Comments ( 23 )

• The Big Three – Pappageorge, SCB, and Lucien lagrange all deserve criticism (all justified) for their banal and repetitive work.

• Joe, this post seens to reveals more about you and your disdain for architecture critics than it does the actual tone of the articles.

  Regarding the shadows, Kamin writes: “Many Streeterville residents fought the towers because of the shadows they would cast on Ohio Street Beach, yet their urban design is not oppressive.” He makes reference to that point as failed criticism; you are both on the same side there.

  The praise may be qualified (does anyone really think these buildings deserve otherwise?) but he certainly casts no small amount.

• In your link you missssspeled “Lynn” Becker’s name.

  Which is minor and better than calling him “Bynn Lecker”.

  I have little use for the stylistic prose or thought process of “Lynm”, but if Kamin writes something I always pay attention. Becker strikes me as little more than the self proclaimed bard of the NIMBY’s. Build or change nothing………..ever!

  Is Kamin off base in his commentary on PappaGeorge? Maybe, perhaps, could be. I don’t see the commentary as being as “negative” as you suggest. Qualified praise? Yep. Negative, not so much.

  Kamin is absolutely correct on his commentary on the Department of Planning.

  It took the interest of “da mare” to change the style developers were using in building highrises in the late 90’s and early 00’s around here. There were some truly ugly highrises built starting in that boom period. Think of a 4 + 1 on steroids and with more concrete.

• IrishPirate,

  Thanks for catching my typo (Lynm). I’ve corrected the post.

  cgcg,

  Yuo’ve correctly noted my disdain for our local architecture critics.

  I think you’ve misread the tone of Kamin’s and Becker’s posts. Kamin hedges any praise of PH so repeatedly and, it seems to me, pointlessly, and deflects credit from PH so often, that it betrays an underlying and I think unjustified contempt for their work. Becker says, in effect, nothing matters but the shadow. How harsh is that?

  Chicagoans, I think, will have a far more positive take on the PH buildings mentioned in these articles than the critics do.

• Joe,

  If your photo is better because it shows the beach at “a time when the beach is likely to have far more usage”, while mine is inferior because it shows the beach in late afternoon, why is it that there are actually people in my photo while yours is devoid of a single soul? Is it because it was taken at a time of year, green leaves notwithstanding, when the sun is at a different angle than in actual summer beach weather?

  The argument appears to be that if it can be shown that an existing building casts a shadow on the beach, then why not more? If two hours of lost sunlight in the fall are OK, well then, what’s a few more in August? In fact, if it’s warm and you can still tell it’s daytime, why do you really need direct sunlight, a known carcinogen, at all?

  Anyone who identifies me as a NIMBY has simply not read my work, which, however advisable, means they’ve missed my extensive coverage, much of it positive, on tall buildings.

  Chicago’s beaches are a highly finite commodity, and a beach robbed of sunlight is like a beach deprived of water. The approval to build 600 LSD was an especially outrageous taking of a precious public good – sunlight on a beach – for narrow private gain.

• Lynn,

  You’re correct that my photo was shot at a different time of year than yours. What you refer to as “green leaves” look awful red to me on many of the trees. There are no people in my photo because the temp was in the 30s and winds were gusting over 30 miles an hour when it was shot, on October 27. Neither one of us has given a very accurate picture of what the shadow means to beach users.

  I follow your work on a semi-regular basis, and wasn’t suggesting you’re a NIMBY. You linked to Kamin’s extensive write-up and said, in effect, that the only thing that matters about the building is the shadow.

  Since you’ve put the NIMBY issue on the table, though, let’s explore that a little. You describe the building as an “especially outrageous taking of a precious public good.” I’ll concede that a small segment of the public – the building’s immediate neighbors – has had its enjoyment of a precious good limited by a property owner’s exercise of its rights. .That “precious good” was, by law, subject to the rights of the property owner to build and limit it. Isn’t complaining about the building on behalf of one group, without regard to the rights of others, including the unit owners in the new building, the essence of NIMBYism?

• Au contaire, M Kamin gave a glowing review to Pimpageorges Tramp Tower . Lookee here!!

• @ Joe Zekas,

  While my inclination is to side with you and Blair Kamin on the shadow issue, I don’t think you give it its due.

