These people are absolutely certifiable. No ifs ands or buts. They bought this ugly new retro-crap that has been built in the last few years which has certainly marred the neighborhood more than the very promising new proposals – namely I am thinking of the X/O project. People, it is called modern contextual design, and it is more respectful to vary scale and style than to cruelly mock the past with the faux, cheap knock-offs that you live in!! Sometimes you’d think we lived in some small backwater town than the birthplace of modern architecture! makes me sick…
In design, mimicry is not a high compliment, in fact it is a very low and cheap blow. It is much more sophisticated and pleasing for urban design to engage thoughtful contrasts and strike up interesting conversations than to merely copy historic styles of architecture. What about this concept is so difficult to comprehend?
Joe, I think you should be careful of the terms you throw around. How about meeting directly with people to hear the facts first.
I would personally invite you to meet to discuss further. The PDNA is pro-development based on logic and adherance to the 2003 Chicago Central 2020 Plan and The Near South Commmunity Plan.
1. DPD & Chicago Plan
———————-
You and Sam have touted that you believe in a strong Department of Planning & Development guidance. Yet, you seem to be hypocritical when a neighborhood organization feels the exact same way. If you look at the City of Chicago Central Plan (2003) and the Near South Community Plan (2003), the plans call specifically for the protection of “respect, scale, material, character”, with specific recommendations by DPD for the entire District (height, material, etc), not just the Landmark portion.
The District was already on it’s way to achieving that before the horrible mistake that is X/O was proposed. The residents and PDNA are only asking to honor that plan, which was painstakingly derived through Public funds and public input. Why was a developer proposal that is not consistent with these standards even up for debate? The Plans clearly call for placement of highrises on Calumet, Michigan, and Cermak.
See http://www.cityofchicago.org
2. Public Notification – There are so many zoning ordinance violations it is not even funny. Take a look at the date when the Plan Commission Agenda on the DPD was written and posted. Per the DPD’s own website, the document was created and posted on September 1st, yet the meeting was on August 24th! Doh!
Now you know why only the developer showed up -DPD invited them, but not the 100+ people who wrote or called DPD’s office.
Add to the fact that the developer did not properly contact residents within 250 feet is also an issue. Statute requires notification of all, not some, and requires notification of Property Management Companies per Zoning Ordinance and Illinois Condo Act.
3. Neighorhood Groups – The South Loop has grown to where specific review by District is needed. You tout the GSLA and Near South Planning Board as respectible. If that is the case, why was the Loft with Red Barn siding at 1700 area of South Michigan ever approved?? Why was a garage entrance on Prairie at Prairie Point even allowed?? People fell asleep, that is why.
Near South Planning Board – This is an organization with very few residents. It is made up of developers, and people with real estate and business ties. Please show me a project they have not approved or changed. The potential for conflict of interest issues are probable when a developer sits on the same organization’s Board of Directors, asking for approval of the same board.
GSLA – The GSLA has stated that they did not even review the Near South Community Plan (what?), when their former president is listed as part of the Committee to develop the plan). Per Jeffrey Key “The GSLA…considered the project in relation to other modern structures in the South Loop”. This is clearly an error in procedure, standards, and judgement. Add to the fact that the GSLA has an existing financial/business relationship with the developer in this case.
For your reference:
NEAR SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN Quote –
——————————-
The Prairie Avenue Chicago Landmark District should be preserved and enhanced as the “centerpiece� for this District.
Low-rise structures are most appropriate in the immediate Prairie Avenue area, with a
gradual transition to the higher-rise residential and mixed-use buildings in surrounding blocks. Building materials and styles that are compatible with the historic
character of Prairie Avenue should be used.
Suggested building heights for this area should be in context with development along the
block face and immediate surrounding area. Taller buildings should be approximately
60 feet along the Prairie, Cullerton,
and 18th Street frontages: and up to 250 feet elsewhere in the Development District
2003 CITY OF CHICAGO CENTRAL PLAN – One of Many Prairie District Recommendations within the Central Plan
——————————————–
Section 5 of Central Plan
“Preservation and sensitive infill in the Prairie Avenue District respecting the scale and character of this important Landmark District”
Section 4.1 of Central Plan
• Strengthen and conserve character districts.
• Establish and enforce appropriate densities, height limits, setback requirements and
other zoning elements to preserve character.
• Establish design guidelines for specific districts.
• Lower the threshold for Planned Development review of projects in character
districts.
• Create incentives for building owners who sensitively rehabilitate buildings that
contribute to character districts.
Jeffery,
I’d be happy to meet. Call or e-mail with a suggested time and place.
I think your beef is with the Chicago Journal, and with your president – both of whom painted a very NIMBYish picture of your organization.
I note, with some amusement, that PDNA has defined the borders of its organization in a way that extends well beyond what can be called a historic district, and appear to be striving to preserve something that doesn’t exist.
I’m open to convincing, but I’m a hard sell on the notion that you have any greater stake in your area than any of the long-standing organizations that serve interests beyond yours.
