HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4461  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2016, 9:40 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ My guess is that NIMBYs can still block the upzonings, but creating funds to help underserved communities, a huge issue politically these days in present-day "Tale of two cities" Chicago, gives city leadership good political cover in approving these.
Any alderman who doesn't preside over a ward entirely comprised of such people will have a hard time passing up the funds let alone explaining to their less well off constituents why they did so when presented with a challenger. Given that the ward map looks like a Rorschach test that's not many of them anymore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4462  
Old Posted Jun 24, 2016, 10:24 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
New City
Excellent zoom in!
R.I.P. my sides.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4463  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 12:22 AM
munchymunch's Avatar
munchymunch munchymunch is offline
MPLSXCHI
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Omicron Persei 8
Posts: 1,090
IMO pretty nice. Except for the blank white slab in the back.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ised%20(1).pdf
__________________
"I don't want to be interesting. I want to be good." -Ludwig Mies van der Rohe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4464  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 12:36 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeAgain View Post
How does the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund get around NIMBY's? Do you have to get new approval?

This may be the best thing Rahm has done.
Ah that's the beauty of it, it's essentially an automatic bonus that any property in the qualifying area and zoning can get if they pay the fee. Kinda like how there is an adopt-a-landmark FAR bonus if you restore a historic building. Most of these properties still have to go through a PD process because they are so big (either height or unit count) that it triggers the automatic PD requirement, but the Neighborhood Opportunity Bonus basically tacks on an optional hunk of FAR to the underlying zoning in these areas for anyone who wants to pay for it. The value of land is basically determined by the highest and best us. Zoning and government regulations limit highest and best use. Rahm basically increased the highest and best use across huge areas surrounding downtown with the caveat that you have to toss a slice of your extra profits you will get from that increased land value in the kitty.

Frankly it was a brilliant move by Rahm to essentially upzone huge swaths of the booming central area and create a slush fund he can use to buy votes on the South Side. At this point Rahm will be king as long as he pleases. I'm just as excited to see what he uses these funds for in underserved areas. Englewood's Bloomingdale Trail project? Subsidies for new private redevelopments of vacant land? New Libraries? Upgrades for CPS schools that weren't closed and saw an influx of students? The possibilities are huge, especially if we continue to see this kind of long term growth in the central area and see developers jumping on board on a regular basis.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4465  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 12:42 AM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchymunch View Post
IMO pretty nice. Except for the blank white slab in the back.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ised%20(1).pdf
It's not bad. One of the renderings I saw before showed it would be an Andaz. Is that still the case? Andaz is a brand so it's not like they can just use it in there. Pretty exciting to be getting one - along with Ace, Viceroy, etc.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4466  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 1:07 AM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Ah that's the beauty of it, it's essentially an automatic bonus that any property in the qualifying area and zoning can get if they pay the fee. Kinda like how there is an adopt-a-landmark FAR bonus if you restore a historic building. Most of these properties still have to go through a PD process because they are so big (either height or unit count) that it triggers the automatic PD requirement, but the Neighborhood Opportunity Bonus basically tacks on an optional hunk of FAR to the underlying zoning in these areas for anyone who wants to pay for it. The value of land is basically determined by the highest and best us. Zoning and government regulations limit highest and best use. Rahm basically increased the highest and best use across huge areas surrounding downtown with the caveat that you have to toss a slice of your extra profits you will get from that increased land value in the kitty.

Frankly it was a brilliant move by Rahm to essentially upzone huge swaths of the booming central area and create a slush fund he can use to buy votes on the South Side. At this point Rahm will be king as long as he pleases. I'm just as excited to see what he uses these funds for in underserved areas. Englewood's Bloomingdale Trail project? Subsidies for new private redevelopments of vacant land? New Libraries? Upgrades for CPS schools that weren't closed and saw an influx of students? The possibilities are huge, especially if we continue to see this kind of long term growth in the central area and see developers jumping on board on a regular basis.
The only thing that can stop it is NIMBY's who try to rally against this as a loophole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4467  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 1:11 AM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Ah that's the beauty of it, it's essentially an automatic bonus that any property in the qualifying area and zoning can get if they pay the fee. Kinda like how there is an adopt-a-landmark FAR bonus if you restore a historic building. Most of these properties still have to go through a PD process because they are so big (either height or unit count) that it triggers the automatic PD requirement, but the Neighborhood Opportunity Bonus basically tacks on an optional hunk of FAR to the underlying zoning in these areas for anyone who wants to pay for it. The value of land is basically determined by the highest and best us. Zoning and government regulations limit highest and best use. Rahm basically increased the highest and best use across huge areas surrounding downtown with the caveat that you have to toss a slice of your extra profits you will get from that increased land value in the kitty.

