Comments ( 65 )

• I have seen renderings of the development as it stands, and it is perfectly appropriate–not at all overwhelming for a neighborhood which, if you ask me, is already kind of underwhelmed. What do you expect for Sears to do in a neighborhood without many pedestrians? Of course they’ll present a fortress-like wall to the street–you get what you deserve.

  The bigger issue is, this is yet another example of an Alderman and a city giving in to a handful of morons with pitchforks and probably forcing the reduction in density of a project adjacent to a mass transit station. Instead of relying on reason, they once again rely on a hardly legitimate aesthetic judgement which has nothing to do with how cities and their infrastructure are supposed to function.

  So instead of an 11-story building which will put people and shoppers on the streets to invest in local businesses, put eyes on the streets to enhance public safety, as well as more customers to purchase Metra tickets, we’ll probably get a 4 or 5 story building with 9 three bedroom condos (the first floor will be parking, after all) and once again the sidewalks will sit half empty–all so that 5 or 6 fear mongers on the side streets won’t be gently shaded in for a few hours per day.

  The city caves in to this stupid reasoning, which legitimizes this kind of thinking, and Chicago once again blows an opportunity to develop some kind of density around its expensive transit infrastructure. I’m sure these same NIMBY’s will complain when some kind of tax increase will be proposed to bail out the CTA and Metra next year, because these agencies can’t retrieve enough fare box revenue to cover their operating expenses. Oh, and I’m pretty sure these NIMBY’s will pass the problem off as “mismanagement at the CTA” or, more brilliantly, “It’s Daley’s fault!”

  These same morons live in the delusion that one 11 story highrise will thrust them into a Loop-like canyon of despair, unaware in their limited experiences in life that it is perfectly possible to have a neighborhood full of houses, townhomes, midrises, and a few highrises that can work harmoniously without there being any doom or darkness. I know, I live in one now.

  I’m fed up with people legitimizing this outrageous reasoning. Enough is enough. Both Mr. Rojas and Joe Askins did the very same in this video–one quick look around and, “yeah you’re right, 11 stories doesn’t belong here” without a second of thought for the complex issues involved. That’s fine and all, but people who look at this from such a superficial standpoint SHOULD NOT be guiding neighborhood development–they should be going to their jobs as lawyers, brokers, shopkeepers, etc etc and letting the actual planners make these decisions.

• UP,

  Mr Rojas lives a stones throw from the site and has been to the community and several other meetings discussing this site. On Mr. Rojas’ blog (in writing), Mr. Rojas has remained positive and supportive of a larger building at this site. Maybe not 11 stories, especially when many questions remain unanswered concerning fair housing issues and tenancy. But very supportive of multi-unit transit oriented development to increase density at this location.

  So, shut your trap prior to suggesting Mr. Rojas just took a quick spin. The “renderings” you have intensely studied never depict the actual impact on the location and site… which Mr. Rojas has lived within two blocks of on two separate occassions (and does now and will most likely grow old in this location).

  Mr. Rojas stated the facts. Many people, not just 6 morons, freaked out when the plan was sprung on the neighborhood for an 11 story building. There was short notice given to residents concerning the development and short notice to the scheduled community meeting to discuss it.

  Development will happen here and the neighbors will have to deal with it. They back up to an industrial zoned parking lot of a Sears store that’s been there B.C.! It may not be to the scale that you think is appropriate in the great study you have completed of this site from the “renderings” and all the complex issues you have reviewed with the neighborhood, city and developers that we can’t understand.

  There are plenty of valid points that more involved and educated players can make on your behalf in support of the initial development plans… unfortunatley UP, you can’t help yourself from making uninformed and accusational statements in this particular case.

  With love,

  Mr. “quick look around” Rojas.

  If anybody would like the real story here, call the 47th Ward Alderman, me or someone who is involved in the actual development.

• “unaware in their limited experiences in life that it is perfectly possible to have a neighborhood full of houses, townhomes, midrises, and a few highrises that can work harmoniously without there being any doom or darkness. I know, I live in one now.”

  one 11-story building quickly results in precedent reasoning, and then turns the single families into 3 or 4 unit buildings.

  please tell us about this magic paradise neighborhood you live in – I’ll be looking to hear how you’ve managed to keep it affordable for anybody but your fellow elitists.

  regarding the “demonizing the CTA and Mayor Daley,” wow, you just like to keep digging when you’re already in a hole, don’t you?

  why don’t you consider the billion+ dollars already wasted on the Block 37 “airport express” boondoggle. or the CTA properties sold for pittances to connected cronies of Da Mare?

  how much “expensive” public transit would that pay for? where’s that damned Circle Line we were promised by Ted “build big and CTA infrastructure will come” Matlak?

  folks like you do have some good points, but they get lost in the sea of nonsense they’re floating in. you’d do well do pick up about 6 good books on Chicago history so you wouldn’t have your foot in your mouth before it ever opens.

• That’s fine, Eric, you have your opinion and I have mine.

  There are always excuses against density. I’m sure your community can compile plenty of them. I’m sure you all feel entitled to your community meetings–but you have missed my entire point. I actually do not believe in community meetings in regards to development–I think that neither I, your, or your neighbors are particularly qualified to decide what development belongs where, and instead it should be guided by a centralized agency such as the Planning Dept, not some hack Alderman. The greatest cities in the world were built without a group of neighbors sitting together and dictating whether somebody can build x or y next door.

  I believe this is a bigger issue than just an attack you or your personal involvement in the neighborhood, ie I don’t believe in your right of authority over the future of another person’s property, especially property adjacent to tax-supported infrastructure.

  I’m sure you’re a nice and well-meaning guy and I have no interest in creating mutual hostility with a total stranger, but I think that regardless of the timing of notice, community groups who react almost instinctually against density are very dangerous for the city. But I’m guessing there ain’t a chance in heck you and I will not disagree on this matter so lets end it here.

