Because if something tremendously benefits the public, but ever so slightly inconveniences a very small group of people, you better believe that those people will be militantly up in arms about it.

Opening up a quiet, leafy waterside promenade adjacent to some very expensive homes to auto traffic? Yep, your funeral.

In conclusion, people suck. :)

As someone who has walked on that little Ogden Slip path many-a-time, not only is it probably not capable of carrying vehicles due to size constraint, but you are also asking to cut down on public park land(which yes, i consider that walk way to be no different than the riverwalk).

In addition, the idea that we should increase car access for a couple buildings filled with millionaires is just backwards thinking in the long run. There should be plenty of access there thanks to LSD and that smaller street already in place for construction purposes. I'm surprised to see multiple people in favor of tearing up park land in favor of putting a hotel in a suboptimal location...

Fair enough. Just trying to think of creative ways to make things easier for everyone.

Tell you what, I’m gonna drive a huge pickup truck on the Ogden Slip path just to piss off those townhome snobs

If a pickup is too hard to come by, a Harley would do just as well!

I am totally against mandatory minimums on a moral standpoint... that being said those who drive their obnoxious Harleys downtown should be sentenced to life in prison without parole

What's the likelihood those townhouse owners could be bought out in the future and replaced with highrises?

I'd say extremely likely so long as the market allows for it, and there is a developer with deep enough pockets to try and buy out that whole area. I doubt any time soon, but as these final riverside plots get filled in with skyscrapers, I hope that we will start to see some teardowns of smaller buildings with no historic value

On this note, it's a positive that the plan for the Spire site has shifted the taller tower to the Southern edge of the plot--making a high-rise replacement of the townhomes more likely.

I looked at the values of the townhomes on Zillow and I was shocked by how inexpensive they are, relatively speaking. As it turns out that they're really condos simply leasing the land, which would explain the discount. So it seems redevelopment is indeed likely.

Why will there be a zoning change required for that parcel? Isn't it already zoned for 2,000 ft? Must be a density issue, as I imagine the two tower plan probably has more units than the Calatrava proposal. (even though Related's two towers add up to less than 2,000 ft)

The spire was slated to have was to have 1194 units. This new plan is to have 850 units + 175 hotel rooms so technically...still less units than the original Spire even adding those 2 numbers together. It's gotta be something else. I think the original zoning is for 1200 units total..

0.0%. I live there and I like my place.

What's it currently zoned? Could it be that it's a change in use (mixed instead pure residential)?

BTW, how does approval work in Chicago? Does the local alderman have some kind of veto, or is it just that each are afforded the courtesy of approval or veto of a project? I guess I'm confused how Reilly's opposition shuts this process down. Does he chair some important committee or something?

Aldermanic privilege (as this practice is called) isn't a written law, rather all the aldermen simply follow the unspoken agreement of always voting with the alderman whose district is the location of pending project. When a development goes before city council, if said alderman votes for the project, all the others also vote yes. Same goes if said alderman votes against it.

Lakefront Protection Ordinance

Sorry, I don't know if this was posted here before. David Childs talking about this project.

• Video Link

Link here in case the embed doesn't work.

https://youtu.be/KJ-J1IWBYNQ

Good for you. But money talks. Unless it's a barter for your firstborn, most reasonable people have a price.

Interesting. I'm guessing this is an overlay over existing zoning district, then.

LAKE MICHIGAN AND CHICAGO LAKEFRONT PROTECTION

If anyone could find the map of this overlay, that'd be great. Really interested to see how far inland is stretches. That link also isn't showing any regulations for this district, so I'm a bit confused as to where we'd find them in the zoning code.

Thanks for this. I learned that NYC operates the same way. It's such a foreign concept to me. I guess we'll see what Related comes back with, then; sounds like it's going to be downsized if possibly only slightly, though.

Found it. The map is on page 37 of the Chicago Plan Commission Rules. Apparently, a development must fulfill the 13 Purposes of the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance and 14 of the seperate Fourteen Basic Policies of the oridnance.

This seems really onerous on top of having to clear the regulations for the base zoning district a building would be in. Anyway, seems that a project has to clear the Plan Commission for the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront Protection Ordinance outside of the basic process.

Not a problem in Chicago. The Plan Commission just takes two quick votes, one right after the other. No project on the Plan Commission agenda (in this century) has ever been rejected.