Frankly it was a brilliant move by Rahm to essentially upzone huge swaths of the booming central area and create a slush fund he can use to buy votes on the South Side. At this point Rahm will be king as long as he pleases. I'm just as excited to see what he uses these funds for in underserved areas. Englewood's Bloomingdale Trail project? Subsidies for new private redevelopments of vacant land? New Libraries? Upgrades for CPS schools that weren't closed and saw an influx of students? The possibilities are huge, especially if we continue to see this kind of long term growth in the central area and see developers jumping on board on a regular basis.
17-4-1003-A
Planned Development Review.
Floor area bonuses under this Sec. 17-4-1000 may be approved only in accordance with the planned development procedures of Sec. 17-13-0600. The Zoning Administrator must review proposed floor area bonus requests and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Planning and Development and the Chicago Plan Commission. The Commissioner of Planning and Development and the Chicago Plan Commission shall each in turn make a recommendation to the city council. Floor area bonuses may be approved only if they are consistent with the purposes described in Sec. 17-1- 0500, Sec.17-4-1001, and Sec. 17-8-0100.


I realize that wild speculation and wishful thinking is more fun, but reading the actual thing is a lot faster
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4468  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 1:27 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKDickman View Post
17-4-1003-A
Planned Development Review.
Floor area bonuses under this Sec. 17-4-1000 may be approved only in accordance with the planned development procedures of Sec. 17-13-0600. The Zoning Administrator must review proposed floor area bonus requests and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Planning and Development and the Chicago Plan Commission. The Commissioner of Planning and Development and the Chicago Plan Commission shall each in turn make a recommendation to the city council. Floor area bonuses may be approved only if they are consistent with the purposes described in Sec. 17-1- 0500, Sec.17-4-1001, and Sec. 17-8-0100.


I realize that wild speculation and wishful thinking is more fun, but reading the actual thing is a lot faster
You conveniently missed the part of the bonus ordinance which requires that any denial of a bonus be explicitly justified and that approval may not be unreasonably withheld:

Quote:
17-4-1003 Administration.

17-4-1003-A Projects that are not Subject to Planned Development Review. For projects that are not subject to planned development review, the Zoning Administrator, as indicated in Sec. 17-4-1002, is authorized to award floor area bonuses.

17-4-1003-B Projects that are Subject to Planned Development Review. For projects that are subject to planned development review, the Zoning Administrator must review proposed floor area bonus requests and make a recommendation to the Commissioner of Planning and Development and the Chicago Plan Commission, who shall in turn make a recommendation to the City Council. The Commissioner of Planning and Development and Plan Commission may recommend modifications of standards due to unique circumstances so long as the public benefits of the proposed improvements or amenities are of equal or greater value than otherwise required.

17-4-1003-C Decision-making Criteria.

1. In acting on floor area bonuses, authorized decision-making bodies must evaluate proposed amenities based on their contribution to and the degree to which they enhance the quality of life and benefit the public in the surrounding area. Floor area bonuses may be approved only if they:

a.

comply with the standards and criteria of this section;

b.

are consistent with the purposes described in 17-4-1001 and Sec. 17-1-0500, and

c.

are consistent with the Guide to the Zoning Bonus Ordinance .

2. Approval of floor area bonuses may not be unreasonably withheld. Any reasons for denial of floor area bonuses must be provided to the applicant in writing.
The law has teeth or there would have been literally no reason to pass it in the first place. Just because city council has to approve PD's doesn't mean they can just deny PD's that comply with bonuses spelled out in the law. All PD's are voted on by city council and in downtown districts they are often triggered automatically. If what you are implying is true, the city council could just deny any automatically triggered PD for any reason, even if it is in compliance with the underlying zoning. Pretty much anything over 300-400' tall or taking up a half block or more (due to the unit threasholds easily triggered by such quantities of FAR) gets an automatic PD. Example being that huge John Buck development in the West Loop which would be totally as of right if it were 5 separate buildings on the block, but triggers the PD because it's one huge development with more units than the threshold. Just because the city council has to approve something, doesn't mean they always have a choice to do it legally.

For example, if you have a site like the Buck property and it is all DX-5 and 100,000 SF you can legally build 500 units (as per MLA of 200 SF) on it as of right, but the PD trigger for DX-5 is only 150 units. They could just build 4 separate buildings with 125 units in each and no PD would be triggered. They are entitled to that amount of density. So if they propose it all as one big development, the city can't actually deny them approval on those grounds or it would be a taking and they could sue to force approval of 500 units. Of course they can block the developer on other grounds if some sort of administrative details are off, but just because something is a PD doesn't mean that it is a full on zoning change requiring the usual NIMBY festival. That's really what the Department of Planning does in these cases, tells the city whether or not it is in compliance and should approve it. It's not like the process for normal zoning changes where it is entirely political. The same is true about density bonuses, yes it's a PD process, but if they are complying with the zoning bonus, the city council has to have legitimate grounds on which to deny the request. They didn't just write an entire ordinance just for show so they can hide from NIMBY's behind it. It has legal teeth and denying a request that complies with underlying zoning (and the density bonus ordinance) on arbitrary grounds like "my constituents are afraid of density" is no different than a city council vote arbitrarily downzoning a property for the same reason. Something isn't automatically legal and in compliance with the law just because city council votes on it.