  Oh, and I don’t plan on shutting my trap any time soon.

• Carter:

  I can’t argue with a guy who can’t even stay on topic.

  If you are willing to take a trip I’d like to take you to some neighborhoods in Queens, NY. It’s really not a “magic paradise”, you just don’t know what you don’t know.

• Posted by Carter:

  “one 11-story building quickly results in precedent reasoning, and then turns the single families into 3 or 4 unit buildings.

  please tell us about this magic paradise neighborhood you live in – I’ll be looking to hear how you’ve managed to keep it affordable for anybody but your fellow elitists.”

  ^ What makes you think I believe that any community should put the brakes on a market-driven process that puts more homes within a close perimeter of a Metra stop?

  And in regards to “keeping things affordable”, am I do believe that dividing a given lot into 20 units that sell for $1 million each is somehow going to create more affordable housing than dividing that same lot into 50 units that sell for $500,000 each? Why don’t you wrap your ahead around what you’re actually trying to say before coming after me as if it’s your mission in life to strike me down?

• you live in QUEENS and you’re lecturing Chicago on development? that is rich, thank you, I needed the laugh this afternoon.

  “instead it should be guided by a centralized agency such as the Planning Dept, not some hack Alderman”

  is Stalin your hero? here in Chicago we have this funny idea that we should be able to hold people accountable who make changes that affect our daily lives. Aldermen, for better and for worse, are those people. Your argument is with the zoning committee, chaired by one Jim Banks, who could teach you a few things about hackery.

  and it’s the Planning Department that produced our shiny TIF program, which is about as hack-friendly as anything on earth. Daley can put on the “new urbanism” coat of progress and fool suckers like you, but for most of us he’s an emperor wearing no clothes. if he’d spend as much time & energy fixing the CTA and schools as he has wagging his tail for the Olympic Committee we’d be in good shape.

• please tell me how Manhattan does done keeping things affordable. I’ll check back in about 2020 or so.

  apparently, being from QUEENS, you seem to not understand the connection between our property tax-school funding absurdity, which most certainly is why we do not have lovely neighborhoods where 11 story buildings co-exist peacefully with bungalows.

  frankly, I don’t care what you believe, you are the snake oil salesman here.

• ^ I’ve also lived in Chicago.

  If it’s not conceivable to you that cities can take some cues from eachother, then you have already won this debate.

  I won’t dignify your silly Stalin, etc comments

• Again with the off-topic straw man nonsense. I won’t dignify any of this with a response.

• silly is that you apparently don’t understand what an arrogant buffoon you sound like.

  ignorant is what I call someone who doesn’t understand that the Planning Department isn’t some sort of apolitical agency acting in the best interests of all Chicagoans. did you get beamed to America from Mars? Is there some part of the word “corruption” that has escaped your urban lexicon?

• and here you promised not to shut your trap.

• If I sound like an arrogant buffoon, then I guess I fit in quite well around here.

  You have brought up too many issues at once for me to take the time to address, and given your fire-first-think-later tone I don’t see the point in making the effort to dignify them with a response. This, especially since topics as varied as Mayor Daley, Stalin, and the Olymics aren’t what I came here to discuss.

• UP,

  Then we agree on a few things including neighborhood associations cutting off their noses.

  I just think someone should actually be on the ground and in the middle of this thing prior to calling people morons. There have been many mistakes made in development over the past 5 years, many half empty buildings and I showed 5 empty lots around the corner from this site in a prior video of a small scale building that could not even get built let alone sold. There was another 4 empty lots a couple blocks the other way sitting there for three years.

  In this case, the city and developers are not upfront. I have asked the question several times to parties involved if there will be a low and no income component to filling the midrise units. This is a legitimate need and a legitimate question, and a legitimate possibility but a question that has not even been acknowleged.
  Another issue was shading… the development representatives did not present slides of the shading until community members asked the questions after the presentation.

  We were given 15 minutes of photos of Roundy’s Supermarket meat and desserts by their operations guy (totally bizarre and way too long slide show), but “oh yeah”, we failed to show you important slides we have of how the buildings impact the neighborhood.

  Some if not most are wary of turning over all decisions to an uninterested party (or interested parties) that don’t have to live here.

  The land is going to be developed and it will be a larger scale than the neighbors on Wolcott Ave. want. However, don’t jerk us around.

• I mistakenly said we turned down Wolcott Ave that will be most affected by shading and noise of the development. That is true, those owners will be impacted.

  We actually turned down North Winchester Ave. in the video going North.

• “This, especially since topics as varied as Mayor Daley, Stalin, and the Olymics aren’t what I came here to discuss.”

  I’m sure they aren’t.

  Unfortunately for all of us here, they are all most certainly joined at the hip. The TIF program sucks $550m out of our property taxes every year, and it isn’t being used for the CTA.

  Once you start talking about how 11 story buildings generate tax revenue that will save Chicago, you’ve wandered out of your puddle-level experience into a deeper pool.

  I agree with Eric that community organizations can be reactive and short-sighted. That is often the result of them being lied to by Planning people, who present “proposals” that are in fact already done deals, and the obligatory community meeting is nothing more than a sham in order to claim transparency exists in the process.

  I also agree that Lawrence is a pretty whopping big street, and some higher density is appropriate. But too often we’ve seen developers pull the old trick where they ask for “X + 4” stories, knowing they will need to bargain down to “X + 2” or even god forbid, “X + 1.”

  That’s not urban planning.

• The Urban Politician does make some valid points. Letting neighborhood groups or aldercreatures decide appropriate zoning is silly, silly, silly.

  Generally what you are going to get is property which is downzoned because the whiny ass loud mouthed NIMBY’s want to keep density low or overzoned because the whiny ass corrupt aldercritters want a “donation” to their campaign.

