River Plaza, in the public right-of-way. Worst case scenario, vines or hedges can be planted to screen the blank walls.

Maybe they can do their best to mitigate the effects of the blank walls of River Plaza that wouldn't interact with the rest of the plaza but any efforts by the NAR would purely be mitigating the drab interfacing of the two properties as opposed to truly making them compliment each other as they hopefully should but which would take a rebuild of the River Plaza property to do.

[harryc]

Getting there ....

[harryc]

[ardecila]

Harry walks warily down the street, his brim pulled way down low...

Another one (parking lot) bites the dust!