That's the silver lining I'm taking away from this. Right now as it stands, the total height of the site is 1950'. So with the removal of the hotel (say 300-400 feet from the total height), and the potential combination, I really hope we see a single 1500 footer. :yes:

That is an obscene suggestion.


Did everyone forget about LSD ?

Dec 2007

They put in the new ramps first, they are still there and quite functional.

Hopefully this is a slick move by Related who will now say - well we tried - and just build the already approved, designed, and foundation ready SPIRE !

Related: :notacrook:

SSP Forumers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

David Childs: :(

Lol who's David Childs?

only the design architect of the project.

https://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/..._768/image.jpg
source: https://www.newsday.com/news/new-yor...ilds-1.3473439

Wow, hot white guy

b.t.w.

Obscene? Ha, calm down there Harry.

I'm on board for that! :cheers:

Unfortunately, I'd imagine Reilly is immune to any mud slinging from the Trib. His fiefs in his ward will shower him with praise from saving them for the evil, towering skyscrapers. (Which begs the question, the hell are they doing in the second most densely packed CBD in the western hemisphere?) I think only a talking to from Rahm can put him in his place. And even then, I'm not so sure. He isn't running for reelection, making him a lame duck for the remainder of his term.

With the city's loss of population, each alderman represents fewer and fewer citizens and thus any organized civic group tends to wield too much influence. Fifty alderman was already a high number to begin with.

Id keep the aldermanic budget the same, but not replace alderman as they retire or die, and reaportion the wards until we reach twenty-five . Pipe dream i know.

No one in this city would ever vote to do that, unfortunately. Any such change would have to come out of the state assembly, and that itself seems like its an even longer shot.

Your statement is false. Aldermen represent certain areas. Some of these areas have gained population while some have lost population. It is absolutely naive to think that if Chicago lost population between 2016 and 2017 that every single alderman represents less people. The reality is that some represent more people and some represent less with the passing years. In the case of Reilly, if someone really thinks that he represents less people today than even 4 years ago, then that would be a highly ignorant statement.

Contrary to popular (and frankly misinformed) belief, many areas of Chicago are growing. If you really want, I can provide you a list of the exact community areas that have a population gain since 2010. I'll give you a hint..it's more than people think.

Wrong, the Alderman we see making the most egregious of NIMBY moves relevant to our forum here are all in wards where the population is increasing at a rapid pace.

The wards are reaportioned after every census to equal population balance between them. Any shifting population imbalance is short lived. The city has lost roughly 1.2 million people in the last 60 years, but still 50 wards.

Right, but it's also been 8 years since the last Census (7 since the results came out) and another roughly 3 years before you find out what the next census brings. Also the city is still up population since 2010 (not much) - but you know (and also the entire thing where the Census added over 10,000 people to their last estimate of Chicago at the same time of their latest estimates.. but almost nobody noticed).

Yeah - none of this would concern me. I am sure the developer and people can come to some agreement. Some people act as if this was the death of the project but not even close.

I think you've managed to find the one alternative that would make absolutely every interested party angry! Genius! :)

If it gave temporary access to the site to construction crews and cut congestion on the main road down, I don't see why everyone would be angry.

:koko::shrug:

:facepalm: