CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7 - Page 242

the urban politician · #**4821** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 7:41 PM**

^ Not your typical brand of NIMBYism though. This has nothing to do with zoning. It has to do with air rights and choosing not to sell them.

marothisu · #**4822** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Not your typical brand of NIMBYism though. This has nothing to do with zoning. It has to do with air rights and choosing not to sell them.

The article pretty clearly states that being too 'crowded" with high rises in the area was the main reason.

prelude91 · #**4823** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 7:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read the article or anything I quoted from the article? Obviously you didn't or misread it. They denied it because they thought that building a 12 story building in that location would make the area too "crowded" with high rises.

Maybe if I quote it another time, you'll actually read it

This had nothing to do with price.

The neighboring building owns the air rights, this is all about views.

PKDickman · #**4824** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 8:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

The article pretty clearly states that being too 'crowded" with high rises in the area was the main reason.

It doesn't matter what their motivation was.
They voted not to sell their property to someone else.
It was theirs to sell or not.

marothisu · #**4825** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKDickman

It doesn't matter what their motivation was.
They voted not to sell their property to someone else.
It was theirs to sell or not.

And they are still NIMBYs based on their reasoning. If they said the sale price was not good enough then I'd think "seems legit" or if say they were in Edison Park and the proposal was for a high rise, i'd think "seems legit."

Not wanting a high rise and claiming it's going to be "too crowded" in an area already with high rises all about a few people losing their views.

Jibba · #**4826** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 8:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

And they are still NIMBYs based on their reasoning. If they said the sale price was not good enough then I'd think "seems legit" or if say they were in Edison Park and the proposal was for a high rise, i'd think "seems legit."

Not wanting a high rise and claiming it's going to be "too crowded" in an area already with high rises all about a few people losing their views.

Exactly. This is literally "in [their] backyard", the fact of which seeming to be their primary motivation here, so yes, it is an example of NIMBYism. Debating any other aspects of that motivation (moral, economic, whatever) doesn't nullify that.

prelude91 · #**4827** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 8:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jibba

Exactly. This is literally "in [their] backyard", the fact of which seeming to be their primary motivation here, so yes, it is an example of NIMBYism. Debating any other aspects of that motivation (moral, economic, whatever) doesn't nullify that.

Perhaps, but at least they own the air rights and not just providing unsolicited complaints to the Alderman about views. You cannot force somebody to sell their "property"; I think it is reasonable to build within allowed zoning at this site. Sucks for the church their property took a hit in price, but then again, its a church so I don't really care. Also, hopefully a shorter building here will drive further demand at one of the many many surface lots in the immediate area.

aaron38 · #**4828** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 8:43 PM**

I'm really opposed to the concept of air rights in general but since they're law, got to abide them.
So when were the church's air rights originally sold? Were they sold from the church to Kennelly Square back in the day for much needed cash? That decision may have been short sighted, but if the church chose to sell the air rights, then they accepted a lower valuation of their land at a later date. No point complaining about it now. Drop the sale price until the price matches what can now be built.

PKDickman · #**4829** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 8:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron38

I'm really opposed to the concept of air rights in general but since they're law, got to abide them.
So when were the church's air rights originally sold? Were they sold from the church to Kennelly Square back in the day for much needed cash? That decision may have been short sighted, but if the church chose to sell the air rights, then they accepted a lower valuation of their land at a later date. No point complaining about it now. Drop the sale price until the price matches what can now be built.

The church still has all of its air rights and is a buildable parcel.
The developer wanted the air rights to an adjacent parcel, so that he can build bigger.

Jibba · #**4830** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 9:09 PM**

2950 N Sheridan

ChickeNES · #**4831** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 9:56 PM**

^

BrinChi · #**4832** Posted **Jul 25, 2016, 11:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKDickman

The church still has all of its air rights and is a buildable parcel.
The developer wanted the air rights to an adjacent parcel, so that he can build bigger.

Which parcel? the skinny drive/walkway on the left (facing the building) or the driveway on the right?
That would mean a skinnier structure could be built where the church currently resides?

PKDickman · #**4833** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 12:48 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrinChi

Which parcel? the skinny drive/walkway on the left (facing the building) or the driveway on the right?
That would mean a skinnier structure could be built where the church currently resides?

The right. I think to one on the left belongs to the church.

harryc · #**4834** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 12:54 AM**

July 15

July 21
The loops of cable are for Post Stress - allows for thinner and lighter floors.

July 25
Getting ready for some serious pouring - note the blue pump head.

July 22
Looking down Wells from da L

harryc · #**4835** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 1:09 AM**

July 15

Looking S down Wells

July 25

harryc · #**4836** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 1:31 AM**

July 15

A strong attempt by the neighbor to distract people from the hideous building as a whole and just focus on the nice woodwork. Ironically replaced one of the last wooden buildings on the street.

The supports for the mason's scaffolding cantilevered out over the street

July 22

July 25

ardecila · #**4837** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 2:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKDickman

The church still has all of its air rights and is a buildable parcel.
The developer wanted the air rights to an adjacent parcel, so that he can build bigger.

Not bigger, just skinnier. The air rights offer was an attempt to distribute the church parcel's existing FAR differently into a slender sliver tower over Kennelly's north driveway. Better design for everybody involved. Kennelly has no excess FAR to sell anyway.

harryc · #**4838** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 2:17 AM**

July 25

Jibba · #**4839** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 6:26 PM**

Andaz Hotel

Rizzo · #**4840** Posted **Jul 26, 2016, 6:32 PM**

The Hensley now mega-clunker. Such an architectural wreck. It would have been great if all parties came to some agreement to allow the tenant to cover the entire base of the building.