CHICAGO | Boom rundown - everything over 12 floors. v5

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

It's over for South Loop, even sooner than I expected/feared. X/O will still happen for reasons already discussed (i.e. legally), but henceforth, don't look for any new and interesting proposals other than what has already been approved in PD (e.g. Central Station). It was only a matter of time before a hot neighborhood reached a critical mass of NIMBY to come in and downzone everything as happened in Gold Coast, and is also presently occurring in Wicker Park/Bucktown. There aren't many easily developable neighborhoods left...

Maybe... there are lots of parts further south that haven't been quite as NIMBYized, and not to my surprise, that's where the taller proposals are being sought now.

We were led to believe that part of the city's reasoning for downzoning the GC had to do with preserving the amazing buildings there - but you're probably right that it didn't really factor too much into the equation. (Obviously, it hasn't saved much of anything, as we all knew it wouldn't). Still, I don't know how they could justify downzoning the whole South Loop area, since high-rise is the dominating type now east of Wabash. Also, don't forget the great quotes that were posted a few pages back: Those really reflect the opinion of the DPD, not the sadly confused alderman.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

It's over for South Loop, even sooner than I expected/feared. X/O will still happen for reasons already discussed (i.e. legally), but henceforth, don't look for any new and interesting proposals other than what has already been approved in PD (e.g. Central Station). It was only a matter of time before a hot neighborhood reached a critical mass of NIMBY to come in and downzone everything as happened in Gold Coast, and is also presently occurring in Wicker Park/Bucktown. There aren't many easily developable neighborhoods left...

Has the time finally come, after a half century of decline, for the south side of Chicago to rise and shine again? Thank the north-side NIMBY's!!!

[chicubs111]

I dont understand why peopel think the city will back Fiorietti's proposal !!...It was just last fall when the city rezoned for taller buildings becasue that was direction they wanted to go so why would they now not even a year later again bring it back to its orginal zoning? Tall and thin was the trend with highrises in the south loop and I believe it will stay that way as long as people are buying these aparatment and condos.

[jjk1103]

...I'm just curious.....has anyone ever tracked what percentage of the buildings on the "proposed" list ever actually get built ? I would assume that most of them eventually do.....but what % ??

[colemonkee]

I'm not sure if this has been posted here yet or not, but in the newest issue of Wired Magazine, they have a rendering of the Jeanne Gang-designed 26-story condo tower in Hyde Park. It's pretty cool. They angled the glass and walls on one side of the tower 71 degrees to block out the peak summer sunlight, helping the units save on energy costs. I didn't have a scanner, and a search on the Wired web site didn't pull up anything.

[Loopy]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I still hold out some hope - 830 is such a solid proposal that all tactics must remain on the table and available to combat these NIMBYs and push Fioretti in the right direction. Right out of the gate, he is proving my earliest intuitions to be correct - that he is nothing more than a puppet for activist types and causes - he'll listen and be persuaded by any small group that makes enough noise, no matter how illogical, no matter how bad for the city's future their positions are.

Don't forget that Fioretti was elected on a wave of anti-development fervor. He understands what good development is as much as anyone, but he still has to pay the piper.

[SolarWind]

July 20, 2007

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Loopy

Don't forget that Fioretti was elected on a wave of anti-development fervor. He understands what good development is as much as anyone, but he still has to pay the piper.

What anti-development fervor? My understanding is that a significant majority of the residents and even community groups (GSLA, SLN) support development (at least the South Loop Neighbors do in principle).

They all clamor for more walkable retail and CTA stops, which will only come with more development. So far, it is only the Pussies DNA that are anti-development (and, again, only in their neighborhood, and in a highly irrational way: for example, townhomes with a 25 story building behind it is somehow going to blend into the neighborhood better then a 45 story. Officially, they are on record as supporting development )

[Loopy]

You are correct that the thought process behind Fioretti's support is not entirely rational.

But the fact remains that he was carried into office by a wave of sentiment that Haithcock was "too cozy with developers". In the South Loop, his volunteers were Prairie District and Dearborn Park neighborhood activists who hate high-rise development.

Fioretti probably feels that he owes these folks a solid favor or two.

[Dan in Chicago]

dp

[Dan in Chicago]

Originally Posted by jjk1103

...I'm just curious.....has anyone ever tracked what percentage of the buildings on the "proposed" list ever actually get built ? I would assume that most of them eventually do.....but what % ??

That's a good question, but very difficult to answer. So far this boom cycle (1999-present) has yielded 58 never-built proposals, according to Emporis. If you want to compare that to the number of completed (124) and under-construction (63) high-rise projects, you get a little over 20% failure rate for any given proposal.

But this statistic is flawed in a few ways. For one, it includes buildings which wouldn't have started yet anyway (as of July 2007), and which therefore shouldn't be compared with started projects. More importantly, a large number of these never-builts are buildings which were mentioned once in the newspaper and never received any attention after that. [e.g. Monroe-Aberdeen Condominiums, 835 West Wilson...] A greater percentage of the currently-proposed buildings are probably more substantial proposals. A lot of the never-builts were replaced by successful proposals [e.g. Market Hall Tower and Randolph Court, which were replaced by MoMo]. And many of the never-builts were parts of planned developments and were never actually designed [e.g. various defunct Kinzie Station and River East plots].

So the real picture looks quite good. Here's a list of projects from this boom which I remember making it to the sales/advertising stage which got cancelled:

Museum Place I (twin-tower project in early stage of Museum Park)
Museum Place II
909 West Erie (triangular black building replaced by low-rise Apex)
345 North Wells (office condo near the Merch Mart)
120 North Jefferson (short office building)
Kinzie Station West Tower (twin of Kinzie Station Tower)
The St. Clair (boutique pomo condo bldg on present site of small carpark)
Hilton Suites Hotel (replaced by The Fairbanks)
390 North Canal (similar to Kinzie Park Tower)
Hudson Tower
126 East Chestnut (4th Pres tower)
7 South Dearborn

Contradictory information has circulated about the demise of The Curve and the Park Kingsbury, so Emporis is waiting for more definitive news before changing those to never-built.

[Knightwing]

Very good work Dan...

[honte]

Thanks, Dan. Very informative and interesting.

Best, looking over your list - aside from 7SD - I don't miss any of those projects!

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by honte

Maybe... there are lots of parts further south that haven't been quite as NIMBYized, and not to my surprise, that's where the taller proposals are being sought now.

We were led to believe that part of the city's reasoning for downzoning the GC had to do with preserving the amazing buildings there - but you're probably right that it didn't really factor too much into the equation. (Obviously, it hasn't saved much of anything, as we all knew it wouldn't). Still, I don't know how they could justify downzoning the whole South Loop area, since high-rise is the dominating type now east of Wabash. Also, don't forget the great quotes that were posted a few pages back: Those really reflect the opinion of the DPD, not the sadly confused alderman.

Right, if the GC residents were concerned about historic buildings, they would have simply pushed for landmarking of those buildings worth saving. Downzoning gives the worst of both worlds, and the facade-guttings and even total teardowns along Dearborn the last few years are testament to that. It just shocks me that arguments about "respecting the historic character of the neighborhood" or "maintaining the pedestrian scale" are taken seriously in an area already populated with literally dozens of highrises 20+ stories tall. It's even more disingenous when such arguments are applied to a surface parking lot fronting Lake Shore drive or a large parcel just half a block in from the lake (54 East Scott). What's historic about an empty lot? And as for development "exacerbating the parking problem", well, does anyone move to Gold Coast, South Loop, etc to indulge in ample street parking? Or put another way, why doesn't a single political leader have the cojones to ask these obvious questions of the righteously-indignant busy bodies who compose these NIMBY groups? I understand the need for political support, but not every view of every constituent is valid. It is possible to respectfully disagree and lay out your logic for disagreeing with them, and further simply pre-empt them publicly to get the upper hand in the public relations war.

Long story short, its not about any of those issues, it's all about their damn views, and I wish someone would steamroll these assholes already.

Fioretti made these arguments on behalf of the Gold Coast BANANAs; having his beliefs for sale isn't exactly an endearing excuse for his position on that issue.

[Pandemonious]

The base of a large movable crane is sitting on The Wit site. No other equipment or activity, but that alone is interesting.

[brian_b]

^ I saw that today on the train. I also noticed that the lot across from Monks (Lake and ?) has a soil testing rig on the tiny part of the lot isn't covered by that crappy parking garage.

[Norsider]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Right, if the GC residents were concerned about historic buildings, they would have simply pushed for landmarking of those buildings worth saving. Downzoning gives the worst of both worlds, and the facade-guttings and even total teardowns along Dearborn the last few years are testament to that. It just shocks me that arguments about "respecting the historic character of the neighborhood" or "maintaining the pedestrian scale" are taken seriously in an area already populated with literally dozens of highrises 20+ stories tall. It's even more disingenous when such arguments are applied to a surface parking lot fronting Lake Shore drive or a large parcel just half a block in from the lake (54 East Scott). What's historic about an empty lot? And as for development "exacerbating the parking problem", well, does anyone move to Gold Coast, South Loop, etc to indulge in ample street parking? Or put another way, why doesn't a single political leader have the cojones to ask these obvious questions of the righteously-indignant busy bodies who compose these NIMBY groups? I understand the need for political support, but not every view of every constituent is valid. It is possible to respectfully disagree and lay out your logic for disagreeing with them, and further simply pre-empt them publicly to get the upper hand in the public relations war.

Long story short, its not about any of those issues, it's all about their damn views, and I wish someone would steamroll these assholes already.

Fioretti made these arguments on behalf of the Gold Coast BANANAs; having his beliefs for sale isn't exactly an endearing excuse for his position on that issue.

I agree Viva. And I've made this very point before. The NIMBY groups probably aren't nearly as large or influential a voting block as they'd have you believe. There's probably a few leaders really dedicated to being asshats, and then a bunch of hangers-on. An alderman has just got to be willing to say "I've heard what you have to say, but your views don't represent or benefit the community at large." Part of what makes the follower types hang on to the leader is that he seems to actually accomplish something from time to time. Take away that part of the illusion and I think you've got something.

[nomarandlee]

The Wasbash/Lake apartment tower BVic spoke about a few days ago I presume...



45-story apartment tower planned for N. Wabash
REAL ESTATE | Parking would fill bottom floors

July 24, 2007
BY DAVID ROEDER AND FRAN SPIELMAN [email protected] [email protected]

With new apartments still in demand downtown, developers are making plans for a renters' high-rise near Lake and Wabash on property that holds a small parking garage.
M&R Development LLC has asked for zoning authority to build a 45-story building at 171 N. Wabash on L-shaped property that also includes frontage on Lake Street.

read more: http://www.suntimes.com/business/480591,CST-FIN-wabash24.article

[Steely Dan]

^ please remember guys that posting full articles from other sources is no longer allowed; it's just going to get the owner of this forum into a heap of legal trouble. when you want to post an article from an outside source, just post the headline and the first paragraph or so and then link to the rest of the story, that way everything stays nice and legal.

[Xeelee]

lots of cool buildings.