CHICAGO | Lincoln Yards

[r18tdi]

Seems the tallest tower was cut from 650 ft to 595, according to Kamin.

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Dont make any big plans in this town for the foreseeable future.

[VKChaz]

With regard to taxes collected, it is also worth understanding the impact of this development on other development sites. Large sites like 78, Tribune printing, Metra Electric tracks capping, etc. etc. are waiting to provide supply to meet demand. As are countless surface lots, strip plazas and other underutlized properties around the city's center as well as in the immediate vicinity of LY. To the extent LY sucks up demand that those sites would have met, those sites may languish longer or constuct lower density, thus reducing what they otherwise could have contributed in taxes.

Some of the rhetoric may be offbase. But I am glad to see pushback on aldermen that isn't just the often narrow-interest crowd (like certain of the NIMBY interests) but rather people concerned about the effects decisions have on the city long term. And if folks want to eliminate aldermanic prerogative, continually holding their feet to the fire may cause them to accept more central professional planning just to get them off the hook for this kind of ad-hoc decision making.

[HowardL]

Cappleman is my alderman. I just sent him a note voicing my steady, reasoned support for Lincoln Yards, imperfect as it may be.

Also, I may have mentioned that my voting for him in the run-off is tied directly to whether he advances the city's business landscape or caves to dillweeds.

Not like I or my email matter but it made me feel better.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Seems the tallest tower was cut from 650 ft to 595, according to Kamin.

Would someone please explain to me how a 55 ft cut in height makes this development more acceptable to NIMBYS. This is becoming ridiculous. Its sad that every developer has to worry about their proposals being neutered.We live in one of the greatest cities in the world, and building large and tall is what we do. We stand at the crossroads of what may become an economic downturn soon, and so we need to strike while the irons are hot, less we revert back to the bad old ninetys where skyscraper development was scarce. Not to mention that with either of these mayoral candidates, only God knows what direction commercial development will take.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by IronWright

Technically it's a 255' cut in height but your point is a valid one. You could ease the disappointment by claiming that this is what Sterling Bay wanted all along so they threw out some ridiculous figures to trick the NIMBY's into thinking they won. It's a very popular coping technique here. Just remember there's still years and years left to lower it even further.

^ My guess is that this is partly true.

But I also think that the opposition is not entirely about building height, but about reducing density in general. People benefit from fewer housing units in desirable areas because it increases their property values through constraining supply.

Even landlords benefit--less apartments available for future tenants. I own a few blocks from this area and even I could make a case that I would benefit from lowering the density.

Problem is, not enough people are taking the long view and they continue to fail to understand cities. Long term, more density will actually increase everybody's property values instead of lowering them. Density seems to be attractive to a lot of people, as our experience continues to show.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

The "red shirt protestor type" also got most things manufactured in China, too, so kudos for that!

The red-shirt protestor type conferred China with most favored nation trade status and created free trade agreements with low cost less developed nations while creating permissive financial, tax, and legal structures that allowed companies to offshore production?

Did you sleep through the last forty years and just wake up?

[JK47]

Originally Posted by HowardL

Cappleman is my alderman. I just sent him a note voicing my steady, reasoned support for Lincoln Yards, imperfect as it may be.

Also, I may have mentioned that my voting for him in the run-off is tied directly to whether he advances the city's business landscape or caves to dillweeds.

Not like I or my email matter but it made me feel better.

This issue puts Cappleman squarely in the gunsights of his run-off opponent (and the other opponents who missed the cut but have yet to endorse) who made attacking Cappleman's support of developers and permissive attitude with respect to developers avoiding on-site affordable housing. I understand SB wanting to push this deal through before the Council turns over but the timing of this is problematic for Cappleman given he's a month away from the runoff.

[VivaLFuego]

I'm with Mr. Downtown on this one.

The land is obviously economically viable with the current infrastructure seeing as it was all actively in use until the speculative land-banking, and it's unclear what the major public need is to redevelop this area in a certain way.

This site is very different from say, the 78, which is otherwise probably undevelopable without a TIF arrangement to build infrastructure where none exists. Relative to anywhere in the Central Area or even to the 78 or Cumberland, it's also not a particularly beneficial location for large-scale office employment for anyone in Chicago other than Sterling Bay and a handful of North Siders and suburbanites along the two most-favored Metra lines.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Developer builds everything, then gets to keep increased property tax revenue for this expenditure for a said amount of time to recoup investment.

Rather than collect virtually nothing in property tax revenue for 23 years I'd rather the city build the infrastructure now in exchange for an equity interest in all of the properties on the site (thus a share in any sales or rents). That way both developer and city interests are aligned in maximizing the value of the land.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by JK47

The red-shirt protestor type conferred China with most favored nation trade status and created free trade agreements with low cost less developed nations while creating permissive financial, tax, and legal structures that allowed companies to offshore production?

Yes, it's called specialization and free trade, basic economics. Why pay more for something unnecessarily?

[BVictor1]

Zoning started out wild for this project.

Some of you may know that Alderman Solis was did the zoning meetings at city hall. With his troubles, he stepped down and now Ald. Cappelman (the guy who wanted to opt out of bus TOD on north LSD.

He's been getting a lot of pressure and was going to try and differ the meeting.

Alderman Burnett called him out, said it wasn't his ward and called a motion to hold a vote; so there was a vote on the vote.

9 yay and 4 nay...

Presentation happening now.

[west-town-brad]

I love watching the sausage get made...

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Yes, it's called specialization and free trade, basic economics.

Because in many ways the trade relationships were one-sided where tariff barriers, tech transfers, lax environmental & pollution regulations, joint-venture requirements, and currency manipulation skewed the benefits of the trade relationship.

In any event international trade is too complicated a topic to be discussed in terms of "basic" economics.

[BVictor1]

Motion Passes

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Motion Passes

Great!!!

[donnie]

Hos soon can we be seeing shovels in the ground?

[BVictor1]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...307-story.html


Column: Zoning Committee approves Lincoln Yards project; megadevelopment is just 3 votes away from final OK

Ryan OriContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune

Mayor Rahm Emanuel went to unusual lengths Thursday to push the controversial Lincoln Yards plan through a City Council committee, relying on aldermanic allies to override the usually sacrosanct wishes of the committee chair, who wanted to defer the vote on the massive project.

Developer Sterling Bay emerged from the dramatic meeting with support from the City Council’s Zoning Committee for its $6 billion development on the North Side.

The key vote took place after the Zoning Committee’s acting chairman, 46th Ward Ald. James Cappleman, began the meeting by announcing he was deferring the vote. But a vote of the panel overrode that decision.

The committee’s 9-4 vote moved the mixed-use project, which could reshape 54.5 acres of formerly industrial land along the Chicago River between North and Webster avenues, closer to the starting line for construction.

[the urban politician]

^ Were there any final renderings at the meeting?

I don't care much about the buildings, since that will change over time, but I'm talking about street layout, transit, ?Metra station

[sammyg]

This hearing was just for the TIF funding, which goes into effect regardless of the design.

There will be a different set of hearings and approvals for the plan itself.


Never mind, wrong hearing.