SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Proposals (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=361)
-   -   CHICAGO | 400 N Lake Shore Drive | 875 FT & 765 FT | ? & ? FLOORS (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219306)

Notyrview Oct 23, 2018 1:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannedairspray (Post 8353929)
It's fine if you're upset this project has hit a snag; I like it a lot, too. But all this bitching about Reilly is really weird and misplaced at best, at worst just an emotional response that's not rooted in any rationality. The guy is doing what the people in the ward want. You might say they're dickheads, but it's their ward, not yours or mine. Does anyone have any plans to move there or do we just like walking around their neighborhood sometimes, seeing the pretty pictures, and enjoying the view when we're on the LSD?

You continue to dodge the real issue. This has very little to do with this development (which I still think will happen) or Reilly. My gripe is with a system that doesn't just allow for but encourages undemocratic outcomes. There are tens of thousands of people in Reilly's ward who would benefit from more social infrastructure near the Ogden Slip. Instead, he's making a policy decision based on a group of probably no more than 50 people. So your claim that he's representing his ward is just plain false. He's representing a tiny minority in his ward at the expense of everyone else.

This isn't to say that it's all his fault. The system actually encourages Reilly to kowtow to monied interests. If Reilly didn't have the excessive, unilateral power to pervert developments for a small but powerful minority, they couldn't use political extortion to make him do it.

And even if Reilly were acting in the best interest of all of his constituents, downtown Chicago is special. Its success or failure affects all Chicagoans in a way that the fates of other wards do not. So limiting development oversight to Reilly and his constituents gives them a disproportionate amount of power and undercuts what I'm pretty sure a supermajority of the city feels: downtown is a playground that should be as open and accessible as possible.

Donnie77 Oct 23, 2018 2:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan (Post 8354037)
Making the podium smaller and the buildings taller/narrower could be an option. Maybe this whole thing is a blessing in disguise?

I like your thinking sir! :tup:

In other news my cat's breath smells like cat food.

The Pimp Oct 23, 2018 3:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notyrview (Post 8353881)
Huh? There is no good. A system that encourages one person to pander to monied interests at the expense of the public interest sucks. And even when Reilly doesn't oppose something, that doesn't mean he's pushing anything through; he's just not stalling it. There's never an affirmative act on his part.

Downtown Chicago is not a provincial gated community. It's a vibrant urban crossroads and all major developments within its borders should be regulated by a panel that doesn't have answer to a small group of millionaires but rather the public at large.

Lighten up Vladimir Notyrviewski.

BonoboZill4 Oct 23, 2018 3:15 AM

I swear, if this kills another project here I'm just gonna give up and recommend we push this whole mass of soil and rubble into the lake and be done with the hole. It'll hurt too much to see it sit there for another decade

Khantilever Oct 23, 2018 3:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannedairspray (Post 8353929)
The public at large is not the ward. Of course the people that live in the neighborhood should have an outsized influence on the business that is conducted within it, not some rando from Pilsen or South Loop or Rogers Park.

It's fine if you're upset this project has hit a snag; I like it a lot, too. But all this bitching about Reilly is really weird and misplaced at best, at worst just an emotional response that's not rooted in any rationality. The guy is doing what the people in the ward want. You might say they're dickheads, but it's their ward, not yours or mine. Does anyone have any plans to move there or do we just like walking around their neighborhood sometimes, seeing the pretty pictures, and enjoying the view when we're on the LSD?

What happens in one Ward doesn’t only affect that Ward—especially with large developments.

Generally, I think our system works quite well. For your run-of-the-mill development, most of the effects—good and bad—are going to be restricted to the confines of the Ward, and so the Ward can weigh the pros and cons sufficiently well. And in cases of very significant developments, where the effects will spill across Ward boundaries, the Mayor has stepped in to ensure it goes through even when the Ward is not happy about it.

400 LSD is definitely a major development that has implications for all of us, whether or not we live in Reilly’s Ward. My guess is Reilly is taking advantage of Rahm’s lame duck status to appease his base.

emathias Oct 23, 2018 3:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannedairspray (Post 8353929)
...
Of course the people that live in the neighborhood should have an outsized influence on the business that is conducted within it, not some rando from Pilsen or South Loop or Rogers Park.
...
The guy is doing what the people in the ward want. You might say they're dickheads, but it's their ward, not yours or mine. Does anyone have any plans to move there or do we just like walking around their neighborhood sometimes, seeing the pretty pictures, and enjoying the view when we're on the LSD?

