CHICAGO | 680 North Rush | 752 FT / 229 M | 64 FLOORS | NEVER BUILT

[Sir Isaac Newton]

Originally Posted by honte

That's too funny. I use the exact same line to explain why the landmarking policy is so crappy!

Marcu, the reason why "private property" isn't the end of the story is because property rights are not universal and do not trump other laws, such as zoning, landmarking, etc. The community has a right to voice these opinions, especially with a development like this one that substantially differs from what is there. This has been upheld in the courts time and again.

However, since this tower is approved and the city's agencies have taken a pass on the above, you're right - these are now non-issues.

Can you cite some examples of when the courts forced a developer to build a privately owned plaza on their property that was similar in nature to the plaza from the prior private development on that property? (or forced them to keep the existing plaza on the land that they owned)

[Blackbelt Jones]

Originally Posted by honte

Hey, you left me out! Nice post though.

In other news, the Crain's article that came out today concerning D+P absorbing Gonzalez has a small reference to this building being 67 stories. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=25362

Ach! So I did! Sorry about that... Thanks for your support thought...

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

if I lived in that part of town I'd focus my attention on more important issues. . . like how to move out of that part of town. . .

LOL. We've actually had a great time downtown (and I have been able to watch the Trump go up up up from a nearly front row seat). When we have kids, we may hoof it to a more traditional neighborhood in the city... but we haven't gotten sick of our location yet.

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Your lifestyle was totally different. No one forced you to move downtown, into your cramped condo,

You saw when you moved in that it was a concrete jungle and you shouldn't have expected that to have changed, because of "you're arrival..."

Speaking as a resident who has lived in the City of Chicago a hell of a lot longer than you, I certainly am in the position to tell you about loosing open space that as I said previously IS NOT PUBLIC.

As for the historic mansions that were destroyed on DuPont Circle, the question is not where was I, but where were you?

No i've never seen it, butI know that what's currently at 680 N. Rush isn't fabulous. Nothing special at all. And for the rest of your sentence, good...

I can also appreciate that if your weren't directly impacted you wouldn't really give a damn.

Wow.

You provide the various forums with a lot of great info BVictor, and I respect your knowledge and opinions (I have been visiting these and other related forums for years), but seriously, you really need to feather it back a notch. I took the time to respond to you amicably, I am disappointed I did not get the same in return. I have racked up several years in European cities, 6 years in downtown DC, and 3 in downtown Chicago (sans car)... I was even featured in a Tribune article espousing the wonders of downtown life. I can assure you that I "get it." It's a shame that with all the incorrect assumptions you made about me, you didn't at least get the easiest one right: I am ultimatly on your side.

My only intention was to point out that it's a great little space that adds a lot of color to the neighborhood, and that it will be missed... and hopefully make a few forumers appreciate that aspect from the perspective of an actual resident. Interesting how many buttons that pushes...

Serious question: are some of you aware how thick the snobbery gets in here at times?

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The comments about the plaza space are noted, but folks this is not your property, nor does it belong in any way shape or form to the citizens of Chicago. It is owned by a not for profit religious institution whom has been so nice to provide such a nice space at their expense for the public to enjoy, but this does NOT make it public space, and therefore no one should angry about the loss, as the property belongs to the church. That is like using your neighbor's yard in suburbs for your own personal enjoyment and then being angry when he puts an addition on to the house.

The building is a well designed structure that will soften the concrete crap that has flooded the area, and will provide a windfall of new property tax revenue where none is currently collected. That alone is a huge public benefit.

More open space in the area sounds nice, and the city should make a priority for future development to provide some dedicated public space given the influx of new residents. I personally would like to see a public plaza in front of Holy Name Cathedral, as is common in Latin American cities.

Thanks for your response; your points are all obviously valid. Of course, one is forced to ultimately agree with this reasoning: it isn't "public" space, which is why I haven't gotten too excited about it (outside of a few posts here). But I will enjoy it while it lasts.

