CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[emathias]

Originally Posted by JMKeynes

I wonder when the enormous parking garage on Adams between Wells and Franklin will be developed. That’s a super prime site that could support a tremendous building.

I don't know if it's actually owned by the same people or not, but it's essentially part of the Willis Tower. I think it'd take some serious zoning work to bring that parcel online as a developable spot.

[10023]

That’s not even really the Gold Coast.

[the urban politician]

Fifield towers are just god-awful.

What's up with that company building......

The same

Damn

Tower

Over

and over

and over

and over..............

[Tombstoner]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Fifield towers are just god-awful.

What's up with that company building......

The same

Damn

Tower

Over

and over

and over

and over..............

But give credit where credit's due: they found a way of combining boring, overdone Near North beige with a boring, overdone blue glass box. Banality like that only comes with years of practice. Something for everyone (er... no one).

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Fifield towers are just god-awful.

What's up with that company building......

The same

Damn

Tower

Over

and over

and over

and over..............

Except for 727 W. Madison, which did begin under a different developer.

[west-town-brad]

Fifield’s latest design, by Pappageorge Haymes Partners, maintains a 20-foot distance for the bottom nine floors of the proposed tower, which would be for parking and a private terrace. Above that, the setback would become 40 feet.

That’s not enough, Galleria board member Wolfgang Suess said. To minimize the effect on residents on the west side of the Galleria, the building would need to be substantially shorter or father apart, he said.

Wolfgang seems to be confused.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Though this project is on this Thursday's plan commission, the alderman is allowing the neighbors 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 prior to that.....



https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_XFvn23HlQmWO71H_DfVZDw


Excerpts from a recent Tribune article: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realesta...tinue-to-fight/ar-AALYLDh?ocid=Peregrine

“There’s been no community involvement, no meetings.

Totaly... if you ignore the two earlier meetings the article mentions.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Tombstoner

But give credit where credit's due: they found a way of combining boring, overdone Near North beige with a boring, overdone blue glass box. Banality like that only comes with years of practice. Something for everyone (er... no one).

High quality post.



(Fifield, design-by-committee branded communities)

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by emathias

Aww, poor neighbors losing their views.

When I moved into my current home, I could see the Trump tower from my front windows, and had a nice NW city view from my back deck. Now I'm completely surrounded by taller structures, with no view of anything except the immediately surrounding buildings. But i expected (even wanted) that, because it means there's a lot more density to support more shops and services nearby.

One unexpected bonus has been that the buildings to my north block the cold winter wind, reducing my heating bill in the winter, and the tall buildings leave my roof in the shade for a longer part of the day during the summer, so I also save money on air conditioning in the summer.

I miss the view(s) sometimes, but enjoy the extra restaurants and cheaper utilities. Hopefully those whiners will learn to see the bright side, too.

You know, one thing that is interesting is that certain Chicago aldermen have highlighted some residents losing views as not a reason to oppose zoning changes. Hopkins here, a small number of others have publicly before (Reilly may have?). I think what they mean by this (and the reason they single out this particular reason for NIMBY opposition) is that they are stressing that there is no legal right for residents' views from their window to not change by adjacent or nearby development by other landowners. That's certainly true. However, nearby residents also have no legal right to 'feel' that their neighborhood is becoming "too dense" or "too congested" or that they have a right to only live amongst structures that 'complement the aesthetic of the neighborhood' or 'fit in with the look and feel of my building', etc. Why is one ridiculous type of claim deemed off the table yet the (often times - because I'm not suggesting these types of arguments are always just base groundless NIMBYism) others are sometimes very valid and kill or substantially change many developments?

I suppose this is also just pointing out the abject silliness of Chicago's inherent system of extralegal, corruption-by-design aldermanic prerogative as its primary land use decision-making process.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

You know, one thing that is interesting is that certain Chicago aldermen have highlighted some residents losing views as not a reason to oppose zoning changes. Hopkins here, a small number of others have publicly before (Reilly may have?). I think what they mean by this (and the reason they single out this particular reason for NIMBY opposition) is that they are stressing that there is no legal right for residents' views from their window to not change by adjacent or nearby development by other landowners. That's certainly true. However, nearby residents also have no legal right to 'feel' that their neighborhood is becoming "too dense" or "too congested" or that they have a right to only live amongst structures that 'complement the aesthetic of the neighborhood' or 'fit in with the look and feel of my building', etc. Why is one ridiculous type of claim deemed off the table yet the (often times - because I'm not suggesting these types of arguments are always just base groundless NIMBYism) others are sometimes very valid and kill or substantially change many developments?

I suppose this is also just pointing out the abject silliness of Chicago's inherent system of extralegal, corruption-by-design aldermanic prerogative as its primary land use decision-making process.

Is there actually a set of rules by which zoning can be determined?

Who's to say that density is not a criteria by which to set a lot's designated zoning?

If the existing transportation infrastructure and resources adjacent to a site are not adequate to support a highly density structure, then limiting that site's density does not seem unreasonable.

Don't get me wrong, everybody here knows that I hate NIMBYs, but I'm just asking for the sake of trying to understand.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Absolutely, you're asking the right questions of course, about a rules-based, data and context-driven system.

That is what underlying zoning is supposed to reflect....ideally. We know in modern Chicago (and to be fair, this is not by any stretch a uniquely Chicago problem!) that is too often not the case (witness huge areas of downzoning across various neighborhoods over the years to something that is less dense than what currently exists).

And then when we are talking about PDs or otherwise zoning amendments, it's granting exceptions to these rules. And the decision in Chicago (more uniquely from my understanding than most other cities) is really in the hands of a single politician - and at the polar opposite from a body of planning/land use experts. So, in practice it's often the mob on one side versus the campaign contribution check-writing prowess to satiate another kind of mob on the other side.

That's where my question is coming from - why is mob A's feelings about loss of views any different from their feelings about 'the neighborhood would be too dense and congested, it's out of character, etc'?

[Mr Downtown]

In nearly all states, zoning must comport with an adopted comprehensive plan. Of course, there are sometimes lawsuits over just what that means, but in a couple of states zoning can only be changed if you show a "change or mistake" since the plan was adopted. Los Angeles, famously, had to downzone huge parts of the Westside in the 1990s because the zoning didn't comport with the city's plan.

Illinois is unique in not requiring a comprehensive plan, yet authorizing cities to do zoning. That means we're always playing tennis without a net in Chicago. The alderperson—or the mayor's office—can always point to the existing zoning if they don't want something. Or they can just change the zoning if they do want it.

[r18tdi]

Anyone going to tune into the Hopkins meeting to tell them A) the design is lazy at best and B) the Galleria NIMBYs should work harder to afford a condo in a better building?

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Anyone going to tune into the Hopkins meeting to tell them A) the design is lazy at best and B) the Galleria NIMBYs should work harder to afford a condo in a better building?

It was a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 show of NIMBY stupid, as you'd expect.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It was a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 show of NIMBY stupid, as you'd expect.

CBS2 giving an amplified voice to the NIMBYs (and noting that Hopkins says he isn't sure he'll greenlight the development).

• Video Link

[BVictor1]

Please join 27th Ward Alderman Walter Burnett Jr. and the West Loop Community Organization (WLCO) two upcoming virtual community meetings.

1201-1229 W Washington Blvd
Monday, July 19, 2021
6PM
www.zoom.us
(312) 626-6799
Meeting ID: 831 5589 1351


The developer will present its plans and answer any questions you may have about the project.


1245 W Fulton
Wednesday, July 21, 2021
6PM
www.zoom.us
(312) 626-6799
Meeting ID: 851 6256 3348

A proposed 25-story, 350-unit residential building with ground floor commercial.
Sterling Bay

[Mikelacey45]

Hopskins is a weak alderman

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

It was a 🞵🞵🞵🞵 show of NIMBY stupid, as you'd expect.

People that think more development hurts their property values are so confused - this would only be true in this case if the new development was somehow 1990s era new construction.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

People that think more development hurts their property values are so confused - this would only be true in this case if the new development was somehow 1990s era new construction.

It is the disconnect between what you value - and what the market values. Many of these people put a very high value on the view - the idea that others would pay more to live in a denser area with "no" view is hard to wrap ones head around.

[Klippenstein]

There's probably truth to the west facing units losing some value in the short term future, but that's the fault of their own building's design. They are clearly the collateral so more people could have views of the lake. This could have easily been anticipated since they're a block and a half from the Red Line in the Near North Side.

What do you expect the alderman decides? Fifield did make this last change to increase the height and setback at the last minute. My guess is that it is not approved on Thursday.