Hey, ...... you, some of us on here ARE constituents of Reilly, and some of us have direct experience with the slimey hack.

You know one of the first things he did when elected? For decades, billboards were generally allowed downtown. The big ones were permitted, but many smaller ones weren't, mostly because the city just couldn't be bothered to issue permits for them and there was little to no penalty for putting up an unlicensed one.

So Reilly gets elected, and pushed through an ordinance that billboards without a license were fined $10,000 PER DAY, for a "problem" almost nobody cared about. And when owners attempted to get licenses, Reilly refused to help small condo associations like the one I was President of. Couldn't even get a call back, and the city basically said we needed aldermanic signoff to get a permit.

That corruption and "care for constituents" cost my association about $30,000/yr. Which might not be a lot for some associations, but was equivalent to 50% of our annual budget.

So, maybe know a little more about the situation before defending Reilly like he's some sort of white knight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannedairspray (Post 8353807)
You guys are all mad from the perspective of the city or of simply liking skyscrapers. That's fine. But Reilly doesn't work for you. He works for the people in his ward. If they like him shooting this down, guess what, he's doing his job well. You don't have to like it. You can kick and scream about it. But that doesn't change anything about whether or not he's representing his constituents accurately.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannedairspray (Post 8353835)
Well, they could vote him out, but I bet most of his constituents agree with him, so...:shrug:

Most are too busy working their professional jobs to pay attention, but live downtown because they want the density and convenience of downtown.

A significant portion of those who do pay attention value density and don't mind traffic, and want public access to waterways - after all, everyone in the 42nd ward lives within walking distance of the River, and most live within walking distance of the lake. We'd like to have access to those amenities and don't support privatizing then.

Then there is a loud, mostly retired contingent who give heavily to election campaigns and want things to be like the quiet downtown of a Mississippi River town, instead of the center of a global City.

Reilly gets press, people with the time and interest generally preferred to just give him money, and people who believe he's bad for both the neighborhood and City are too busy to lead a charge against him. Most probably believe that beating a Machine candidate is nearly impossible anyway.

I'd run, but I don't really have any political connections of the kind needed to get a campaign going. Running for Alderman isn't as expensive it hard a running for Congress, but running in the 42nd Ward can be pretty difficult given the politically plum place it exists in the city both geographically and politically.

emathias Oct 23, 2018 4:07 AM

Also, the whole idea that local residents should have extra control is mostly poppycock. First of all, there are still such things as ownership rights. Second of all, residents are rarely informed enough to really make decisions that are even in their own best interests. Third, in a city like Chicago, and particularly downtown, residential turnover is very frequent. The average length of residence may be five years. Many projects take five years to complete - or more. So why should people who won't even be there to use the results have any more say than anyone else? Who cares if Citizen X hates high-rises if he's moving to Oak Brook or Phoenix or Avondale in two years anyway? Why should the owner of the property have to account for the quirks of taste from a churn of varied, unstable neighbors? That's why cities have zoning and design guidelines, but more than that and casual feedback, I don't see the point. And, yes, I know some people stay longer than 5 years. I've lived in the 42nd Ward for nearly 15 years now, and an additional three years in a previous home in the 42nd.

VKChaz Oct 23, 2018 5:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 8353811)
^^ damn, kamin sounds legit pissed.

and very publicly so, directly calling out rahm at the end of his column.

it'll be interesting to see where this goes.

Was there a reason Reilly needed to drop this now?
... is it just a coincidence it was a couple days after Kamin's piece on Cityfront Center....?

10023 Oct 23, 2018 6:44 AM

Can the mayor’s office overrule the alderman?

They should strip the aldermen of planning powers in the Central Area and have that be controlled from city hall anyway.

the urban politician Oct 23, 2018 1:23 PM

Rahm being a lame duck actually could help. He doesn’t need to make anyone happy any more.

He can steamroll this through if he really wants

west-town-brad Oct 23, 2018 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8354298)
Can the mayor’s office overrule the alderman?