  The problem with letting some larger planning agency decide is the corruption that is inherent in any process in Chicago. If you can reduce the chances of corruption I would be all for it.

  That location, which I walk by frequently, is appropriate for a larger(taller) development. Now if you wanted to build to the same height two streets west on a side street I would say you are KWAZY. Main streets, particularly those near transit stations, are generally appropriate for taller structures. If you want to say that neighbors have veto power over anything then the entire city would never have been built. Go back to the 1800’s and I’m sure you could find some ILLINI indian who would have vetoed any development in Chicago.

  Carter the martyr did make some legitimate points about the corruption in the Chicago political process.

  There are many locations in Chicago which are appropriate for higher density development. The south and west loops for example. Higher density means more people and more shopping power in a given neighborhood.

  It also generally means that the property tax burden will be spread among more people. Now “the martyr” will jump on that and state that can’t be true because his property taxes have gone up. Well Mr Martyr mine went down. Not that either your experience or mine is directly relevant to the topic and the facts.

  A few years ago the approximate real value of all the real estate in the City of Chicago was estimated to be 800 BILLION dollars. Trump Tower was conveniently purported to be worth approximately 800 MILLION dollars. Meaning theoretically Trump Tower is worth 1/1000 of the total value of all real estate in the city. Now if you assume that someone has a property tax bill of $5000 dollars the Trump property would theoretically reduce that bill by a few dollars even considering the higher costs imposed on the taxpaying agencies because of the new development.

  If the city and America are going to thrive we need denser neighborhoods where people can utilize public transportation and minimize their use of automobiles. The amount of money we send overseas for oil is mind boggling. We are essentially paying for both sides of the “terror war”.

  It generally doesn’t take a degree in urban planning to decide what is appropriate zoning for a given property. If you have a side street full of 3 story buildings you likely don’t upzone it to allow for a ten story building. Now you might upzone it to allow for a 4 story building.

  Oh well,

  So endeth the lesson.

• Eric,

  I appreciate your response and I think the “moron” comment was probably a bit inappropriate. Sorry about that.

  I guess my issue is that too often I have seen community groups be a detriment to development than the other way around. The most common complaints you hear about are “it’s too dense” or “not enough parking” to the point that it becomes mind-numbing gibberish that drowns out the apparently well-meaning and thoughtful input from people like yourself.

• Irish Pirate:

  Thanks for making those points. I would like to point all of you to an editorial in the most recent Chicago Journal. I was surprised to read it, since it’s a community newspaper that has historically been sympathetic to the very community organizations that I often criticize. It discusses the very issue that Irish Pirate brought up at the end of his post above. Here’s the link:

  http://www.chicagojournal.com/Opinion/05-06-2009/Parking,_parking,_parking_…

• ^ For some reason that link isn’t working now. If anybody is interested, click the link above, then click ‘Opinion’, then ‘Editorials’, then the article titled “Parking, Parking, Parking…”

• Transit-oriented development calls for dense development within easy walking distance (1/4 mile) of commuter stations, like, in Chicago’s case, the Metra and CTA rapid transit stations. An 11 strory building is perfectly appropriate close to the Metra station. And if that leads to more medium rise bulidings close to the Metra station, that is also consistent with transit-oriented development. Transit-oriented development is essential to the economic develpment of central cieties, if they are not to end up like Detroit or Gary. Parochial, myopic NIMBIS must not be allowed to hog valuable locations close to such stations for the purpose of maintaining the existing low density they have gotten used ot. They must not be allowed to put their selfish local interests above the common good of the cental cities.

• Captain Video makes my point for me. Using that logic, anywhere there is a Metra station now becomes a de facto appropriate location for an 11 story building.

  I note an absence of the larger question of HOW MANY 11 story buildings would be appropriate – and gents, precedence is used in legal arguments for a reason – the existence of one such building becomes the justification for another.

  Always comical to me is listening to people talk as if cities somehow have interests which can be divorced from those who actually live in them and keep them running.

  “the common good” of cities also includes those of modest means – they are usually not included in these lovely ideas of walkable neighborhoods, even though they of course are needed to serve drinks and food to these walking pilgrims. Show me how these “transit-oriented developments” aren’t simply thinly-veiled plans for gentrification and you’ll have my ear.

  btw, I love Irish Pirate’s make-believe conversation between he and myself, now that is some fine fiction – I am left wondering what on earth I will say next!

  I do agree the west and south loop are good candidates for population growth, but clearly the building has happened, and the people have not followed. And have you all seen the plans Da Mare has to spend billions covering the Kennedy? This is why I’m more than a bit cynical that ANY amount of extra inhabitants will do anything but provide excuses for these kinds of boondoggles.

• I agree Irish that a main street like Lawrence should have 10 or 12 story buildings. Just a couple blocks away on Damen and Wilson there is a 9 or 10 story hospital building which is perfectly fine. I live in the neighboorhood and walk around there all the time. It doesn’t feel oppressive, or like you’re in a canyon in the loop at all. Or look at the tower at North and Damen which is surrounded by 3 and 4 story buildings. No one thinks that is inappropriate. I think if the developer thinks the demand is there for a tower they should be able to build what they want on their own property. Especially since it is right next door to a train station.

• Carter:

  The building has happened and the people haven’t followed–that is a reality in most of the country right now. Don’t confuse a real estate bust with poor planning.

• Carter,

  in the past on this site you basically said that since your property taxes have gone up all this talk of development being a boon to the city and reducing the tax burden was BS. If you want to spend an hour looking for the statements please go ahead. I suggest a google “advanced search”. Just like Blago and a certain retired cop named Peterson are going to find out is is not all about the great “YOU”.