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The gigantic surface parking lot in front of Holy Name tops my list. I believe the church owns it too.

I have heard that the Holy Name has no plans to develop that parking lot... it is a shame, as it represents a massive dead zone on State and so much could be done there. Can you imagine what that land is worth to the Church? I wonder how cash strapped they'd have to be to sell it off...

[honte]

Originally Posted by Sir Isaac Newton

Can you cite some examples of when the courts forced a developer to build a privately owned plaza on their property that was similar in nature to the plaza from the prior private development on that property? (or forced them to keep the existing plaza on the land that they owned)

The city cannot force you to build anything, beyond zoning, unless you are in a landmark district, in which case they have some control over the design. They use FAR incentives and other negotiations that happen behind closed doors to get things like plazas into developments.

As far as maintaining plazas or open space, sure, there are plenty of them. If the City landmarks a building and includes the plaza, courtyard, even playground within the landmark designation, that land is not alterable without going through the city's process, and they have a right to deny it. So Nowhereman, actually, what you say is incorrect. Cook County taxes open space differently than built space, so it's perfectly fine to have people pay taxes on that land. And just like zoning, you are never guaranteed that you can build on every inch of your land. And zoning and permit rights do not exist into perpetuity.

One quick example that comes to mind is 860-880 Lake Shore Drive. There is no chance in hell the city would allow them to build on any inch of that open land. And they would not win in court if they tried.

Another example is every single building in a landmark district. Most of these are houses, which contain front yards. You cannot build in that front yard or in any other way alter the front of the property, and in some cases, on the side lots. What you do in the back, which does not impact the community or the public realm, is your own decision.

Now, since this property is a religious-owned building in Chicago, the city can do nothing as far as landmarking goes, and the points above are not valid. That is part of why there was no discussion whatsoever about landmarking this building.

One last comment, before everyone starts jumping all over how terrible this all is: The City tries to be very fair when it comes to these things. They in No Way abuse their power (rather, I think, use it too lightly). Typically, they would be more than glad to have a development in a vacant area, as they are tax-hungry, and money rules Chicago like nothing else. So, in the majority of cases, the land would get developed - witness the recent battle in Wicker Park that was "lost," where people were trying to save the playground on North Avenue. Landmarks sided with the developer and let them go ahead, and with a very modern design to boot. Still, supposing the existing building at Rush were landmarked, retaining the plaza would almost certainly be required - losing the plaza would destroy the building. Crown Hall would be a good example of this in effect today.

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by Blackbelt Jones

I took the time to respond to you amicably, I am disappointed I did not get the same in return.

yeah...

Originally Posted by Blackbelt Jones

are some of you aware how thick the snobbery gets in here at times?

haha, yeah...

but life is stressful, and a lack of patience is excusable sometime

you know, I really don't think the lakefront is that far away from this site, btw. Isn't that much better than the disputed space? I sure feel like it

[Blackbelt Jones]

Originally Posted by jstush04

you know, I really don't think the lakefront is that far away from this site, btw. Isn't that much better than the disputed space? I sure feel like it

No doubt... my wife and I walk to the lakefront all the time. We also hit Newberry (SP) Park, the park behind the Museum of Contemporary Art, and even that little corporate park near the Reader. In all reality, we have an embarssment of options. Chicago is just so wonderful in that way.

Regarding the Church's little open space... it has reached moutain out of molehill time for that subject I think. It's a neat little nook in the 'hood, and it's amazing to see how people gravitate to it. It adds a suprising amout of flavor to that block... but my two posts on the subject were really only meant to inject another perspective on the subject. Nothing more. As I said, if 680 ends up looking like it does in the rendering, I would much rather look at that then the Omni hotel.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Blackbelt Jones

No doubt... my wife and I walk to the lakefront all the time. We also hit Newberry (SP) Park, the park behind the Museum of Contemporary Art, and even that little corporate park near the Reader. In all reality, we have an embarssment of options. Chicago is just so wonderful in that way.