They should strip the aldermen of planning powers in the Central Area and have that be controlled from city hall anyway.

The alderman serve at the pleasure of the mayor - lest they be gerrimandered out of existance.

Khantilever Oct 23, 2018 1:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10023 (Post 8354298)
Can the mayor’s office overrule the alderman?

They should strip the aldermen of planning powers in the Central Area and have that be controlled from city hall anyway.

The problem is that the Aldermen don’t officially have this power in the first place—it’s just a gentlemen’s agreement. As long as City Council is voting on zoning you can’t legislatively strip away this power.

We could remove City Council from voting on individual developments, end the practice of re-zoning the city parcel by parcel, and just delegate entirely to the planning department. But then I’m genuinely afraid that they’ll pressure the planning department to be too restrictive in general when they create their city-wide zoning map. Aldermen, like their voters, are risk averse—they’d rather zoning be generally too strict than too loose. Also, developers can’t lobby the planning department the way they can Aldermen.

Steely Dan Oct 23, 2018 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8354076)
the only thing that *might* happen here is that Rahm might gently point out to Reilly.......

the Rahminator doesn't do anything *gently*. ;)

maru2501 Oct 23, 2018 2:13 PM

it's not a marketing teeter-totter I realize, but I would take OCS over this given the choice. so if there's a silver lining that this encourages OCS to go faster and absorb more of the high-end market then fine..

the spire site will see something at some point

rgolch Oct 23, 2018 2:13 PM

I wouldn't get too freaked out by this. I'm sure it's political on some level. Didn't someone say Reilly is soon up for reelection?

Related bought the site with the intention of something significant going up at the site. No matter what, it's probably more than a few years from breaking ground. Give it a bit, some minor changes will be made, and voila.... approval is granted. I have no doubt if Related pushes it, they will get this project built.

i_am_hydrogen Oct 23, 2018 2:24 PM

Why all the doom and gloom. The same thing happened to the buildings proposed in Lakeshore East (sites I, J, etc.). Reilly initially rejected them. But they were ultimately approved by the plan commission. It's not like this project is being mothballed. These towers will end up getting approved at some point.

RedCorsair87 Oct 23, 2018 2:24 PM

Maru2501- We don't have to chose between OCS or 400 LSD. OCS hit presale numbers earlier this year and will break ground as soon as the ground warms in 2019. If there is a supertall competition between two proposals, it is Trib East and this. I'd rather see Trib East start next year as it's taller the site is an overlooked parking lot (easily forgettable for most people). Related will develop 400LSD eventually, because it is too high profile not too.

r18tdi Oct 23, 2018 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgolch (Post 8354497)
I wouldn't get too freaked out by this. I'm sure it's political on some level. Didn't someone say Reilly is soon up for reelection?

Why should future generations have their access to a public park via a promised public plaza restricted because some blowhard alderman wants to score one-time political points with a handful of residents? I live in Brendan's ward and will be calling his office today.

Notyrview Oct 23, 2018 2:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Pimp (Post 8354133)
Lighten up Vladimir Notyrviewski.

Never, Thoughtless Pimpleton. You may be ok with rich people laying claim to public parks, I will not abide.

Quote:

Originally Posted by r18tdi (Post 8354506)
Why should future generations have their access to a public park via a promised public plaza restricted because some blowhard alderman wants to score on-time political points with a handful of residents? I live in Brendan's ward and will be calling his office today.

Good for you dude

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgolch (Post 8354497)
I wouldn't get too freaked out by this. I'm sure it's political on some level. Didn't someone say Reilly is soon up for reelection?

Related bought the site with the intention of something significant going up at the site. No matter what, it's probably more than a few years from breaking ground. Give it a bit, some minor changes will be made, and voila.... approval is granted. I have no doubt if Related pushes it, they will get this project built.

My thoughts exactly, but the privatizing of Ogden Slip is unacceptable.

BVictor1 Oct 23, 2018 3:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen (Post 8354503)
Why all the doom and gloom. The same thing happened to the buildings proposed in Lakeshore East (sites I, J, etc.). Reilly initially rejected them. But they were ultimately approved by the plan commission. It's not like this project is being mothballed. These towers will end up getting approved at some point.

The bigger thing is limiting the public access.


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.