  I don’t disagree with you that the public development process in this city is corrupt. I do somewhat disagree with your idea of “precedence” involving zoning. If you have an empty or underused parcel on a MAIN street near a train station higher density is likely appropriate. Now if that 11 story building was built I don’t think a reasonable argument could be made to upzone the neighboring side streets. Now some developer might make that argument, but I as a reasonable person would likely disagree.

  This current real estate situation is not indicative of what zoning a particular parcel should have. Just like the Bush administration this too will end. It might be 3-5 years before we see much new construction, but it will occur.

  We need to encourage growth and development in our cities and especially near major transportation hubs. It’s simply good public policy and I could even make an argument that it is vital to national security.

  Now the nearly vacant Ravenswood Hospital campus was mentioned at Wilson and Damen. That would be an almost idea location for some high density housing once the real estate market recovers. Watch the neighborhood NIMBY’s argue for single family homes of 2.5 stories.

  To my way of thinking, the correct and only logical way, neighborhood groups and Alderman are just about the last people who should decide what a parcel should be zoned. They are too close to the issue and their interests are too parochial. Generally they are going to want to maintain the status quo and keep others out.

  Create a position of zoning “Czar” for the city and give me a staff of 10 people and I’ll appropriately zone every parcel in this city within a year. As I said earlier it’s not that difficult. If you have a street full of well maintained bungalows you don’t rezone it for a 20 story building. Now you may rezone a parcel on a nearby main street for something larger.

  Oh well, Carter, the Jesuits would not be happy with your flawed and emotional arguments. Your Saint Iggy education was clearly wasted.

• I’m generally a proponent of high-density development, but there are areas in which it would be wildly inappropriate.

  Armitage Avenue, just east and west of the L stop, is a prime example of a location whose character would be destroyed by a building of any height.

  TheBaron’s reference to the tower at North and Damen is rich in irony. The developer of that building thought that overcrowding in the Loop would result in a demand for higher density building at his location. Many decades hence he’s been proved fatally wrong.

• “the common good” of cities also includes those of modest means – they are usually not included in these lovely ideas of walkable neighborhoods, even though they of course are needed to serve drinks and food to these walking pilgrims.”

  1. The tax revenue generated by dense development, both directly, and indirectly as a result of the businesses that they will bring into being, provides the city and county with revenue to provide services to those of modest means. And the businesses will provide jobs for them.

  2. In areas suited for transit-oriented development, condos in multi-story apartments are a lot more affordable than single family homes, on a lot, or even town houses. People of modest means will certainly not be able to afford in such single family homes or townhouses.

  3. In order for the zoning variences needed to build such buildings to be granted, a requirement to include a certain percentage of affordable apartments in them can, and should be, imposed.

• “The building has happened and the people haven’t followed”

  That simply involves a lag. As the prices come down from their inflated bubble price level to more realistic prices, and as the recession ends, the people will follow.

• “I note an absence of the larger question of HOW MANY 11 story buildings would be appropriate”

  On main streets within easy walking distance of the Metra and rapid transit stations, as many as there is a market for.

• “the existence of one such building becomes the justification for another.”

  The precedent has already been set: The Granville (I forget what the new name is) at the Granville station on the Red line. The cow has already gotten out of the barn.

  All the precedent does is to provide justification for what transit-oriented development calls for.

• CaptainVideo,

  The Clarovista / Granville isn’t much of a precedent. It’s in the already high-density lakefront corridor.

  Where, apart from the lakefront, would high-rise development make sense? I can’t visualize a single non-lakefront location in Chicago that would sustain the cost of high-rise development. What am I missing? Name the Metra stations where high-rise development would be appropriate.

  I think the argument collapses when it’s placed in concrete circumstances.

• “Where, apart from the lakefront, would high-rise development make sense?”

  I think the issue here is medium rise. And an 11 story building has been proposed at this location.

  There is also Catalpa Gardens at Bryn Mawr on the Red line, which is also 11 stories.

  Another example; the combination of medium rise condo and motel that has been proposed at the Addison Red line station (and Wrigley Field) and stopped by the NIMBYS.

• A six story or so rental building offering nice, new 1200-1400 sq/ft two bed apartments including garage parking offered under $1,800 hundred may have appeal at this location. Most rentals in the area are vintage dumps (unless newer construction condos rented out by owners that grab $1800 or higher rather easily).
  I think, with the increased attraction to Metra, this could work to bring foot traffic and thier disposable income… but the numbers for the developers probably would not jive with construction costs.

  I don’t think a condo tower will have much appeal unless dirt cheap. I think people attracted to Ravenswood have a different idea of living circumstances (like, closer to the ground). Most folks I know tolerate a highrise/midrise simply to live near the lake. And last time I checked, there are plenty of units available on the lake.

• At some locations,as determined by market conditions, it may only be 6 stories, or even 4. The point is that transit-oriented development requires greater density within easy walking distance of rail transit stations in central cities than the surrounding neighborhood.

  Transit-oriented development is highly desirable for cental cities because it reduces the need to drive, which reduces traffic congestion and dependence on petroleum and, by causing greater use of public transit, improves its economic viability.

• I think midrise development is likely more appropriate for most of the probable locations near transit stops.

  Although if you count Evanston as an extension of the city the highrise developments in their downtown area have done reasonably well.

  I suspect a highrise in Oak Park might do well too. Not that I’d want to bet on the chances of getting one built there. A well located midrise in Beverly near the Metra line and that catered to the empty nester crowd MIGHT do well. Plenty of older folks who want to stay in the neighborhood, but don’t want the hassle of a single family home. Again, I wouldn’t want to bet on the chances of such a beastie getting approved. Up on the NW side off Northwest Highway in Edison Park a well located empty nester midrise might also do well.

  Now the 4 building midrise Pavilion Apartments at around 5600 North and the JFK expressway have done well. That site has over 1100 apartments and is largely surrounded by Forest Preserve or low rise developments. Obviously the proximity to O’Hare and the Blue Line play a big factor in its success.

  I also don’t think the discussion should be limited to Metra stations. I think CTA stations should also be included.

  If you include CTA stations then the number of potential sites jumps dramatically. I’d be thrilled to see midrises popping up all over the city near train stations. I’m not holding my breath.

• IrishPirate,

  The Pavilion’s been a success? Who knew? Certainly not the string of lenders who foreclosed on it over the years when it was an apartment complex. The complex was completed years before the Blue Line extension to O’Hare, which didn’t go into service until the mi-80s.

  Chicago has always had transit-oriented development. Go almost anywhere in the city and its suburbs and you’ll see higher-density (compared to the environs) development on the main streets near train stations.

  “Higher density” is relative to the character of the neighborhood. Eric raises a critical point in this regard: people move to the lower-density neighborhoods in most cases for a type of housing and an ambience – a generally lower-density feeling, and a desire to live closer to the ground. The NIMBYs have a point here: preserving that character is essential to neighborhood (and by extension, city) vitality.

  There’s a middle ground between the poles of the argument being framed here: achieving higher density without building significantly higher, i.e. more and smaller units. Out in the neighborhoods there’s also likely to be higher demand for that type of unit on the part of young and old people who want to stay in a neighborhood.

  This discussion, and many discussions on the subject of transit-oriented development, strikes me as occurring on far too abstract a plane. If t-o-d is to be successful in areas that are not already dense it has to “get closer to the ground,” both literally and metaphorically, and take more account of existing realities. And that includes the wishes of the NIMBYs – who I generally detest.

• Joe, I am under no delusion that higher density absolutely has mean building upward.

  To the contrary, I enjoy streetscapes that cap off at around 4 stories very much, and most European cities (and even prewar Chicago) proves that you can generated ample urban densities at maximum heights of 4 or 5 stories.

  The problem is, 21st century Chicago just doesn’t build 4 or 5 story buildings that are as dense as 19th century Chicago or Paris did. You have much larger units, and often an entire level of the building is devoted to parking. Four story buildings nowadays just don’t generated the kind of density that they should, and near a transit stop this becomes even more problematic–hence the need to build vertically.

  A great alternative would be for the city to eliminate its rules on minimum parking requirments and to allow for smaller unit sizes near transit stops. If that is done, I”m sure a lot more density can be packed into a shorter building, and all sides can win.

  Unfortunately, nobody is talking about such a solution so instead we have groups of neighbors who I don’t believe are qualified to make these decisions actually enforcing their personal whim on development around them.

• ^ Pardon all my type-o’s. I hate that there isn’t an edit feature..

• Joe,

  I was going to buy the Pavilion, but lacking 100 million dollars I decided to find something a wee bit smaller. I believe it’s for sale at the moment. Not the first time or the last time it’s been on the market in the recent past. I had to “google” it to find out the number of apartments for my obviously somewhat misinformed comment.

  It’s a successful complex now. Whether it was in the past I’ll defer to your greater knowledge. Perhaps bad management or economic times impacted the foreclosures. Perhaps the property was overpriced and the owner took out too large a mortgage. I simply don’t know. I’m sure many of the current highrises in the South Loop will not be financial successes for their developers. However, given time and changing economics I expect they likely will turn out to be “successful” buildings.

  I do know someone who lived at the Pavilion for years and a tremendous amount of cash was invested in upgrading the property in the last decade or so.

  As to the greater question of transit orientated development you can find NIMBYS opposing it anywhere. There is a vacant parcel at the SE corner of Irving and Sheridan that was slated for a midrise building. It’s directly across the street from the Sheridan EL stop and 2 blocks from taller buildings to the east and 1/4 block from another midrise. The NIMBYs weren’t happy.

  “Too much density”. “More traffic”. “Too tall” were some of the complaints. I half expected an epic poem or at least an ode to the “beauty” of the gas station that used to be on the property.

  Now I can understand some of the concern in Ravenswood over an 11 story building because outside the Ravenswood Hospital Campus I don’t think anything around there is more than 6 stories or so. I don’t understand or condone the concern in a lakefront location across from an EL stop.

  The West Loop is an example of an area that should be high density, but NIMBY’s and cowardly aldercritters are stopping appropriate density.

  Another example is the 47th Ward. Aldercreature Schulter bowed to community pressure to downzone a development on the 3900 block of Western. If there is any street that could benefit from taller development Western would be it. Unless someone has an affinity for used car lots and single story pizza joints. At some point it just becomes ridiculous.

  Many alderman are far too fearful of their constituents to allow appropriate zoning. There were some older single story buildings on Montrose around Damen that were literally right next door to 3.5 story buildings. Blocks got downzoned to forbid building anything new taller than 2 stories because neighbors didn’t want anything to change.

  The city really does need a “Zoning Czar”. Clemenceau once said “War is too important to be left to the Generals” and I say zoning is too important to be left to the politicians and community groups.

• “Where, apart from the lakefront, would high-rise development make sense? I can’t visualize a single non-lakefront location in Chicago that would sustain the cost of high-rise development. What am I missing? Name the Metra stations where high-rise development would be appropriate.”

  I think that 6-8 stories would have been nice on the two lots adjacent to the diversey EL stop. There is a lot of land around the Paulina stop that could have 6-10 stories depending on how many parcels are put together.

  On the other hand, I also agree that it would be inappropriate for anything large around armitage.

• I guess that’s not high rise..

• IrishPirate,

  Until Chicago sees a radical change in its political culture, i.e., a culture of corruption and “where’s mine?”, the absolute last thing it needs is a Zoning Czar. Who would fill that role and whose interests would he serve?