I’m also a very, very hard sell on the notion that anyone’s opinion is a fact.
Joe,
This is not made up by the PDNA, but defined in the Near South Community Plan by the City of Chicago and DPD. If people would do a little factual research, they will find that the boundaries are actually almost identical to what is laid out on the Maps in the Near South Community Plan for the “Prairie Avenue District”, with the exception that we asked to be included in review of projects down to Cermak, vs. the defined 21st Street boundary. (See section Titled “Area 2 Overview of the Development Districts (page 49)” for the map of the Prairie Avenue District, including the Prairie Avenue Landmark portion.
As to your second point “the notion that you have any greater stake in your area than any of the long-standing organizations that serve interests beyond yours”. The DPD and Alderman’s office has already signed off on this.
The growth of the South Loop has been such that there are now the distinct areas are taking form and need better review of not only development, but infrastructure, service needs, something the GSLA and NSPB has not done. The lack of input to the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) shows.
If you research the city project plans 2000-2010 (again factual data and not opinion), you would be alarmed at the CIP Infrastructure, Aldermadic Menu, and TIF $$ being spent south of I-55 and West of Canal street, while the area generating the $$ for funding is coming from the South Loop.
Engineering studies done by Central Station Development (again factual information) show the need to replace water, sewer, stormwater infrastructure to meet the size of these proposed projects. Yet, you and I the tax payer will pay for this later versus the developer who introduces the project now.
Jeffery,
The bottom line is that you and your fellow prairie people LOST this one, and most deservedly so. The project has been approved by the Plan Commission and City Council – it is over, a done deal – go home. There is no compromise to be had, nor should there be. Any attempt to block it will clearly be illegal. Instead of expending your time and money on being a neighborhood nuisance with your Nimbyist campaign, why don’t you concentrate on getting yourself some quality taste in architecture and urban design. I expect you’ll find it an uphill battle, but in the end it may be worth it!
I was at the Plan Commission meeting when this was approved. How did I find out about it? Because it was posted beforehand. There were most certainly no notification violations, silly – nice try. I think Joe really gets to the crux of this matter when he states that you “appear to be striving to preserve something that doesn’t exist”. Frankly there is nothing historic about 75% of your little ‘historic district’. Furthermore, I don’t believe anybody who lives in the atrocious monstrosity that is the Prairie District Homes development (which I’m sure is where many members of your NIMBY group reside) is in a position to comment on issues of architecture, urban design, new buildings fitting with their surroundings, etc. The PDH is one of the most offensive violators I’ve ever seen. I think the most agreeable solution for the $7 million defective window issue is to demolish the entire structure, to once and for all put it, and all of us who have had the misfortune of glancing in its direction out of our collective misery!
Lookie here folks, we have an internet tough guy.
Sam, I do not remember insulting you? Who are you?. If you have a problem, tough guy, than feel free to leave a email or phone number to take your personal problems off-line. Instead of being an ignorant jack-ass, get some facts first before spouting your NIMBY intimidation.
You seem to have your panties in a wad on any feedback to development. You are also a hypocrite, crying like a baby for “strong DPD role”, yet are ok with Developers having their way with abuse of the approved community plans. Let me guess, you work for a developer, and live with your mom.
And no, I do not live in PDH or 1717 S. Prairie. Your prized 1717 Tower was approved by your buddies at the GSLA and NSPB before anyone lived in this part of the South Loop…oh wait, the developer has these guys in their pocket. The problems at 1717 S. Prairie are the prototypical issue we hope to raise… Knowing full well that Developers like Warman, Frankel & Giles, etc. are having a problem with quality delivery, what are you proposing there tough guy?
Even after 10 years, why has the GSLA and NSPB not worked with the city to address the developer quality and accountability problems that you whine about, such as requiring escrow accounts, inclusion of project history in the project application process, etc.? Could it be because of the existing conflict of interests.
Why should developers get a free pass from completing quality projects? You seem to blame the residents but not the developers.
Jeffery:
You seem like a very reasonable person, and I think you have some great points.
The problem is, many of us are afraid that this newly minted organization, while having its priorities right in the beginning, may eventually devolve into an anti-everything, parking-obsessed NIMBY organization like the ones that have popped up in other parts of the city.
Having said that, I hope you guys stick to your basic mantra and let Chicago’s downtown continue to grow and astound–and you DO live downtown, don’t forget that plain fact. Highrises aren’t the devil, and that seems to be the new fad mentality of seemingly every new neighborhood group.
Cheers
Jeffery,
You’re insulted by Sam’s alternative view of the facts?
You tell Sam to get some facts and then speculate on what he does and who he lives with?
You’re doing an outstanding job of representing what some believe to be the true spirit of your organization.
Let’s address the issue of my supposed hyprocisy in relation to the DPD and the plan that affects your area.
A plan of this type is a set of guidelines and a wish list. It’s not chiseled in stone.
