View Single Post
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 1, 2017, 7:12 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
I have no problem with trying to control development to maintain the character of a neighborhood. But we should also recognize the costs of doing so, and consider whether it’s worth it. Your original statement that there is no shortage of land and competing developments trivializes those trade offs and suggests that we can limit development in high-demand areas at little or no cost to the city overall, as if those other parcels are experiencing the same demand but for some reason aren’t being developed. They’re not.
I understand your broader point. But I have seen enough of developers simply trying to pack people into whatever the current "hot" neighborhood is or to seek height simply to market views to not feel that every proposal requires a philosophical argument. The developer will come back with a more reasonable proposal and everyone will live just fine.
If someone wants to make the case that the entire area should have been higher density and other development sites de-emphasized because that would have somehow benefited the city, then fine, make that case. But that isn't the direction that has been taken. Or, make the point that the city should plan better overall so that every proposal doesn't lead to these neighborhood arguments and one-off decisions... well, I would certainly support that.
With regard to other sites, I am of the impression that all the big money behind Riverline, 78, Finkl, Tribune, Reese, etc. do expect those areas will experience demand and will be developed, while the Fulton area and near west side has other land as well. So, I am not convinced there is any net loss from not packing more density than currently planned into the West Loop.

Last edited by VKChaz; Nov 1, 2017 at 10:33 PM.
Reply With Quote