  I think that if you add up all of the past, current and future tussles over zoning all you have is a side-show to the real issues that retard economic development and residential growth in the city.

• Joe,

  The zoning czar would need to be someone of unimpeachable integrity. That leaves me out. It’s an academic discussion anyway. Without being compelled by some Federal Judicial authority the average aldercritter would rather sell their moms on Mother’s Day to Somali pirates than give up “aldermanic prerogative”. At the very least they’d figure they could save a few bucks on the Jewel bought candy.

  I do understand your point about zoning being a ‘side show’. Compared to the public schools, infrastructure, and crime it is a small issue.

• This topic now has 44 comments. Is that a new record for YoChicago?

• UP,

  if you want to see comments just mention Uptown and Wilson Yard. Although, any new posts would not be as amusing as in the past because Joe Zekas has somewhat changed his opinion of Uptown. Think of his opinion of Pilsen and that’s similar to his former Uptownian views.

• tup,

  We’ve gone well over 100 comments on posts in the past.

  ip,

  Uptown has come a long way in the 30+ years I’ve been following it. Not all that much has changed, however, in the past 3 years of YoChicago.

  I was thinking about Uptown just the other day as I watched the video I shot at Dover Court shortly after being invited to move on from the spot down the street where the drug deals were going down.

  Not taking the bait on Pilsen.

• “Where, apart from the lakefront, would high-rise development make sense?”

  Howard Station Apartments is a good example of transit-oriented development. That is on the Evanston side. I imagine that Rogers Park’s ueber NIMBYS would never have allowed that on their side. So Evanston gets the tax revenue while Chicago loses out. Virtually all of the stations along the north part of the Red line would be suitable for at least one medium rise building.

• CaptainVideo,

  I’d consider all of the north side Red Line stations as being within the lakefront corridor. Anywhere apart from there?

• ^ I think the neighborhoods along the Brown Line could probably handle more midrise development.

  NIMBY’s struck down a perfectly reasonable 7 story residential building in Wicker Park, for example, that would have replaced a Walgreens & its surface parking lot. Instead, they’ll be getting a 2 level retail structure with the entire second floor being parking.

  A few weeks back you guys posted a video of the Southport corridor from the El and I was just thinking how wasteful it is for the “Southport Collection” to tear down 1 or 2 story retail buildings and replace them with…….1 or 2 story retail buildings. I realize that this isn’t the right time to build residential, but it’s certainly conceivable that some day a 7 or 8 story building packed in with some good density would be appropriate along that strip, but I’m pretty sure NIMBY activists (many of whom I’m sure humorously regard themselves as environmentalists as well) would have a hissy fit. We’d hear the usual mind-numbing humdrum of “parking! too dense! Oh, but the children!”

• ^ Oops, the Wicker Park example above is along the Blue Line, my bad.

  But being a non-lakefront transit line, I think my point is still made.

• Once the recession is over, Soutport should definitely support a multi-story condo or apartment.

  The Blue Line and the Metra stations, and the Oak Park Metra station, which is also the Harlem avenue station of the Green Line would support medium rises.

• “but I’m pretty sure NIMBY activists (many of whom I’m sure humorously regard themselves as environmentalists as well) would have a hissy fit.”

  This is why the concept of transit-oriented development is so important. It can be used to validly paint NIMBYs who oppose dense development near rail commuter stations, such as, in the case of Chicago, the rapid transit and Metra stations, as being anti-environment.

• busy as hell, but this needed to be clarified for IP, who clearly drinks rum midday while posting:

  “in the past on this site you basically said that since your property taxes have gone up all this talk of development being a boon to the city and reducing the tax burden was BS.”

  I have most absolutely stated that the oft-repeated assertion that more development will equal more taxpaying residents which will then spread the tax levy burden out, thus lowering property taxes for everyone.

  That’s clearly absurd. All one has to do is see how the tax levy goes up, compare it to the number of taxable properties, and do the math.

  Look, I don’t have a problem with modest property tax increases, city workers need cost of living raises, infrastructure improvements are good, etc.

  But property tax increases don’t reflect a homeowner’s ability to pay – I can’t believe given the real estate meltdown anybody still wants to argue this point. We were right, you were wrong, deal with it.

  I remember the people yelling about how all people needed to do was take out equity loans to pay the taxes so they wouldn’t have to move – brilliant advice there.

  I have a lot of friends living in Brooklyn right now – and to a man/woman they tell me how much better it is to have modest property taxes and to instead have higher taxes that actually reflect one’s income and spending.

  As long as the State of Illinois is in violation of it’s constitutional mandate to provide the majority of funding for schools, this is a live and most relevant issue. You want normal schmoes like me to get on board the development bandwagon, divorce property taxes and public school funding.

  As for this idea that new development near L stops is “environmentally friendly,” don’t make me laugh, you guys need to study up on greenwashing. You want to be environmentally friendly, go vegetarian and ride your bike, don’t use plastic bags and limit how much plastic junk you buy. But over-taxing infrastructure by insisting you need massive development within a few blocks of the L to save the earth is ludicrous – tearing down modest homes (which often have green space) and replacing them with new construction is not environmentalism, it’s wasteful. Existing structures have what the folks in the biz call “embodied energy.”

  btw, as is often the case here, you folks don’t even understand the termionology you’re using – people that don’t want tons of development in their neighborhoods aren’t NIMBY’S – NIMBY’s are people who want something but don’t want it nearby. Many people who prefer more modest development are consistent about not wanting to see any new parts of Chicago Manhattan-ized.

• “Many people who prefer more modest development are consistent about not wanting to see any new parts of Chicago Manhattan-ized.”

  If central cities like Chicago, are to thrive and flourish they have to grow. Since most cannot grow outward, being hemmed in by suburbs, the only way for them to grow is to grow upward. Modest development is for the suburbs, not the central cities.