The X/O project doesn’t vary from those guidelines in any significant way that you can demonstrate. To the extent it does vary, reasonable people can come to different conclusions than you have, i.e. that the project, taken as a whole, is consistent with the DPD’s planning goals for the area.
Sam’s right. The status quo here is: game over, you lost. Sore losers keep on losing.
Also, Jeffery, if you’re so bothered by conflicts of interest, what’s your position on the fact that your president is a real estate agent who represents projects that would compete with X/O?
Did the fact that your president lives outside the Prairie District plan boundaries have anything to do with your organization’s extending the southern boundary of your coverage?
Joe,
Joe I am not insulted by introduction of facts and good debate about opinions. I do have a problem with comments like “…money on being a neighborhood nuisance with your Nimbyist campaign, why don’t you concentrate on getting yourself some quality taste in architecture and urban design. I expect you’ll find it an uphill battle, but in the end it may be worth it!”
Joe, Have you had a chance to even review the plans Chicago Central Plans and Near South Community Plans released in 2003? I provided the link, but may just mail you a copy. It is quite clear what the recommended heights, set-backs, material, etc. , with a key them of protecting integrity and “character”. Character is more than bricks, stone, and architecture.
Regarding your comments about the president, again, do you check the facts you write? I encourage you to re-read the City of Chicago’s definition boundaries of the Prairie District in the Near South Community. The PDNA president, board, and committee members all live smack in the middle on Prairie Avenue District. Our president nor our members do not represent any development projects in the Prairie Avenue District; in fact, our goal is to encourage, partner, and support quality development within the guidelines set for the District. People would certainly go out their way to recommend the unique identity and advantages the Prairie District to anyone looking for a place in the South Loop, especially good development.
I have yet to see a person as passionate about enhancing the quality of life for all residents as the PDNA President and volunteers. All development recommendations are made by a Zoning & development committee, not the board.
If Sam lives in the Prairie District, and is so passionate about his feelings, he can feel free to volunteer his time and join.
To Urban Politician
1. No High Rises are not the devil – But Placement should be sensitive to the character and plans set forth. If you would not put a 45 story development on Indiana, Michigan, Cermak, why in the middle of a “Character District” with low density single family and townhomes on Prairie Avenue.
The PDNA was asked to review and write a letter of recommendation for the Museum Park Place Tower II Zoning ordinance at 1801 S. Calumet, to add two more floors. The PDNA could have easily blocked the request, and stopped the project’s additional request for more floors, for a host of legal and zoning issues (NIMBY). Central Station was even worried about the wording of the support letter. Despite the stark red stripes that dominate the scenery vs. what was proposed, the PDNA calmly met with the developer and city to look at all the facts and issues. Despite our concerns about the height and design, it was still in context with the 2003 Near South Community Plan for the Prairie District, as it fit within the guidelines and context for height and placement of highrises on Calumet. Hence the PDNA wrote a letter of support for the project.
Let’s see the reaction, if X/O gets built, of those X/O residents when Central Station releases the Plan for 7-10 Towers over the train tracks using the purchased air-rights, blocking their un-protected lake views. Oh the horror.
Jeffery,
I re-read the plan docs carefully before responding to you. Even though I no longer practice law, those habits remain. On any fair reading of them, reasonable people could approve X/O. They’ve done so and decided against your position.
You didn’t directly respond to my question about whether your president is a real estate agent who represents projects that compete with X/O, not simply projects within the district.
Late at night I misread her residence address, and will concede that one to you. Rest assured that I do check my facts.
No, I have zero concern. Some people have integrity regardless of their profession. This is not an anti-development issue, and development issues are not soley just X/O. The District issues are not about Real Estate, but about responsible development, concious infrastructure and services, and supporting the plans, not making them up as you go along, or because of non-merit factors.
Any good real esate will sell regardless of design or what an agent tells them. It benefits no one when development fails. Take the Townhomes at 15th and Wabash. Place that same development 1 block east or west, and it would have been sold out 7 years ago; bad plan.
Regarding X/O though, had any other respectful and classical architecural design been proposed, say like the a smaller version of Elysian Hotel or other classsical quality projects from Mr. LaGrange’s past work, the neighborhood would have worked with the developer on issues of scale and support. You might not have had heard a peep. But this developer has been quoted many times, that essentially he does not care about a partnership or input from the District Residents.
Jeffery,
Although most of your comments are unworthy of reply (or reading for that matter),
I did find a couple to be deserving…
“Let’s see the reaction, if X/O gets built, of those X/O residents when Central Station releases the Plan for 7-10 Towers over the train tracks using the purchased air-rights, blocking their un-protected lake views. Oh the horror.â€?
If and when the developers of Central Station propose to build on top of the tracks, and X/O residents oppose, than that is a future battle with future nimbys that I look forward to defeating. There will always be more of your short-sighted anti-quality development and design ilk, and I relish important battles that are yet to be fought. Just because people happen to reside in a great development (such as X/O will be), certainly does not make them immune to being criticized and corrected when their urban planning principals go astray.