Last edited by LouisVanDerWright; Jun 25, 2016 at 1:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4469  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 2:21 AM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
You conveniently missed the part of the bonus ordinance which requires that any denial of a bonus be explicitly justified and that approval may not be unreasonably withheld:



The law has teeth or there would have been literally no reason to pass it in the first place. Just because city council has to approve PD's doesn't mean they can just deny PD's that comply with bonuses spelled out in the law. All PD's are voted on by city council and in downtown districts they are often triggered automatically. If what you are implying is true, the city council could just deny any automatically triggered PD for any reason, even if it is in compliance with the underlying zoning. Pretty much anything over 300-400' tall or taking up a half block or more (due to the unit threasholds easily triggered by such quantities of FAR) gets an automatic PD. Example being that huge John Buck development in the West Loop which would be totally as of right if it were 5 separate buildings on the block, but triggers the PD because it's one huge development with more units than the threshold. Just because the city council has to approve something, doesn't mean they always have a choice to do it legally.

For example, if you have a site like the Buck property and it is all DX-5 and 100,000 SF you can legally build 500 units (as per MLA of 200 SF) on it as of right, but the PD trigger for DX-5 is only 150 units. They could just build 4 separate buildings with 125 units in each and no PD would be triggered. They are entitled to that amount of density. So if they propose it all as one big development, the city can't actually deny them approval on those grounds or it would be a taking and they could sue to force approval of 500 units. Of course they can block the developer on other grounds if some sort of administrative details are off, but just because something is a PD doesn't mean that it is a full on zoning change requiring the usual NIMBY festival. That's really what the Department of Planning does in these cases, tells the city whether or not it is in compliance and should approve it. It's not like the process for normal zoning changes where it is entirely political. The same is true about density bonuses, yes it's a PD process, but if they are complying with the zoning bonus, the city council has to have legitimate grounds on which to deny the request. They didn't just write an entire ordinance just for show so they can hide from NIMBY's behind it. It has legal teeth and denying a request that complies with underlying zoning (and the density bonus ordinance) on arbitrary grounds like "my constituents are afraid of density" is no different than a city council vote arbitrarily downzoning a property for the same reason. Something isn't automatically legal and in compliance with the law just because city council votes on it.
Again, read the ordinance.
SECTION 8.
Section 17-4-1000 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by deleting the section in its entirety and substituting the following new section in lieu thereof, underscored as follows.


The section 17-4-1003C you put so much faith in, no longer exists.

It is now about calculating the contribution.
In addition, all properties in the "new downtown" have not automatically been changed to D zoning. They have to apply for rezoning through the usual channels before they can avail themselves of the bonus system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4470  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 2:39 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKDickman View Post
Again, read the ordinance.
SECTION 8.
Section 17-4-1000 of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended by deleting the section in its entirety and substituting the following new section in lieu thereof, underscored as follows.


The section 17-4-1003C you put so much faith in, no longer exists.

It is now about calculating the contribution.
In addition, all properties in the "new downtown" have not automatically been changed to D zoning. They have to apply for rezoning through the usual channels before they can avail themselves of the bonus system.
I never said they were automatically upgraded to DX, perhaps I mangled my wording though by saying that they basically gifted FAR to the new areas. The new areas are only open to DX zoning now which of course is a change that would require city council approval. It's just hilarious to watch all the existing DX owners help themselves to a new serving of FAR under this ordinance which can't be stopped by annoying neighbors.

However, the bonus is not limited to DX zoning, it now applies to the entire downtown area, whether DX or any other zoning:

Quote:
The refinements also expand bonus eligibility to the entire downtown area, versus the current restriction within areas identified by high FAR in the code.
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...od-growth.html

I guess that means all the bonuses are now possible throughout downtown regardless of zoning, which is kinda more exciting than I thought...

Last edited by LouisVanDerWright; Jun 25, 2016 at 2:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4471  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 3:38 AM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
I never said they were automatically upgraded to DX, perhaps I mangled my wording though by saying that they basically gifted FAR to the new areas. The new areas are only open to DX zoning now which of course is a change that would require city council approval. It's just hilarious to watch all the existing DX owners help themselves to a new serving of FAR under this ordinance which can't be stopped by annoying neighbors.