  “You want to be environmentally friendly …ride your bike”

  For central cities with long cold winters and frequent rains, like Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, etc. bicycles are of limited use as an alternative to driving. Public transportation, on the other hand, is a very feasible alternative.
  Density with walkable naighborhoods and easy access to public transportation is environmentally friendly. Low density makes public transportation economically difficult to support and requires the use of automobiles to get around.

• Everyone seems not to have noticed that a) there’s an enormous amount of vacant land within Chicago and b) we have bus routes as well as trains.

• thanks Joe, I’ve actually been in about 99% agreement with all of your assessments on the topic to date.

  I am all for seeing Chicago grow and thrive – there are certainly plenty of places that are blighted that need the development, and who doesn’t want a more walkable neighborhood?

  what I can’t stand is this whole “there’s a train stop – arghhhhhhhhh, get it!” gold rush mentality.

  it’s always a train stop on the North Side, and is usually a thinly veiled pretext to gentrify the hell out of a neighborhood which doesn’t need “saving.” I was down at the Garfield Park Conservatory a few weeks back – plenty of L stops down there, and it’s like a prairie in terms of density.

  yet I don’t get the sense the urban planners are currently trying to revitalize the neighborhood. certainly not in a way that would include the residents.

  Captain Video: is there some reason why all these new and enlightened urban pilgrims can’t or won’t walk more than a block or two?

  Last I checked we had a national obesity problem, with Chicago often in the running for America’s fattest city. what’s wrong with people getting some exercise?

  and the buses, btw, would run a hell of a lot faster if you’d get rid of all the new bus stops the aldercritters put in over the past 15 years.

  there’s no reason for a bus to stop every block – and in the case of (at least) the 77 Belmont, sometimes it stops on both sides of a single intersection.

  I’m supposed to trust a “Zoning Czar” in a City that has problems like these with the most basic of transportation issues?

• Carter,

  I think you and I could make a good case for the proposition that development virtually anywhere in Chicago is transit-oriented development.

  And, I’d challenge all of the environmentalist proponents of pedestrian-friendly streets to show me one in Chicago that isn’t an environmental disaster clogged with slow-moving traffic.

  This discussion too often seems entirely divorced from urban ealities.

• Joe,

  I’m not sure what an “ealities” is, but I think I getz yor point.

  As for the notion of “green” communities Manhattan is practically the “greenest” place in America.

  Take those hundreds of thousands of Manhattanites and put them in less dense areas and the pollution from cars, trucks etc would be overwhelming.

  I saw an interesting article a few weeks back arguing that if you want a green community the best way to do it is build up and somewhere in a moderate climate where air conditioning and heating use is minimal. Northern California was the example that was used.

  Carter’s assertion that spreading the tax burden out by having more units and people in the city does not decrease the potential rate of tax increases is wrong. In fact if I were our gloriously verbose Mayor I might say “silly, silly, silly.” Then I’d give some contracts to cronies and relatives. The “Lake View” of your youth is gone. Get over it. Just say Lakeview ten times and click your heels, Carter.

  Gentrification is not without its social costs, but all those gentrified neighborhoods certainly carry a disproportionate part of the tax burden and that benefits city taxpayers.

  As Joe Zekas said there is plenty of vacant land in Chicago. Unfortunately, as he has stated in the past it’s almost a question of “triage” as to which neighborhoods to invest tax money in. Do we spend tens of millions of dollars rebuilding streets and sewers in Engelwood, which is now largely vacant land, or do we spend those resources in Chicago Lawn to try to prevent it becoming the next version of Engelwood?

  A few weeks ago I read an interesting article on Flint, Michigan where a politician basically suggested buying out the residents in the more blighted areas of the city and moving them into the more intact areas. His reasoning was based on the costs of infrastructure and delivering services.

  Similar suggestions have been made regarding Detroit and I’m beginning to believe something similar should probably happen in large parts of Chicago.

  About ten years ago one of my brothers looked at the cost of vacant land in the Roseland neighborhood on the far south side and calculated that it was cheaper than comparable farmland 20 or more miles south. At one point Roseland was some of the most productive farmland in America.

  There are a limited amount of resources out there and how they are spent is of vital importance.

  Now as to Carter’s suggestion that a hire state income tax is better than higher property taxes I agree. However, I suspect that people with relatively higher incomes might not agree.

  It reminds me of the old Royko saying “Don’t tax me, don’t tax thee, tax that guy behind the tree.”

  Oh well we’re not going to solve the problems of the city tonight.

  Maybe tomorrow.

• “Gentrification is not without its social costs, but all those gentrified neighborhoods certainly carry a disproportionate part of the tax burden and that benefits city taxpayers.”

  I’d say you’d have a good argument if it wasn’t for the pesky problem of $500,000,000 of property tax funds being diverted into TIFs every year.

  Please to be providing the proof of this assertion, por favor. In theory this sounds possible, but I haven’t seen reality fall into line just yet. the infrastructure of the lakefront neighborhoods seems no better than it ever was, the schools aren’t much better (if at all), the roads are full of potholes, the police are undermanned, etc., etc.

  I love the City, but please – let’s look this thing in the eye and recognize that people paying loads of property taxes are largely funding corruption that benefits few but the well-connected.

• Part of the reason why places like Englewood, etc continue to be in such bad shape is due to a leadership structure that assumes that once a neighborhood goes black, it should not go back.

  Some black leaders don’t want to lose the claim they have staked and I think some would rather see their wards be dirt poor, hopeless, and yet full of black people than desirable with a mixed ethnic makeup.

  I know Chicagoans HATE hearing about New York, but I think Chicago can put aside its inferiority complex and learn a lot about how New York has managed its outer boroughs. Everybody points to Manhattan, but I have long felt that New York’s greatest strength is in the vitality of Brooklyn, Queens and to a lesser degree the Bronx.

