We’ve just received Sandz Development VP David Goldman’s statement regarding the recent lawsuit seeking to overturn zoning approval for Webster Square, the vacant site of the former Lincoln Park Hospital:
While we are not surprised to hear that this lawsuit was filed, we are disappointed to see that Mr. Oberman’s action will require the City to spend taxpayer dollars to defend its well-reasoned, strongly-supported decision to approve our project.
Over the past two years, our efforts to reach out to the community, twice secure unanimous Plan Commission approval, meet Transportation and Fire Department requirements, comply with building codes and win City Council and public support, we have diligently and consistently worked to follow all due, legal process. It has been a long process, but one that ultimately resulted in a plan that is right for Lincoln Park and for the City. Webster Square will bring jobs and vitality to a site that has stood vacant for years and will return an abandoned property to productive use and to the tax rolls.
This effort by Mr. Oberman and his handful of clients to overturn the decisions of multiple City administrative and safety departments, the Chicago Plan Commission and the City Council Zoning Committee is a costly diversion from the pressing issues we all face in these tough economic times. While we have not had a chance to fully digest all the details of the legal filings, we are confident that the City’s process and decision will stand and we look forward to bringing Webster Square to Lincoln Park.
Goldman describes the Webster Square development in the above video, and in this one at YouTube.
One of the little-noticed ironies in the long-running controversy over this development is that Louis Supera, the father of Mike Supera (the S in Sandz), pioneered the redevelopment of Lincoln Park more than 60 years ago, and Mike Supera redeveloped parcels in Lincoln Park that had previously been designated as “slum and blighted” property.
He says he is making the facade of the tower mirror architecture of the neighborhood, but the neighborhood is all 2-3 story building, not a 10 story building being turned into a 12 story building!
Boyee,
The neighborhood, as it is, is an ugly 10-story building.
Is the look not being improved in your view?
That is the only building over 4 stories in Mid-North that is west of Clark Street. I think all except the loading dock that will essentially block one of only 4 thru east-west streets in Lincoln Park and retaining a high rises that is completely surrounded by low rise residential are the only two bad parts of the plan. Also, the developers have said the will not start construction of anything but the grocery story/loading dock until we have a good economy. Personally I feel the whole thing should be residential along the lines of what they are planning for Grant Place.
The zoning change allows just about anything to go here if this project ever fails in the distant future, which sets a negative precedent for the mostly landmarked Mid-North neighborhood.
“That is the only building over 4 stories in Mid-North that is west of Clark Street.”
Clark and LPW? Eugenie Terrace? Children’s?
This isn’t at all like the old 1237 West controversy on Fullerton/Racine, where the development was scaled down due to incongruity with the local architecture as well as height issues on a low-elevation site.
The structure exists, and will become more attractive, two additional floors be damned. If you want to talk about massive rental development congestion, where is the ire over the other former hospital massive condo development on Lakeview between Arlington and Deming? So East of Clark, with even less road transit options, is more ideal?
What of the 10+ homeless that have taken up shelter around this property in the interim? Ownership should have better security – only a matter of time before an incident. Cutting corners never pays.
LP Res,
Your comment, if an accurate description of the situation, doesn’t speak well for the vigilance and involvement of the immediate neighbors.
They’ll show up to meetings and file lawsuits over truck noise in the future but not something they perceive as an imminent personal threat?
Have you talked to the owners / police about this?
“Your comment, if an accurate description of the situation, doesn’t speak well for the vigilance and involvement of the immediate neighbors.
They’ll show up to meetings and file lawsuits over truck noise in the future but not something they perceive as an imminent personal threat?”
Word. So much co-signage to this.
In the case of LP Res any excuse — any excuse — will do to pin this on the “awful development!” rather than recognizing the own ridiculous desperation in the anti-developers’ arguments. If someone is concerned about “loitering homeless” at a vacant property, they should be more concerned about vacancy-in-perpetuity exacerbating the problem, as opposed to active development correcting the self-imposed hotspot of “undesirability.”
At Clark/Fullerton, homeless have been staking out for years at the covered old entrance to unrentable MyPi (old pizza joint). It’s finally been boarded up so they cannot. But that is a singular vacant commercial rental space.
For someone to condemn an entire redevelopment site for creating a homeless spot-by-proxy on one hand — while on the other they’re actively trying to stall and shut down the redevelopment that would remove this self-inflicted “problem” — is a laughable stance.