HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #26581  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:05 PM
wierdaaron's Avatar
wierdaaron wierdaaron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,393
Yeah, I wouldn't look for a conspiracy in wanting to open the ice skating amenity in the winter when people can use it, as has always been the plan.

If you want a conspiracy theory... peanut park tennis courts!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26582  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:25 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,256
^ I've heard that winter will also very likely come around at the end of next year as well (when the park will not look like a construction site, ie it will have been 100% finished for several months)......may just be a rumor though......
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it

Last edited by SamInTheLoop; Yesterday at 10:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26583  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:31 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post
Look, I'm not excusing him knocking the house down without a permit, that was sleazy and wrong. I think the fine is fair and I am a "freemarketeers" as you say. I work in zoning ordinance enforcement and people do these things (work without a permit) every single day, on purpose or by accident. Most people don't get caught for years down the line.

If the fine should be $750,000 + jail time for this offender, then it should be the same for each offender even those who may have offended by mistake. I would be more agreeable to the public outrage if it just centered on him doing work without a permit and not just because it was some charming little house. If it were a 70's suburban house with vinyl siding no one would even be discussing this right now and they would be outraged he had to paid $7,500.

How many demolitions of entire structures without permits have we had recently? There's no reason why there shouldn't/couldn't be massive differences in fines and introduction of other criminal penalties for demolishing a structure - as opposed to, say, a minor alteration without proper permits.
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26584  
Old Posted Yesterday, 7:54 PM
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
How many demolitions of entire structures without permits have we had recently? There's no reason why there shouldn't/couldn't be massive differences in fines and introduction of other criminal penalties for demolishing a structure - as opposed to, say, a minor alteration without proper permits.
Demolishing the structure without the proper permit was wrong, don't get me wrong. I don't know how many times this has happened in the past where a primary structure was demolished without a permit, its more likely to occur with accessory structures.

Even though I personally think it was done to subvert preservationists, lets just say for a moment the contractor made a mistake, should he still be subject jail time and a $750k fine. What if someone who wasn't wealth had done this, should they face the prospect of bankruptcy? If the developer had went through the proper channels, he probably would have gotten the permit anyways albeit with neighborhood/preservationists opposition.

I just don't agree with extreme/unfair penalties. The city already imposes an egregious amount of penalties and fines on everyday people. I just can't get behind that.

I just read a comment regarding the school conversion fire stating that the city should charge higher property taxes for vacant properties to discourage vacancy. I think this whole tax, penalize and fine mentality in this city is flawed and disgusting. Either way I know I won't change your opinion on this matter and I agree to disagree with you.

Edit: I just read up on the building code and it seems the highest penalty is $10,000 and six months in prison.

Last edited by UPChicago; Yesterday at 8:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26585  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:06 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post

Even though I personally think it was done to subvert preservationists, lets just say for a moment the contractor made a mistake, should he still be subject jail time and a $750k fine. What if someone who wasn't wealth had done this, should they face the prospect of bankruptcy? If the developer had went through the proper channels, he probably would have gotten the permit anyways albeit with neighborhood/preservationists opposition.

I just don't agree with extreme/unfair penalties. The city already imposes an egregious amount of penalties and fines on everyday people. I just can't get behind that.
I am certainly no freemarketeer, by this groups standards, I am the prince of the NIMBYs.
I am also a staunch preservationist
Largely, I agree.
While it was the principal structure, it was a 750 sqft one story frame structure. with no basement and possibly no foundation.
It was not protected by landmarking, as such it was just an old building.

I disagree, however, that it was done to thwart the preservationists. Having not been landmarked or orange rated, they held no sway over the parcel, and the developers new permit for a frame and masonry 2 story structure, on the surface, seems no different from his original plan for additions, save the existence of the old cottage.

As such, I feel the $7500 fine is a reasonable one.

Now, for the guy whom, upon finishing a 5 story structure decided that he could make more money if, contrary to plans and zoning, he added a sixth floor....
My opinion is that any fine. less than the cost of removing the extra floor, is too small.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26586  
Old Posted Yesterday, 9:22 PM
Ch.G, Ch.G's Avatar
Ch.G, Ch.G Ch.G, Ch.G is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i View Post
Yeah, I have a Chilli's right down the street and I don't understand how that was overlooked!
The article states that 33 restaurants outside the City's limits were listed in last year's guide, including at least two (Sen in Oak Park and Found in Evanston) given the Bib Gourmand ranking. The absence of all 33--and any other restaurants outside Chicago proper--makes it pretty obvious that this isn't an issue of suburban entitlement.

It does explain a lot; the Bib Gourmand list this year was curiously shorter than what most people were expecting. But it leads to more questions, specifically: Why? The subtext is not enough funds, which is, to me, kind of mind-boggling when that wasn't an issue in years prior and when they don't include any kind of caveat at the beginning of their guide.

It's also incredibly frustrating. The guide for San Francisco is expansive, covering Sonoma County in the north all the way down to San Jose, well over 100 miles to the south. Chicago proper, by contrast, is only about 26 miles at its greatest extent. Of course, Chicago's hinterland may not have the same food culture as SF's, but, based on guides from past years, it's clear there are still restaurants out there that deserve to be acknowledged.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26587  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:17 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post
Even though I personally think it was done to subvert preservationists, lets just say for a moment the contractor made a mistake, should he still be subject jail time and a $750k fine. What if someone who wasn't wealth had done this, should they face the prospect of bankruptcy?

Yes, and yes.

I'm going to demolish a building today. Oh wait - do I have a permit to do this? A) Yes - okay, I'll proceed. B) No - to avoid a fine that will hurt, and jail time, I'll hold off until I have that permit.
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26588  
Old Posted Yesterday, 10:22 PM
SamInTheLoop SamInTheLoop is offline
you know where I'll be
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Seriously Sam, enough with the irony. You literally bring up "randian adolescents" or some other non-sense like once a week out of the blue. It's like she was your mother and you are fighting an Oedipus complex. No one wants to hear it, it's obnoxious.

Is it just me, or do others also find that thin ideas quite often come wrapped in a thin skin?

Can't be just me.......
__________________
Post-Modern is Post-Mortem - Deal with it
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26589  
Old Posted Today, 2:49 AM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Is it just me, or do others also find that thin ideas quite often come wrapped in a thin skin?

Can't be just me.......
Nope. You're just a blowhard.
__________________
Thin Skinned Randian Adolescent
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26590  
Old Posted Today, 6:11 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
vertical
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: unconventionally bicoastal
Posts: 10,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by UPChicago View Post
I just read a comment regarding the school conversion fire stating that the city should charge higher property taxes for vacant properties to discourage vacancy. I think this whole tax, penalize and fine mentality in this city is flawed and disgusting.
Rather than piling tax on penalty on fine, just pare it back - tax only land and not improvements, at a relatively high rate. Landowners are encouraged to seek highest and best use, and the city can't give handouts to businesses on the grounds the new construction will raise tax revenue.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:22 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.