  According to your logic here

  “Isn’t complaining about the building on behalf of one group, without regard to the rights of others, including the unit owners in the new building, the essence of NIMBYism?”

  any attempt by an individual or group of individuals not financially invested in a building development to influence that development is NIMBYism. I imagine most people would in fact not characterize that as the essence of NIMBYism.

  Moreover, your assertion that the only segment of the public served by this stretch of beach is that which resides in the neighboring buildings is ludicrous. I agree with the underlying libertarianism in your point about property rights but remember it cuts both ways. To illustrate: Is it within a property owner’s right to have Frank Gehry clad his building in a highly lustrous metal if it greatly increases the temperature of neighboring buildings by the sun’s reflection? The question is not the exercise of the property owner’s rights alone but the degree to which, in exercising those rights, he impinges upon the rights of others, in 600 LSD’s case the public’s right to land the accepted use of which necessitates sunlight.

  Personally, because the shadows do not affect the beach front until later in the day and because there is ample beach front anyway, I don’t find these towers objectionable. But I also don’t think, as you intimate, that it’s simply the ranting of a NIMBY and not worthy of discussion.

  Also, for the record, IrishPirate put the NIMBY issue on the table, not Lynn.

• cgcg,

  I don’t think my suggestion that only a small segment of the public is affected is ludicrous.

  This is a beach that has very limited access, and no directly adjacent parking. Usage is likely to be limited to immediate neighbors, who also have fairly close access to Oak Street beach.

  I’d also differ on whether “libertarianism” underlies my point about property rights in any way. My point is, rather, that we live within the framework of a legal system, and that honoring the expectations created by that legal system confers the greatest of public goods upon the greatest number of us.

  IrishPirate may have first raised the issue of NIMBYism, but that’s not relevant to my invocation of it. I was directly responding to Lynn Bccker’s suggestion that I had accused him of NIMBYism. I hadn’t in any way inferred it until he put the issue in play with regard to his work.

  Again, in no way was I suggesting that Becker’s point was “simply the rantings of a NIMBY…” Becker alluded to Kamin’s extended discussion of the building and limited his take on it to the shadow it casts. That, in my mind, showed an unwarranted contempt for the project, which strikes me, from my layman’s perspective, as a very positive addition to the lakefront skyline.

  This situation is in no way akin to the impact that Frank Gehry’s original cladding of LA’s Disney Center had on a nearby condo across the 110. A public body, by allowing a building of this height, limited the pubic’s rights to sunlight on the beach. The developer and the architect didn’t do that, the public’s representatives did.

• In the words of that great American Rodney King “can’t we just all get along?”

  I’ll post something unprofound and unwise later. In my unknowing way. Right now I need to rake some leaves.

  Whatever silly argument I attempt to make will likely revolve around positives versus negatives. Focusing only on the shadow the building creates on a small stretch of lakefront, which I bike by 200 or more times a year, is not looking at the whole picture.

  I did suggest Lynn Becker was a NIMBY. I do read his work. His blog is sandwiched between Lee Bey and Edward Lifson on my bookmarks. Is there any deeper meaning to that? Unlikely. It just allows me to hit “open all in tabs” and grab a drink as I await the pages opening.

• The deeper meaning, IrishPirate, is that you need to start using a feed reader.

  You’ll have more time for drinking and, when you take advantage of that, your thoughts will strike you as far more profound.

• I don’t want to delve into the details of this but the way I see it if you make a conscious decision to live in Streeterville, an already super-developed area full of high-rises, then you aren’t entitled to oppose further development of more of them.

  They blocked my beach sun! Waah.

• That stretch of beach is relatively unused. Typically the folks I see there are often using it as a gathering area as they swim back and forth along the lakefront path wall. Possibly triathletes.

  Now the shadow is clearly a negative. However, if global warming takes place, perhaps in 20 years those of us who remain will enjoy the break from the 120 degree summer temperatures. Being pasty and of Irish descent I like shadows. Keeps me from wearing my “Beau Geste” hat to ward off the negative effects of the sun.

  Focusing only on the shadow and none of the benefits of the building is a classic NIMBY argument. In fact by only posting the photo and no other commentary it may be the CLASSIC example of a NIMBY argument.

  It’s like the original “Frankenstein” movie. “Fire bad, grrrrrrrrrr”. Clearly ignoring the benefits of fire. Keeps you warm. Allows you to cook. Scares predator animals away from your camp. Helps you score with hot cave chicks in a prehistoric sense.