  These outer boroughs have plenty of density but also ample open space and single-family housing. But more importantly, the neighborhoods are far more diverse. You just don’t see a whole lot of exclusively American black neighborhoods, as is the case in Chicago–and thus the “black agenda” doesn’t grip NYC the way it does with Chicago.

  Policy in Chicago has in some cases been driven by fear, and I think that has ultimately damaged the city. Whether it be by wholesale demolition of prewar neighborhoods that (if they were still around today) may very well have been the new urban hipster districts of today, whether it be fear of putting a highrise a block away from homes, whether it be fear of mixing black and white people, or whether it be black leaders’ fears of losing their grip on city politics, too much of this crap has been going on for too long.

  Should Chicago copy New York? Of course not, it is a uniquely great city with its own qualities. But I for one think the city could take some cues.

• Carter,

  whilst I think that TIF’s are a good idea in theory, in practice they are a stealth tax increase with limited accountability. Hell, our divine Lordship Hizzoner refuses to acknowledge them as taxes at all. It is as if they arth manna from heaven. The story of the loaves and fishies wrought in a modern day setting.

  That being said I don’t think it’s fair to describe property taxes as “largely funding corruption”. Methinks it is likely that only 5-10 percent funds corruption along with a larger share of mismanagement and poor decisions

  If the city feels the money spent on TIFS is necessary then the funding should come from general revenue and taxes should be adjusted accordingly. The city tax rate would go up whilst the taxeth rate of the other bodies would go downeth accordingly. Whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of higher city taxes or higher schools taxes………dat is da question.

  Often common sense propositions are wrong, but I don’t think the idea that new development brings more to the city tax coffers that it takes is wrong. Exceptions to that might be where massive TIF subsidies are used to jumpstart various developments. A six unit building on a vacant lot in Uptown with no TIF subsidy is going to add to the tax base. A 100+ loft development in some outlying neighborhood where millions of TIF dollars are given to developers might not.

  The unfortunately named Trump Tower will be an obvious boon to the tax coffers, because relatively little tax money was spent on the infrastructure to allow its development. I think the overall level of development in the South Loop will be a boon to the city even though some large infrastructure improvements have occurred and will occur.

  Can I prove that? If I had the time and access to the information I probably could. I’ll just spend the next two years FOIA’ing City Hall for the relevant documents.

  Now back to the subject of the original post……

  Ze Germans create an interesting suburb.

• The luxury city versus the middle class.

• “it’s always a train stop on the North Side, and is usually a thinly veiled pretext to gentrify the hell out of a neighborhood which doesn’t need “saving.”

  Gentrification is one of the main reasons that Chicago has not ended up like Detroit or Gary. The gentrification provies the city with the revenue to provides services to the entire city. This is due to the property taxes from the more valuable real estate, and the tax revenue from the upscale businesses that gentrification brings about, and from the income by the workers whose jobs are created. Gentrification of a limited amount of selected areas that are suitable for it, is needed to protect the economic health of the City and to prevent farther deterioration of additional parts of the city and is therefore higly desirable.
  When my uncle and aunt sold their house on Southport avenue, the area was in the process of decline. Now it is the Southport corridor. To the best of my knowledge, no TIF money was involved in the creation of the Southport corridor, nor in the South Loop (using the term broadly to include everything to 26th). On the other hand what is being done with the TIF money at Wilson Yard is in no way gentrification.

• I think you’re all forgetting that property taxes are just one slice of the revenue pie, albeit a large one. Poorer people play puh-lenty of taxes in the form of sales taxes, and the dozens of myriad “user’s fees” Da Mare has invoked.

  IP – I can largely agree with that last post. But given the size of the TIF draw, I still think I’m right. $550m a year could go a long way, especially in this new depressed economy. : P

  gentrification is not why we’re like Gary and Detroit, sorry. Southport has been a vibrant street my whole life. L stop, check. Supermarket, check. Music Box theater, check.

  The addition of a few more pet grooming and coffee stores is not what I call revitalization.

  I’d like to actually see more focus on revitalizing areas for the people already there (which admittedly requires more participation than many long-time residents want to provide) than the current shove-em-out approach.

  In fact, if we could get the property tax school thing fixed (urban boodler: here’s my ode to NYC) it would solve most of the problems. People could be ushered in to bring new life, renovate old buildings, build new ones, etc., without the horrible effect of pushing long-timers out. NYC does that by having a City income tax (is it all boroughs or just Manhattan?). I also think NY state does better at providing for education, but again the rates are higher.

  Thanks for the article IP, I’ll check it out later.

• kudos to New Trier:

  http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Content.aspx?audioID=34201

  North Shore Group Pushes for Research on Education Funding Reform

  On the first day back to school last September, State Sen. James Meeks led a group of Chicago Public School students up to New Trier Township High School in Winnetka. Meek’s goal was to raise awareness of inequities in the way Illinois funds its schools. Our system relies heavily on property taxes, leaving poorer areas with less funds per student. The protests spurred the formation of two groups dedicated to finding new solutions to funding disparities. Illinois Council of Students brings together suburban and CPS students to research and lobby for funding reform. Another group inspired by Senator Meeks’ protest is United We Learn. It was formed by New Trier parents who decided that reforming school funding required a little education on their parts. They’ve spent the past year talking to researchers and education leaders to get a sense of a possible fix for Illinois schools.

  Today, they’re holding a forum to present what they’ve learned and where to go next. Tonight’s keynote speaker is former Illinois State Superintendent of Education and current President of the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy Max McGee. He and Lali Watt of United We Learn join us.

  Events:
  The Future of Illinois Education and What We Can Do About It!
  Tonight, May 14 at 7 p.m.
  New Trier High School