Comments ( 16 )

• The tower planned by Antheus Capital in Hyde Park will replace a parking lot and will be next to a Metra Station. It will be designed by Jeanne Gang. However, it has faced some pretty intense NIMBY-Retardism. Letters to the HPHerald have ranged from comments such as “it’s too tall” or “it shouldn’t be near the school” to rants about its modern design not fitting in with the neighborhood’s architecture (have these guys seen some of the faux historic crap on the northside–is that what they’d rather have?) and, my favorite one: issue with higher density near a train station because the station will be TOO CROWDED. Oh, and of course, the eternal complaint about parking was there too.

  There are more public meetings about this one planned, and if any of you live in Hyde Park and want more quality highrises and density, I would advise you to show up to some of these meetings to make your opinion known.

• “…if you live in Hyde Park and want more density”

  Good luck finding any residents who are in favor of more density.

• People in HP DO show up at meetings and voice their opinions. And often stump the architects…

• The whole “point” of Hyde Park residential is LACK of density! Aside from the small cluster of hi-rises near the lake, HP has a remarkably “breathe-able” streetscape that is so refreshing in a lakefront urban neighborhood. But unfortunately that’s changing – and so far the biggest offender, in my mind, is the monstrosity on Cornell Ave. known as the Catholic Theological Union. One wonders if God’ll get’em for allowing the architects to completely destroy the integrity of the streetscape!

• Former Hyde Parker,

  If these “monstrosities” are being built that means that people are buying units in them and that there is plenty of demand to move to Hyde Park. Who are you to say that these people can’t move to Hyde Park, and that Hyde Park should only be hogged by the small number of residents that currently live there? If more people want to move to Hyde Park, then developers should react accordingly. It’s simple laws of Capitalism. If you disagree, you can always move to Cuba.

• I have no desire whatsoever to move to Cuba so you’ll just have to put up with my disagreement in a country that allows it.

• Keith, here’s the thing. When a person decides to move into a neighborhood one of the things most buyers do is asses the character and density. The person buys a home in a very established community with low traffic volume, easy walks, etc etc…
  Then five years later an out of scale development is built that completely changes the aged fabric of the community. The residents who looked forward to living in an urban oasis are now living in Rogers Park. The neighborhood significance is evaporated, wine to vinegar if you will, and the neighborhood begins to decline.
  The other socio political angle to consider is that Hyde Park is surrounded by numerous other communities with the same patina and same lake views. Developers have access to virtually free land in South Shore and South Chicago. Why is it that they will only build in Hyde Park?

• Former Hyde Parker – If you have no desire to move to Cuba, then maybe you should try adopting a more Capitalist viewpoint. Capitalism isn’t just about freedom of speech, it’s about free markets.

  NSH – first off, how do you come to the conclusion that this development is “out of scale” when it would be next door to a 38-story building???? Not to mention, even if it were out of scale, would that mean that you believe that Sears Tower, John Hancock Tower, and the Aon Building should have never been built? (or that the Chicago Spire shouldn’t be built?) They were all “out of scale” in their day, as well.

• Not to mention, Wrigleyville, Lincoln Park, Old Town/Gold Coast, and many other predominantly low-rise neighborhoods have some high-rise buildings or so in the neighborhood as well, usually near the lake (just like this proposed development). And I think it’s pretty obvious that these high rises do not negatively impact the fabric of these communities.

• Keith what’s the vacancy rate at the Sears Tower, Hancock center and AON building? Maybe they shouldn’t have been built…
  J/k I love those buildings. But Hyde Park is a refuge from the hustle of the city, and it always has been. A developer came in and convinced the powers that be that a few 38 story high rises would be good for the community and they have been. I think The neighborhood is at the tipping point right now however. Streets are gridlocked only at rush hour right now. Adding another hi rise and the another and then another will make traversing the boulevards just as bad as lincoln park. If traffic and parking become the same issue in HP as it is in LP then what would be the “hook” to draw residents, it isn’t the surrounding neighborhoods, it isn’t proximity to an expressway, it isn’t public transportation, it isn’t close to your job in Schaumburg, it will be nothing, no draw to the neighborhood and the legacy of a zen space community for over 100 years will die.

• I don’t get the fear of density. The West Village didn’t become among the most desirable nabe’s on the continent because it is filled with single family homes.

• Keith…did you notice that the Former Hyde Parker singled out, as the worst offender amongst the new over-sized buildings posing a potential danger to the beauty of the neighborhood, an educational building for a non-profit religious organization? I’ve seen this affront to good taste on Cornell Ave. myself, and can see where she and other HPs are coming from. The problem is not necessarily a new “big building” – it’s a new big building that shows no respect for the surroundings, no sense of blending in with the architectural culture of the neighborhood. If a non-residential entity can get away with this, who’s to stop commercial/residential developers from deciding they can get a blank check to do the same? Hyde Park Residents, that’s who! There are excellent hi-rises in HP that blend in beautifully with their low-rise neighbors and whose units, both condo and rental, are always in demand. Another building of that type would presumably not cause such consternation among the neighbors, or at least the most vocal element among them. But a residential equivalent of CTU…Spare Us O Lord!

• “Former Hyde Parker – If you have no desire to move to Cuba, then maybe you should try adopting a more Capitalist viewpoint. Capitalism isn’t just about freedom of speech, it’s about free markets.”

  So tell me how your plan is going to do away with the TIF program.

  yes, the TIF program – that most ANTI-free market, pro-gentrification wealth redistribution scheme in recent decades.

• Former Hyde Parker said:

  “The whole “point” of Hyde Park residential is LACK of density!”

  ^ No it’s not. That’s silly and stupid. Don’t misrepresent your neighborhood as such–I happened to live in Hyde Park at one point and I lived on the 33rd floor of a highrise. Get a clue, buddy

• Carter – given that I’m not da Mayor, I think that any plan of mine to get fird of the TIF program would prove to be futile.

• So in other words you understand that this City’s real estate market doesn’t operate under a system even remotely resembling a “free market.”

  Exhibit A is this thing called the zoning code, which obviously dictates development and density (and also inflates prices by suppressing the supply of housing that can be added).

  But in human terms, to use examples of what was built in Chicago 75 years ago to justify building anything in today’s environment is silly.

  NSH had it dead it right, people buy housing based on all sorts of different aspects about a neighborhood, with density being a BIG factor. It is false advertising to sell people property and then to massively change the density.

  What is it with you “Manhattanize the City!” types, anyway? Why can’t you all get it through your heads that most neighborhoods (and people) don’t want to be Manhattan?

  In the people’s parlance, we call these little games LAND GRABS, with the goal being to move one demographic out of a neighborhood so another, wealthier one, can move in.

  not on our watch, bub.