However, the bonus is not limited to DX zoning, it now applies to the entire downtown area, whether DX or any other zoning:



http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...od-growth.html

I guess that means all the bonuses are now possible throughout downtown regardless of zoning, which is kinda more exciting than I thought...
Bonuses were always available in all downtown use categories. For bulk categories -3s could get no bonus. The big bonuses (transit, landmark affordables) were available to everyone 5 and up, the bullshit ones like winter gardens were only for 12-16.

The problem is that it may serve to stifle residential development development in the downtown districts. As it is written anyone who gets rezoned or hits PD threshholds (everybody) and builds a residential project will still have to pay in lieu of affordable fees as well as fees for bonus floor area.
Nonresidential pays only for bonus.

In any event, your notion that NIMBYs have been statutorily castrated in not supported by the code.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4472  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 4:07 AM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is offline
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,608
City Hyde Park

__________________
flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4473  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 4:51 AM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 204
Everything else looks so plain in this city when compared to what's going on in Hyde Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4474  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 5:18 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKDickman View Post
Bonuses were always available in all downtown use categories. For bulk categories -3s could get no bonus. The big bonuses (transit, landmark affordables) were available to everyone 5 and up, the bullshit ones like winter gardens were only for 12-16.

The problem is that it may serve to stifle residential development development in the downtown districts. As it is written anyone who gets rezoned or hits PD threshholds (everybody) and builds a residential project will still have to pay in lieu of affordable fees as well as fees for bonus floor area.
Nonresidential pays only for bonus.

In any event, your notion that NIMBYs have been statutorily castrated in not supported by the code.
Lol, again, where did I say NIMBYs were "statutorily castrated by code"? I didn't even come close to that... All I said is that this specific bonus basically grants anyone who is willing to pay for it a bump in density that's essentially an extension of the current as of right allowances. In fact, my original post doesn't even contain the term NIMBY...

Also, how on earth is this going to stifle residential development? You do realize that they only have to pay for the additional FAR they are getting right? I think the two seperate residential projects and one hotel project that are already taking advantage of this make that absurd statement hilariously out of left field.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4475  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 1:35 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Lol, again, where did I say NIMBYs were "statutorily castrated by code"? I didn't even come close to that... All I said is that this specific bonus basically grants anyone who is willing to pay for it a bump in density that's essentially an extension of the current as of right allowances. In fact, my original post doesn't even contain the term NIMBY...

Also, how on earth is this going to stifle residential development? You do realize that they only have to pay for the additional FAR they are getting right? I think the two seperate residential projects and one hotel project that are already taking advantage of this make that absurd statement hilariously out of left field.
Hotels are not residential projects and pay no in lieu of fees
Walton has already paid theirs so it is not an issue,
In any event, neither has received the bonus yet and both will still have to go through The PD process to get them.

As far as H2O, this is all pretty vague right now, but your assumption are flawed.

Only 1/4 of the site is zoned DX-5, the bulk is DS-3.
They could develop it as two projects (with a total of 125 units) and never hit PD thresholds.
To do what has been reported, they will first need the entire site to be rezoned to a DX-7.
My guess is that the rumor of Opportunity Bonus is just a bargaining chip in that process. They will already be paying $8.7mil in affordable fees and I doubt that adding <160 feet to each apt, would be worth the additional $4mil.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4476  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 3:13 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchymunch View Post
IMO pretty nice. Except for the blank white slab in the back.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ised%20(1).pdf
Looks better than the initial rendering. Never heard of this architecture firm before...




Quote:
Originally Posted by Jibba View Post
4 - 10 E Huron
New City
Nice job with the New City photo



This reminds me - wasn't there a pre-crash plan to replace 1 East Superior with a condo building? I wonder when that will get revived.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4477  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 6:44 PM
Ned.B Ned.B is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 608
^Saroki is a fairly well known firm in Metro Detroit, but to my knowledge they have never done anything of this scale.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4478  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2016, 3:27 AM
The Pimp's Avatar
The Pimp The Pimp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Chicago/Hamilton Lake
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeAgain View Post
Everything else looks so plain in this city when compared to what's going on in Hyde Park.
Really?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4479  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2016, 1:09 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
Not a fan. I don't see how people look at this and don't immediately think "tacky". It seems like something that would better befit a place like Brazil or Thailand.
__________________
1. 9 DeKalb Ave - Brooklyn, NYC - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. American Radiator Building - New York City - Hood, Godley, and Fouilhoux - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4480  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2016, 2:34 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,356
Woah there... You're wading dangerously close to questioning the genius of Jeanne Gang and that will get you censured around here
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:40 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.