Comments ( 8 )

• I’m not suggesting the property owner can’t exercise their rights.

  But Clark/Division is such an ugly corner/intersection. It would be nice if they did scale to the neighborhood and integrate the CTA stops into the design, versus plopping a giant behemoth on top of what exists now.

  The real question is: Is there really a market for 40 floors and hundreds more units?

• I highly doubt he was misquoted. He’s just that big of a stubborn asshole. Alderman like Reilly are just the hurdles that Chicago has to face on its way back to greatness.

• Im in the ward and I think Reily is doing just fine on past battles with developers. He’s simply trying to make sure the density also allows for light and views. A city can have both. At this site, there’s a great potential to integrate a large scale development with transit and tie Old Town ( South Wells) to the Gold Coast. Hopefully we dont get a river north beige box on a parking garage. As for demand – even in this market, location sells, and 3 blocks to the beach with a redline stop is about as good as it gets.

• Rights?

  Rights?

  We, Reilly, don’t need to give you any stinkin’ rights!

• Sadly I’m not as optimistic about the market as molson, regardless of the neighborhood — although the rental market appears to be doing well for the moment. Perhaps that’s a good site for a rental tower. As for congestion, light, views and design, they’re all interesting topics but that site is begging for a high-rise. I don’t see the neighboring buildings suffering any catastrophic loss of light or views. As for design, that’s a subjective thing that can turn into an endless battle. Who’s going to be the arbiter of good taste?

  I live in the Ward too and I constantly debated my neighbors who complained about high-rise construction in the area. I don’t have a problem with it, I think it’s a good thing. I have no reason to whine about a developer who builds homes that are worth more than mine, actually worth a ton more than mine. Suddenly my trailer park of a building is surrounded by some very desirable addresses. Yes I lost a view of the Merchandise Mart, but the upside by far outweighs the downside.

  25 or so years ago, prior to living in my current home, my apartment had a killer view of the lake. A large, but attractive, high rise destroyed it. I’m sure I would have fought that construction had I lived there at the time, but highest and best use of the land would have prevailed regardless. A view was lost, but the swanky neighbors made the location more desirable which actually helped the humble building that I live in a tad less mediocre in the marketplace.

• I think it would be a great improvement to that corner ,would it be a condo Bldg ??put me on the list for NE 1 bedroom corner unit! it a great location! Possibly have Jewel re do that CTA station as part of the developers deal … a condo bldg with adequate parking… A full amenity building, gym , pool,cleaners jewel, etc..
  Maybe they could do something with the mark twain building possible boutique hotel, up scale restaurants, use it as there sales center anything ! it would improve property values!

• I live downtown in the 42nd Ward too.

  Last I checked, Reilly has approved MANY downtown skyscrapers during his first term in office – not the least of which was a 109-story Waldorf-Astoria tower immediately north of the Sheraton Hotel. The neighbors protested loudly, he showed leadership and approved it anyway.

  Surely the actions of a NIMBY? Wake up folks.

  Most recently, he approved a Northwestern Memorial parking structure / daycare facility over strenuous objections from Streeterville neighbors and condo owners concerned for their views and balconies. If he wanted to please voters and pander – he could have said “no” and been real popular with the Streeterville residents.

  Two weeks ago he approved a large tower at 500 N LSD, again, over the loud objections of NIMBY neighbors who worried about traffic congestion, above-ground parking and – of course – their own view corridors. He found a way to work with the developer to address some legitimate concerns and approved the project over local protest.

  Irish Pirate – you’re for anything Reilly’s against. I read a lot of political blogs and its quite clear that you (1) do not have a job because you blog all day long and (2) you dislike Reilly because he’s an effective alderman who just happens to have political ambition and gets involved in political races outside of his ward. Get over it.

  The way I read the Crain’s article, Reilly is simply offering a disclaimer to developers interested in the Jewel site: you’re going to need to engage in an open dialogue with the neighbors to discuss your plans and don’t simply assume what you want is automatically what you get. Neighborhood context matters in the Gold Coast area – just ask former aldermen Natarus and Bernardini about the folks there.

  Last I checked, many aldermen around the city form their own development committees that vote “yes” or “no” on projects – essentially making development decisions for the alderman, in a closed vacuum.

  Reilly does not take votes on projects by a show of hands, he listens to his constituent feedback, works with the developer to make reasonable adjustments and then ultimately makes these decisions on his own.

  He’s approved lots of high density projects and only rejected but a small handful of crappy mid-rise and shlocky suburban design proposals. Shame on him?

  You don’t have to like him, but NIMBY he is NOT…

• Urbanographer,

  Is that you “Jasper”? Dave? Brendan? Oh be still my heart.

  I don’t have a job? I didn’t know that. I wonder if I can collect unemployment? I regularly post at one website, Uptown Update. I irregularly post here and at the Capitol Fax blog. That’s about it with an occasional foray into one or so other local blogs and one national blog.

  I happen to be a news junkie. Some people watch sports. I spend four hours a day reading newspapers and news on the internet. I also bike, walk, eat and earn a living so I guess that unemployment issue is out the window.

  I disliked Alderman Reilly well before he got involved in the 46th Ward race. Since the candidate I supported trounced his candidate methinks you’re the one who needs to get over it.

  I’ve disliked Reilly ever since the Children’s Memorial Heliport issue. Denying sick or injured children quick medical help in order to assuage a NIMBY army near the hospital site is not what I call leadership.

  I also disagreed with him on the Children’s Museum issue, but on that one good people could disagree.

  The quote from above where he suggests that the property owner can’t fully exercise their legal rights is absurd. We’re supposed to be a nation of laws and not subject to the whims of overfed aldermen who have delusions of grandeur.

  With that Urbie I leave you with a few paragraphs I wrote a few months back about Reilly. I suspect you’re familiar with them.

  “Just because some balding, pudgy, pasty, wannabee Irish political boss named Downtown Brendan Reilly is trying to buy an election, doesn’t mean we have to roll over and play dead for him.

  Reilly thinks he’s starring in his own movie. What he doesn’t realize is that it’s a made for TV movie and that it’s not going to be made into a series.

  He thinks he’s Tom Hanks in “Saving Candidate Phelan.”

  Actually he’s more like Charlie Sheen in “2 and 1/2 Candidates”. Lotsa money and wind, but nothing substantial. “