“Regarding X/O though, had any other respectful and classical architecural design been proposed, say like the a smaller version of Elysian Hotel or other classsical quality projects from Mr. LaGrange’s past work, the neighborhood would have worked with the developer on issues of scale and support.â€?
Are you for real? So you think a nostalgic piece of retro-rubbish like LaGrange’s more hideous and timid creations would work better in this location (or anywhere for that matter)? You are demonstrating your true design-challenged colors when you endorse such an approach. I think you may not be capable of nuanced thought when it comes to architecture – obviously you will never understand the simple elegance of modern contextual design. Quite simply, it is much more effective and powerful to contrast respectfully (in style and scale) than to clumsily and cheaply mimic the existing environment. This is one lesson I doubt you even have the potential of learning however…
When faced with facts, throw out phrases and terms around like NIMBY and “doubt you even have the potential of learning”. Mr. Internet Tough-guy hiding behind his keyboard. Feel free to get my email from Joe.
At least be honest and disclose your relation with the developer; using development to make architectural statements and having to live with them are two different issues.
Jeffery,
It’s against our policy to give one user’s e-mail address to another user, even with consent.
Not everyone posts with an accurate e-mail address, as you have. People have a variety of reasons for wishing to remain anonymous, and we respect that. The price of anonymity is that many people attach less weight to an anonymous poster’s opinions.
For the record, I have or seek to have absolutely no relationship whatsoever with this developer, nor any other residential developer in the city of Chicago. Rather, what I do have is a keen interest in seeing this neighborhood (as well as the specific X/O parcel) develop to its fullest and ideal potential in regard to density, height and design, something that Jeffery and I most certainly do not share.
So what this tells me is you have no clue about what you spout. This is not soley and Architectural issue. If you have ever read the Near South Community Plan and the Chicago Central Plan released in 2003, those issues were already debated and decided. It’s not a issue of opinion or sharing views.
The City Plan clearly states:
“The Prairie Avenue Historic District
and Museums will continue to be cultural destinations and to serve as an anchor
for a revitalized residential neighborhood. Lower building heights along Prairie Avenue,
18th Street and Cullerton Street will reinforce the scale of the residential neighborhood. To preserve the
character of the historic district, density surrounding the historic district will be lower, with higher density development along the development corridors.”
To say these things are subjective is BS. When the maximim tower hight is 20 stories nobody in their right mind can say 45 stories is “consistant” with 20 stories. If you like tall, say you like tall, but do not claim it is consistant with any stated goals, plans, or ordinance.
And if you thinking this decision was made by DPD on merit, I have some land in Florida for you. You will soon see the facts come out.
For some projects, controversy is good for sales. For this one, it is not.
My understanding is that the Central Area Plan is actually currently being updated and improved to more accurately reflect the area’s true potential and optimum development. Furthermore, you keep treating these guiding plans as if they are law. That’s just foolish – they should always be somewhat flexible becuase conditions change. I think what’s become apparent and very interesting is that this so-called controversy is revealing more about you and your Nimbyist pack of fools than this particular project and its appropriateness for its particular site. Clearly from your comments you are one of these people who simply don’t appreciate contemporary (clearly almost all new architectural designs drawn up in contemporary times should be contemporary – duh!) architecutre or tall buildings, or solid urban design featuring structures are varying scale and architectural style (styles from different time periods) in a neighborhood. You don’t wish to look at the XO towers because of your lack of appreciation of quality design and general lack of taste. It’s not about the buildings. It’s about you – and your enthusiastically Nimbyist character (along with your buddies). Keep that in mind. Once again, there is no fight here – this one has thankfully and finally been decided in favor of the right urban planning and design decision. You lose – move on Jeffery. Buy some taste.
Jeffery,
For someone who talks so much about facts, I see you employing very few of them.
A misreading of a plan document is not a fact.
A misinterpretation of what a plan is is not a fact.
Vague mutterings about under-the-table deals are not facts.
Wild speculation about other people’s identities and interests are not facts.
As Sam pointed out, you’re up against – for you – an inconvenient fact: guidelines are just that, guidelines. They’re susceptible to differing interpretations as to what’s consistent with them, and subject to revision. Your interpretation lost. If you remain in a mean-spirited funk over that, you’ll continue losing.
As to your not-so-veiled threats that you’ll prolong controversy to cost the developer sales – well, developers have a lot of experience in dealing with that, and your attempts will either prove insignificant or counter-productive.
Listen to the internet tough guy posting under and assumed name telling people to buy tastes.
Joe, you are correct, alone, guidelines and plans are subject to interpretation alone. However, when coupled with Zoning code they can be adminstered as legal documents. See City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance
17-8-0903 Approved Plans
————————-
Planned developments must be consistent with plans that have been adopted by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council.
Take that legal argument to a court and see where it gets you, Jeffery.
In the mind of this ex-attorney, the people who decide consistency have decided, and decided against you.
These people are absolutely certifiable. No ifs ands or buts. They bought this ugly new retro-crap that has been built in the last few years which has certainly marred the neighborhood more than the very promising new proposals – namely I am thinking of the X/O project. People, it is called modern contextual design, and it is more respectful to vary scale and style than to cruelly mock the past with the faux, cheap knock-offs that you live in!! Sometimes you’d think we lived in some small backwater town than the birthplace of modern architecture! makes me sick…
In design, mimicry is not a high compliment, in fact it is a very low and cheap blow. It is much more sophisticated and pleasing for urban design to engage thoughtful contrasts and strike up interesting conversations than to merely copy historic styles of architecture. What about this concept is so difficult to comprehend?
Joe, I think you should be careful of the terms you throw around. How about meeting directly with people to hear the facts first.
I would personally invite you to meet to discuss further. The PDNA is pro-development based on logic and adherance to the 2003 Chicago Central 2020 Plan and The Near South Commmunity Plan.
1. DPD & Chicago Plan
———————-
You and Sam have touted that you believe in a strong Department of Planning & Development guidance. Yet, you seem to be hypocritical when a neighborhood organization feels the exact same way. If you look at the City of Chicago Central Plan (2003) and the Near South Community Plan (2003), the plans call specifically for the protection of “respect, scale, material, character”, with specific recommendations by DPD for the entire District (height, material, etc), not just the Landmark portion.
The District was already on it’s way to achieving that before the horrible mistake that is X/O was proposed. The residents and PDNA are only asking to honor that plan, which was painstakingly derived through Public funds and public input. Why was a developer proposal that is not consistent with these standards even up for debate? The Plans clearly call for placement of highrises on Calumet, Michigan, and Cermak.
See http://www.cityofchicago.org
2. Public Notification – There are so many zoning ordinance violations it is not even funny. Take a look at the date when the Plan Commission Agenda on the DPD was written and posted. Per the DPD’s own website, the document was created and posted on September 1st, yet the meeting was on August 24th! Doh!
Now you know why only the developer showed up -DPD invited them, but not the 100+ people who wrote or called DPD’s office.
Add to the fact that the developer did not properly contact residents within 250 feet is also an issue. Statute requires notification of all, not some, and requires notification of Property Management Companies per Zoning Ordinance and Illinois Condo Act.
3. Neighorhood Groups – The South Loop has grown to where specific review by District is needed. You tout the GSLA and Near South Planning Board as respectible. If that is the case, why was the Loft with Red Barn siding at 1700 area of South Michigan ever approved?? Why was a garage entrance on Prairie at Prairie Point even allowed?? People fell asleep, that is why.
Near South Planning Board – This is an organization with very few residents. It is made up of developers, and people with real estate and business ties. Please show me a project they have not approved or changed. The potential for conflict of interest issues are probable when a developer sits on the same organization’s Board of Directors, asking for approval of the same board.
GSLA – The GSLA has stated that they did not even review the Near South Community Plan (what?), when their former president is listed as part of the Committee to develop the plan). Per Jeffrey Key “The GSLA…considered the project in relation to other modern structures in the South Loop”. This is clearly an error in procedure, standards, and judgement. Add to the fact that the GSLA has an existing financial/business relationship with the developer in this case.
For your reference:
NEAR SOUTH COMMUNITY PLAN Quote –
——————————-
The Prairie Avenue Chicago Landmark District should be preserved and enhanced as the “centerpiece� for this District.
Low-rise structures are most appropriate in the immediate Prairie Avenue area, with a
gradual transition to the higher-rise residential and mixed-use buildings in surrounding blocks. Building materials and styles that are compatible with the historic
character of Prairie Avenue should be used.
Suggested building heights for this area should be in context with development along the
block face and immediate surrounding area. Taller buildings should be approximately
60 feet along the Prairie, Cullerton,
and 18th Street frontages: and up to 250 feet elsewhere in the Development District
2003 CITY OF CHICAGO CENTRAL PLAN – One of Many Prairie District Recommendations within the Central Plan
——————————————–
Section 5 of Central Plan
“Preservation and sensitive infill in the Prairie Avenue District respecting the scale and character of this important Landmark District”
Section 4.1 of Central Plan
• Strengthen and conserve character districts.
• Establish and enforce appropriate densities, height limits, setback requirements and
other zoning elements to preserve character.
• Establish design guidelines for specific districts.
• Lower the threshold for Planned Development review of projects in character
districts.
• Create incentives for building owners who sensitively rehabilitate buildings that
contribute to character districts.
Jeffery,
I’d be happy to meet. Call or e-mail with a suggested time and place.
I think your beef is with the Chicago Journal, and with your president – both of whom painted a very NIMBYish picture of your organization.
I note, with some amusement, that PDNA has defined the borders of its organization in a way that extends well beyond what can be called a historic district, and appear to be striving to preserve something that doesn’t exist.
I’m open to convincing, but I’m a hard sell on the notion that you have any greater stake in your area than any of the long-standing organizations that serve interests beyond yours.
I’m also a very, very hard sell on the notion that anyone’s opinion is a fact.
Joe,
This is not made up by the PDNA, but defined in the Near South Community Plan by the City of Chicago and DPD. If people would do a little factual research, they will find that the boundaries are actually almost identical to what is laid out on the Maps in the Near South Community Plan for the “Prairie Avenue District”, with the exception that we asked to be included in review of projects down to Cermak, vs. the defined 21st Street boundary. (See section Titled “Area 2 Overview of the Development Districts (page 49)” for the map of the Prairie Avenue District, including the Prairie Avenue Landmark portion.
As to your second point “the notion that you have any greater stake in your area than any of the long-standing organizations that serve interests beyond yours”. The DPD and Alderman’s office has already signed off on this.
The growth of the South Loop has been such that there are now the distinct areas are taking form and need better review of not only development, but infrastructure, service needs, something the GSLA and NSPB has not done. The lack of input to the CIP (Capital Improvement Program) shows.
If you research the city project plans 2000-2010 (again factual data and not opinion), you would be alarmed at the CIP Infrastructure, Aldermadic Menu, and TIF $$ being spent south of I-55 and West of Canal street, while the area generating the $$ for funding is coming from the South Loop.
Engineering studies done by Central Station Development (again factual information) show the need to replace water, sewer, stormwater infrastructure to meet the size of these proposed projects. Yet, you and I the tax payer will pay for this later versus the developer who introduces the project now.
Jeffery,
The bottom line is that you and your fellow prairie people LOST this one, and most deservedly so. The project has been approved by the Plan Commission and City Council – it is over, a done deal – go home. There is no compromise to be had, nor should there be. Any attempt to block it will clearly be illegal. Instead of expending your time and money on being a neighborhood nuisance with your Nimbyist campaign, why don’t you concentrate on getting yourself some quality taste in architecture and urban design. I expect you’ll find it an uphill battle, but in the end it may be worth it!
I was at the Plan Commission meeting when this was approved. How did I find out about it? Because it was posted beforehand. There were most certainly no notification violations, silly – nice try. I think Joe really gets to the crux of this matter when he states that you “appear to be striving to preserve something that doesn’t exist”. Frankly there is nothing historic about 75% of your little ‘historic district’. Furthermore, I don’t believe anybody who lives in the atrocious monstrosity that is the Prairie District Homes development (which I’m sure is where many members of your NIMBY group reside) is in a position to comment on issues of architecture, urban design, new buildings fitting with their surroundings, etc. The PDH is one of the most offensive violators I’ve ever seen. I think the most agreeable solution for the $7 million defective window issue is to demolish the entire structure, to once and for all put it, and all of us who have had the misfortune of glancing in its direction out of our collective misery!
Lookie here folks, we have an internet tough guy.
Sam, I do not remember insulting you? Who are you?. If you have a problem, tough guy, than feel free to leave a email or phone number to take your personal problems off-line. Instead of being an ignorant jack-ass, get some facts first before spouting your NIMBY intimidation.
You seem to have your panties in a wad on any feedback to development. You are also a hypocrite, crying like a baby for “strong DPD role”, yet are ok with Developers having their way with abuse of the approved community plans. Let me guess, you work for a developer, and live with your mom.
And no, I do not live in PDH or 1717 S. Prairie. Your prized 1717 Tower was approved by your buddies at the GSLA and NSPB before anyone lived in this part of the South Loop…oh wait, the developer has these guys in their pocket. The problems at 1717 S. Prairie are the prototypical issue we hope to raise… Knowing full well that Developers like Warman, Frankel & Giles, etc. are having a problem with quality delivery, what are you proposing there tough guy?
Even after 10 years, why has the GSLA and NSPB not worked with the city to address the developer quality and accountability problems that you whine about, such as requiring escrow accounts, inclusion of project history in the project application process, etc.? Could it be because of the existing conflict of interests.
Why should developers get a free pass from completing quality projects? You seem to blame the residents but not the developers.
Jeffery:
You seem like a very reasonable person, and I think you have some great points.
The problem is, many of us are afraid that this newly minted organization, while having its priorities right in the beginning, may eventually devolve into an anti-everything, parking-obsessed NIMBY organization like the ones that have popped up in other parts of the city.
Having said that, I hope you guys stick to your basic mantra and let Chicago’s downtown continue to grow and astound–and you DO live downtown, don’t forget that plain fact. Highrises aren’t the devil, and that seems to be the new fad mentality of seemingly every new neighborhood group.
Cheers
Jeffery,
You’re insulted by Sam’s alternative view of the facts?
You tell Sam to get some facts and then speculate on what he does and who he lives with?
You’re doing an outstanding job of representing what some believe to be the true spirit of your organization.
Let’s address the issue of my supposed hyprocisy in relation to the DPD and the plan that affects your area.
A plan of this type is a set of guidelines and a wish list. It’s not chiseled in stone.