  The “Frankenbecker” argument is that the shadow is so bad that none of the benefits of the building count. “Shadow bad, grrrrrrrrrr”.

  I also think it is a relatively attractive set of buildings and adds to that stretch of skyline. It also has the added benefit of bring actual property taxpayers who will shop and live there. As opposed to an undeveloped lot.

  What most people fail to realize is how rapidly this city is actually declining. Outside of the area from Hyde Park to Evanston along the Lakefront and a few neighborhoods just west many/most areas in Chicago are seeing a rapid economic and demographic decline. Huge areas of the south and west sides are largely becoming devoid of both people and businesses.

  Having new buildings downtown benefits everyone in the city by expanding the tax base. Which is not a suggestion NIMBY types typically lend any credence to. They’re typically much more concerned with “feelings” and “the great me”.

  Now as to my statement that Lynn Becker is the bard of the NIMBY’s anyone who wants to peruse his writing can use the link in the FrankenZekas original post. I feel that his writing regarding the Lake Shore Athletic Club building and the proposed Children’s Museum in Grant Park state that case much better than I could. Particularly since I’m a Luddite who doesn’t use a “feed reader”.

  I’m concerned about the city as a whole. If we only focus on the negatives of any development, there are always negatives, nothing will ever get built.

  The “FrankenBecker” bias is toward the negative aspects of any development to the exclusion of the positive.

  The “FrankenZekas” bias is toward the importance of property rights as a basis for a civil society.

  The IrishPirate bias is toward the economic and social benefits development may cause. I think the negatives and benefits have to be compared and then a decision made. Generally I’m going to go with the development. Of course what the hell do I know. I’m as much a pirate as Sarah Palin is a social philosopher.

• @ Joe Zekas,

  “Representatives” of the public? Like an inept review board or the actual NIIMBY groups who hold undue sway over aldermen and developers ? Again, I’m totally in favor of this development, I think the buildings look fantastic and are, as you say, a very positive addition to the skyline; but, generally speaking, a green light doesn’t give you the go ahead to build without a conscience. Someone had to okay the design for Marquee Tower. That doesn’t make the developer and “architect” any less responsible for the monstrosity that was erected.

  @ IrishPirate,

  I’m resolutely anti-NIMBY and couldn’t agree more with Lynn Becker’s arguments for the Lake Shore Athletic Club and against the Children’s Museum in Grant Park. I don’t think either of those examples “state the case” better than you could let alone at all.

  I think the worst that you could say about Lynn Becker is that he has impossibly high expectations, but I would counter that as far as architecture is concerned high standards are better than low ones.

• cgcg,

  I stand by what I said, but haven’t said much of what you’re attributing to me or reading into my statements.

• @ Joe Zekas,

  I concede that you didn’t say any of that explicitly but I was using an analogous example to illustrate the implicit weakness in your argument. It’s not an uncommon tactic in debate.

• Using the phrase “high expectations” anywhere near a reference to me is simply sick, wrong and not of the Lord. I could use an analogous example of the women I tend to date, but that is a whole other issue.

  I don’t want to restart any debate on the Children’s Museum or the Lake Shore Athletic Club.

  Let’s just say that I feel the less bad guys prevailed in one and the slightly more bad guys prevailed in another.

• Regarding Pappageorge/Haymes – perhaps the reason you sense a contempt for their work is because they are so gosh-darn prolific in this city. Often, their buildings cater to a more middle-market crowd than the luxury crowd, and so the exterior finishes and the overall quality of the building is not what it could be. Also, their buildings tend to fall into two narrowly-defined categories – either a weak rendition of Art Deco, or glass and steel.

• @ IrishPirate,

  I don’t mean to restart any kind of debate; I’m simply stating those examples aren’t some kind of a litmus test for NIMBYism.

• Oak St. Beach, a much larger and more utilized beach has its sunlight blocked by a dozen buildings at certain times of year. People adapt and move to an area where the sun is hitting. That easy.

• Joe, word is there may soon be a huge “dust bunny announcement” on a large south loop development…

• Jeff,

  It won’t be the first, and it won’t be the last.

  Something tells me that you’ll take particular pleasure in the fate of the development you’re referring to. Don’t. It’s simply a reflection of the times we’re in, and not something we should find any enjoyment in.

• No pleasure taken. If what I am hearing is true, the terms are eye opening. Discussion of some sort of settlement, which is akin to a bail-out.