Regarding the Church's little open space... it has reached moutain out of molehill time for that subject I think. It's a neat little nook in the 'hood, and it's amazing to see how people gravitate to it. It adds a suprising amout of flavor to that block... but my two posts on the subject were really only meant to inject another perspective on the subject. Nothing more. As I said, if 680 ends up looking like it does in the rendering, I would much rather look at that then the Omni hotel.

I walk by that place about 4 days a week at different times for over four years now on both weekends at weekdays. It is always empty except for maybe one or two people and of that one of them if you walk through will hit you up for a cigarette or a dollar. It reminds of a 60's designed cement plaza that no one uses.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Blackbelt Jones

Serious question: are some of you aware how thick the snobbery gets in here at times?

Absolutely...

People making claim to something when they have no right to do so

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by pip

I walk by that place about 4 days a week at different times for over four years now on both weekends at weekdays. It is always empty except for maybe one or two people and of that one of them if you walk through will hit you up for a cigarette or a dollar. It reminds of a 60's designed cement plaza that no one uses.

That has been the majority of my experiences when walking past there. Perhaps I am just there when no one else is, but I go by the space often and at all times, and its very rare that I see a 'gravitation' of the public there. The building is going up, and I don't want to beat a dead horse any more, so this ends my discussion on the plaza.

Honte, the city can always negotiate public open space in PDs. For example, the park at Lake Shore East, the parks in Central Station, and density bonuses for arcades, water features, and private open space demand that they must be open to the public for the minimal time of 9am-5pm. Also, there is the Riverwalk ordinance passed in 1986, which requires the private space to open to the public within that minimum time frame and have a sign posted designating public hours.

[honte]

^ Yep, those are other tools they have.

[neverdone]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

No i've never seen it, but I know that what's currently at 680 N. Rush isn't fabulous. Nothing special at all.

I am not sure whether it's an unwillingness to understand and appreciate what is at this site or that you just altogether lack the capacity to do so, but either way it's pretty sad.

I have been lurking in this thread, I didn't understand what all the disagreement was about until I visited the site. I have no choice but to agree with Honte, and Blackbelt Jones, both the building and the plaza are definitely worth fighting for. I could argue that although the loss of the public space is huge, the loss of the building can be considered equally as bad. It is surprising and very startling that in a city with such a love of modernism, that people would be willing to let this one go

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by neverdone

I am not sure whether it's an unwillingness to understand and appreciate what is at this site or that you just altogether lack the capacity to do so, but either way it's pretty sad.

I have been lurking in this thread, I didn't understand what all the disagreement was about until I visited the site. I have no choice but to agree with Honte, and Blackbelt Jones, both the building and the plaza are definitely worth fighting for. I could argue that although the loss of the public space is huge, the loss of the building can be considered equally as bad. It is surprising and very startling that in a city with such a love of modernism, that people would be willing to let this one go

There's nothing to appreciate. It's a blank sterile plaza that's rarely used. You can agree with whomever you want and fight with all your might if you wish to do so. As I said what will be gained is much more attractive than what will be lost. This might be a city of modernism, but it is also a city which is always reinventing itself.

What's surprising is that people don't understand that it's not PUBLIC SPACE, and the church has the right to do with it as they see fit. The also need to understand that this is downtown and tall building will be built. I could understand it this was a neighborhood outside the city center, but it isn't.

Somethings are worth saving and some aren't, this truly isn't.

[MrLakepoint]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

There's nothing to appreciate. It's a blank sterile plaza that's rarely used. You can agree with whomever you want and fight with all your might if you wish to do so. As I said what will be gained is much more attractive than what will be lost. This might be a city of modernism, but it is also a city which is always reinventing itself.

What's surprising is that people don't understand that it's not PUBLIC SPACE, and the church has the right to do with it as they see fit. The also need to understand that this is downtown and tall building will be built. I could understand it this was a neighborhood outside the city center, but it isn't.

Somethings are worth saving and some aren't, this truly isn't.

^^^Finally, another "Pure" voice of reason. Ever since my last posting, I have been going out of my building and walking around the corner and looking to see if this site "has a dwelling from Chicagoan's (meeting place)", and guess what!. I have seen 4 people sitting there on their cell phone talking, other than that I havent seen a soul going there for any other reason. I guess that it just erks me to hear people say that we have a right to tell people who "OWN" the site, just eaxctly what they should do to it. What a joke!

[stylusx]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

There's nothing to appreciate. It's a blank sterile plaza that's rarely used. You can agree with whomever you want and fight with all your might if you wish to do so. As I said what will be gained is much more attractive than what will be lost. This might be a city of modernism, but it is also a city which is always reinventing itself.

What's surprising is that people don't understand that it's not PUBLIC SPACE that the church has the right to do with it as they see fit. They also need to understand that this is downtown and tall building will be built. I could understand it this was a neighborhood outside the city center, but it isn't.

Somethings are worth saving and some aren't, this truly isn't.

BVic...you've been around the block a few times...but I wonder if it is THIS block. You have posted thousands of times on this site and been posting for YEARS in this thread alone. And still you refuse to believe anyone that says this St. James space is more than just a buildable, er blank and sterile area.

I see people there constantly. In fact more people gather there in the winter than summer. It's shielded from the wind and close to Whole Foods. Shangri-La, and I don't mean the next hotel-condo. Also, even though you may really dislike Jesse Jackson, he puts on one heck-of-a rally there from time to time.

Anyone that says this space is unused is ....absent.

And harping on the 'private property' and private use aspect is preposterous. Related has jumped the zoning for this development to very high pop. density level. The neighborhood will trade a nice space for the need for hundreds more parking spaces that CR doesn't adequately provide...and traffic that the area can't handle. In short, St. James just can't do with their property what they will. There is a HUGE environmental cost to be paid by the rest of the area residents. And we lose that swell plaza...

[Dr. Taco]

that does it. I'm pointing a freaking streaming webcam at st. james place

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by stylusx

BVic...you've been around the block a few times...but I wonder if it is THIS block. You have posted thousands of times on this site and been posting for YEARS in this thread alone. And still you refuse to believe anyone that says this St. James space is more than just a buildable, er blank and sterile area.

I see people there constantly. In fact more people gather there in the winter than summer. It's shielded from the wind and close to Whole Foods. Shangri-La, and I don't mean the next hotel-condo. Also, even though you may really dislike Jesse Jackson, he puts on one heck-of-a rally there from time to time.

Anyone that says this space is unused is ....absent.

And harping on the 'private property' and private use aspect is preposterous. Related has jumped the zoning for this development to very high pop. density level. The neighborhood will trade a nice space for the need for hundreds more parking spaces that CR doesn't adequately provide...and traffic that the area can't handle. In short, St. James just can't do with their property what they will. There is a HUGE environmental cost to be paid by the rest of the area residents. And we lose that swell plaza...

Stylusx - again the NIMBYism in your argument seeps out into the open. Too dense of a development for MY neighborhood, more congestion for MY neighborhood, less parking availabilty for MY neighborhood, ruined views from MY condo, etc etc etc. Let me break it down for you - Related Midwest and St. James have every right to do with their property what they have gained full city entitlements for - in this case that would amount to a gorgeous 752' mixed-use tower which will be a great asset for the neighborhood - more of an asset than the seldom-used (I've been there hundreds of times and agree with the people who rarely see more than 1 or 2 people on the property........which by itself does not negate the plaza's value per se, yet it is one factor working against it) existing plaza and small building (again I like what is currently there, it is just what will replace it in 3 years will be even better). Again, why we are still talking about this is beyond me - the time to have these types of discussions is before they are fully approved by the Plan Commission, Zoning Committee and City Council, which this project is. There's no fighting over this one - it's a done deal, and the city has made the right decision by allowing this project to proceed - Canyon Ranch Living is going to happen. Related Midwest has the financial resources, target marketing program, financial, design, and other partners, execution track record, location and branding strategy to make this project's completion highly likely. This time next year, the plaza and building will be relegated to history books and foundation work will be well underway on what will likely be one of the best additions to the skyline during this building boom.

Please direct your bs NIMBYist activities in other directions!

[SamInTheLoop]

[QUOTE=stylusx;2909848]



Related has jumped the zoning for this development to very high pop. density level.

The neighborhood will trade a nice space for the need for hundreds more parking spaces that CR doesn't adequately provide...and traffic that the area can't handle.


And one more thing - not to beat up on you too much, but just because you particularly deserve it for the two positively idiotic statements above:

Downtown Chicago should have no new developments that are anything less than very high density. This should be readily apparent to even the most ignorant and degenerate among us with the crudest working knowledge of URBAN development, and related social, economic and environmental implications for not just the city and metro area, but the entire region...

Traffic that the area can't handle? What the hell are you talking about? Again, this is downtown Chicago - expect bumper-to-bumper gridlock on the streets of downtown. This is what a downtown area is like - clearly you are a recently transplanted suburbanite (or a misguided urban dweller with an exceedingly suburban mentality) It doesn't sound like downtown living is for you. If you don't like a high density environment and congestion and traffic and generally crowded conditions, do yourself and all your downtown neighbors, myself included, a favor and seek a more suitable way of life for yourself in the suburbs - or more appropriately for you - the exurbs!!

[pip]

Originally Posted by stylusx

BVic...you've been around the block a few times...but I wonder if it is THIS block. You have posted thousands of times on this site and been posting for YEARS in this thread alone. And still you refuse to believe anyone that says this St. James space is more than just a buildable, er blank and sterile area.

I see people there constantly. In fact more people gather there in the winter than summer. It's shielded from the wind and close to Whole Foods. Shangri-La, and I don't mean the next hotel-condo. Also, even though you may really dislike Jesse Jackson, he puts on one heck-of-a rally there from time to time.

Anyone that says this space is unused is ....absent.

And harping on the 'private property' and private use aspect is preposterous. Related has jumped the zoning for this development to very high pop. density level. The neighborhood will trade a nice space for the need for hundreds more parking spaces that CR doesn't adequately provide...and traffic that the area can't handle. In short, St. James just can't do with their property what they will. There is a HUGE environmental cost to be paid by the rest of the area residents. And we lose that swell plaza...

True to the bold. I often find myself reading the newspaper on a cold winter day in that outdoor sterile 60's plaze with at most on a warm summer day two people plaza enjoying an iced tea. Well the iced tea was a hot tea 5 minutes ago. Now why did I move to downtown?

[honte]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Again, why we are still talking about this is beyond me - the time to have these types of discussions is before they are fully approved by the Plan Commission, Zoning Committee and City Council, which this project is.

I think we all can agree with this sentiment.

[MrLakepoint]

I feel that this building will have a huge impact on the River North area. If this building is built it will have a similar effect that "Marina towers" has had on the sky line (like or dislike). I am very curious (looking at post #28) if they will have a pool on top of this building. It looks like more of a railing on top than just a topping out of the building. Does anyone else see that affect also?

[Mr Roboto]

I dont hang out in this part of downtown at all, so I wont even try to contribute to the discussion about the plaza. But I do know this building will be a refreshing change from a lot of other stuff there.

From a citywide perspective, this will be a great addition to the skyline. I would love to have it in any neighborhood. Anyways, I just hope they can sell enough condos to get it moving, what with this supposed slowdown and all.