The X/O project doesn’t vary from those guidelines in any significant way that you can demonstrate. To the extent it does vary, reasonable people can come to different conclusions than you have, i.e. that the project, taken as a whole, is consistent with the DPD’s planning goals for the area.
Sam’s right. The status quo here is: game over, you lost. Sore losers keep on losing.
Also, Jeffery, if you’re so bothered by conflicts of interest, what’s your position on the fact that your president is a real estate agent who represents projects that would compete with X/O?
Did the fact that your president lives outside the Prairie District plan boundaries have anything to do with your organization’s extending the southern boundary of your coverage?
Joe,
Joe I am not insulted by introduction of facts and good debate about opinions. I do have a problem with comments like “…money on being a neighborhood nuisance with your Nimbyist campaign, why don’t you concentrate on getting yourself some quality taste in architecture and urban design. I expect you’ll find it an uphill battle, but in the end it may be worth it!”
Joe, Have you had a chance to even review the plans Chicago Central Plans and Near South Community Plans released in 2003? I provided the link, but may just mail you a copy. It is quite clear what the recommended heights, set-backs, material, etc. , with a key them of protecting integrity and “character”. Character is more than bricks, stone, and architecture.
Regarding your comments about the president, again, do you check the facts you write? I encourage you to re-read the City of Chicago’s definition boundaries of the Prairie District in the Near South Community. The PDNA president, board, and committee members all live smack in the middle on Prairie Avenue District. Our president nor our members do not represent any development projects in the Prairie Avenue District; in fact, our goal is to encourage, partner, and support quality development within the guidelines set for the District. People would certainly go out their way to recommend the unique identity and advantages the Prairie District to anyone looking for a place in the South Loop, especially good development.
I have yet to see a person as passionate about enhancing the quality of life for all residents as the PDNA President and volunteers. All development recommendations are made by a Zoning & development committee, not the board.
If Sam lives in the Prairie District, and is so passionate about his feelings, he can feel free to volunteer his time and join.
To Urban Politician
1. No High Rises are not the devil – But Placement should be sensitive to the character and plans set forth. If you would not put a 45 story development on Indiana, Michigan, Cermak, why in the middle of a “Character District” with low density single family and townhomes on Prairie Avenue.
The PDNA was asked to review and write a letter of recommendation for the Museum Park Place Tower II Zoning ordinance at 1801 S. Calumet, to add two more floors. The PDNA could have easily blocked the request, and stopped the project’s additional request for more floors, for a host of legal and zoning issues (NIMBY). Central Station was even worried about the wording of the support letter. Despite the stark red stripes that dominate the scenery vs. what was proposed, the PDNA calmly met with the developer and city to look at all the facts and issues. Despite our concerns about the height and design, it was still in context with the 2003 Near South Community Plan for the Prairie District, as it fit within the guidelines and context for height and placement of highrises on Calumet. Hence the PDNA wrote a letter of support for the project.
Let’s see the reaction, if X/O gets built, of those X/O residents when Central Station releases the Plan for 7-10 Towers over the train tracks using the purchased air-rights, blocking their un-protected lake views. Oh the horror.
Jeffery,
I re-read the plan docs carefully before responding to you. Even though I no longer practice law, those habits remain. On any fair reading of them, reasonable people could approve X/O. They’ve done so and decided against your position.
You didn’t directly respond to my question about whether your president is a real estate agent who represents projects that compete with X/O, not simply projects within the district.
Late at night I misread her residence address, and will concede that one to you. Rest assured that I do check my facts.
No, I have zero concern. Some people have integrity regardless of their profession. This is not an anti-development issue, and development issues are not soley just X/O. The District issues are not about Real Estate, but about responsible development, concious infrastructure and services, and supporting the plans, not making them up as you go along, or because of non-merit factors.
Any good real esate will sell regardless of design or what an agent tells them. It benefits no one when development fails. Take the Townhomes at 15th and Wabash. Place that same development 1 block east or west, and it would have been sold out 7 years ago; bad plan.
Regarding X/O though, had any other respectful and classical architecural design been proposed, say like the a smaller version of Elysian Hotel or other classsical quality projects from Mr. LaGrange’s past work, the neighborhood would have worked with the developer on issues of scale and support. You might not have had heard a peep. But this developer has been quoted many times, that essentially he does not care about a partnership or input from the District Residents.
Jeffery,
Although most of your comments are unworthy of reply (or reading for that matter),
I did find a couple to be deserving…
“Let’s see the reaction, if X/O gets built, of those X/O residents when Central Station releases the Plan for 7-10 Towers over the train tracks using the purchased air-rights, blocking their un-protected lake views. Oh the horror.â€?
If and when the developers of Central Station propose to build on top of the tracks, and X/O residents oppose, than that is a future battle with future nimbys that I look forward to defeating. There will always be more of your short-sighted anti-quality development and design ilk, and I relish important battles that are yet to be fought. Just because people happen to reside in a great development (such as X/O will be), certainly does not make them immune to being criticized and corrected when their urban planning principals go astray.
“Regarding X/O though, had any other respectful and classical architecural design been proposed, say like the a smaller version of Elysian Hotel or other classsical quality projects from Mr. LaGrange’s past work, the neighborhood would have worked with the developer on issues of scale and support.â€?
Are you for real? So you think a nostalgic piece of retro-rubbish like LaGrange’s more hideous and timid creations would work better in this location (or anywhere for that matter)? You are demonstrating your true design-challenged colors when you endorse such an approach. I think you may not be capable of nuanced thought when it comes to architecture – obviously you will never understand the simple elegance of modern contextual design. Quite simply, it is much more effective and powerful to contrast respectfully (in style and scale) than to clumsily and cheaply mimic the existing environment. This is one lesson I doubt you even have the potential of learning however…
When faced with facts, throw out phrases and terms around like NIMBY and “doubt you even have the potential of learning”. Mr. Internet Tough-guy hiding behind his keyboard. Feel free to get my email from Joe.
At least be honest and disclose your relation with the developer; using development to make architectural statements and having to live with them are two different issues.
Jeffery,
It’s against our policy to give one user’s e-mail address to another user, even with consent.
Not everyone posts with an accurate e-mail address, as you have. People have a variety of reasons for wishing to remain anonymous, and we respect that. The price of anonymity is that many people attach less weight to an anonymous poster’s opinions.
For the record, I have or seek to have absolutely no relationship whatsoever with this developer, nor any other residential developer in the city of Chicago. Rather, what I do have is a keen interest in seeing this neighborhood (as well as the specific X/O parcel) develop to its fullest and ideal potential in regard to density, height and design, something that Jeffery and I most certainly do not share.
So what this tells me is you have no clue about what you spout. This is not soley and Architectural issue. If you have ever read the Near South Community Plan and the Chicago Central Plan released in 2003, those issues were already debated and decided. It’s not a issue of opinion or sharing views.
The City Plan clearly states:
“The Prairie Avenue Historic District
and Museums will continue to be cultural destinations and to serve as an anchor
for a revitalized residential neighborhood. Lower building heights along Prairie Avenue,
18th Street and Cullerton Street will reinforce the scale of the residential neighborhood. To preserve the
character of the historic district, density surrounding the historic district will be lower, with higher density development along the development corridors.”
To say these things are subjective is BS. When the maximim tower hight is 20 stories nobody in their right mind can say 45 stories is “consistant” with 20 stories. If you like tall, say you like tall, but do not claim it is consistant with any stated goals, plans, or ordinance.
And if you thinking this decision was made by DPD on merit, I have some land in Florida for you. You will soon see the facts come out.
For some projects, controversy is good for sales. For this one, it is not.
My understanding is that the Central Area Plan is actually currently being updated and improved to more accurately reflect the area’s true potential and optimum development. Furthermore, you keep treating these guiding plans as if they are law. That’s just foolish – they should always be somewhat flexible becuase conditions change. I think what’s become apparent and very interesting is that this so-called controversy is revealing more about you and your Nimbyist pack of fools than this particular project and its appropriateness for its particular site. Clearly from your comments you are one of these people who simply don’t appreciate contemporary (clearly almost all new architectural designs drawn up in contemporary times should be contemporary – duh!) architecutre or tall buildings, or solid urban design featuring structures are varying scale and architectural style (styles from different time periods) in a neighborhood. You don’t wish to look at the XO towers because of your lack of appreciation of quality design and general lack of taste. It’s not about the buildings. It’s about you – and your enthusiastically Nimbyist character (along with your buddies). Keep that in mind. Once again, there is no fight here – this one has thankfully and finally been decided in favor of the right urban planning and design decision. You lose – move on Jeffery. Buy some taste.
Jeffery,
For someone who talks so much about facts, I see you employing very few of them.
A misreading of a plan document is not a fact.
A misinterpretation of what a plan is is not a fact.
Vague mutterings about under-the-table deals are not facts.
Wild speculation about other people’s identities and interests are not facts.
As Sam pointed out, you’re up against – for you – an inconvenient fact: guidelines are just that, guidelines. They’re susceptible to differing interpretations as to what’s consistent with them, and subject to revision. Your interpretation lost. If you remain in a mean-spirited funk over that, you’ll continue losing.
As to your not-so-veiled threats that you’ll prolong controversy to cost the developer sales – well, developers have a lot of experience in dealing with that, and your attempts will either prove insignificant or counter-productive.
Listen to the internet tough guy posting under and assumed name telling people to buy tastes.
Joe, you are correct, alone, guidelines and plans are subject to interpretation alone. However, when coupled with Zoning code they can be adminstered as legal documents. See City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance
17-8-0903 Approved Plans
————————-
Planned developments must be consistent with plans that have been adopted by the Plan Commission or approved by the City Council.
Take that legal argument to a court and see where it gets you, Jeffery.
In the mind of this ex-attorney, the people who decide consistency have decided, and decided against you.