CHICAGO | General Developments

[stevevance]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^(^) Re Chinatown hotel: Retroactive building permit? It's been 5 stories and topped-out for a while now, no?

Reminds me of The Scott Residences apartment project in Old Town. A couple years back, they (well, this isn't a building permit, but zoning entitlement to build) got Plan Commission, Zoning Committee and Council approval to build what was already well under construction (had a good deal of steel up at that point).........'administrative' errors??

Since I started meticulously watching the pricier building permits I've encountered several that seemed like they were retroactive. If it wasn't so cold I would go out there and visit more of the sites. How cool would it be to have "drone on demand" or "street view on demand"?

[the urban politician]

^ I've thought about that as well. I believe that some day such a thing will be available. Some sort of collaboration between Amazon and Google, perhaps?

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I've thought about that as well. I believe that some day such a thing will be available. Some sort of collaboration between Amazon and Google, perhaps?

collaboration between Amazon ,Google, and FBI/NSA you mean!

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

collaboration between Amazon ,Google, and FBI/NSA you mean!

Amazon can even sell and same day drone deliver the tin foil for your headgear.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Nice. But at the same time, do you really think some branch of the national intelligene apparatus wouldn't utilize drone technology within the country's boundaries (for purposes other than package delivery)?

I digress.....

[Chicago Shawn]

Crain's Reporting that the Wicker Park KMart will close and be replaced by a Lowe's. I suppose this means that strip mall will continue to exist for a long time. The store footprint will be expanded into the parking lot apparently.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^(^) Re Chinatown hotel: Retroactive building permit? It's been 5 stories and topped-out for a while now, no?

Reminds me of The Scott Residences apartment project in Old Town. A couple years back, they (well, this isn't a building permit, but zoning entitlement to build) got Plan Commission, Zoning Committee and Council approval to build what was already well under construction (had a good deal of steel up at that point).........'administrative' errors??

When I went by that Hotel about a month ago (maybe longer), it was topped out. The only exterior work that needed to be done was basically putting in windows to every floor. This thing has been really slow in construction.

[Stunnies23]

Carmichael's in the West Loop on Monroe street is closing down March 20th. An apartment development that was being put together by Michigan Ave Development had its zoning changed by Ald. Solis because they wanted to put up two, 4 story apartment buildings. Now the developer must go thru the community process to build anything.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...ng-this-spring

[pip]

The Dominicks that burned at 3012(?) N. Broadway in Lakeview is completely fenced off now and the rendering on the property of what is going up is new.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Stunnies23

Carmichael's in the West Loop on Monroe street is closing down March 20th. An apartment development that was being put together by Michigan Ave Development had its zoning changed by Ald. Solis because they wanted to put up two, 4 story apartment buildings. Now the developer must go thru the community process to build anything.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...ng-this-spring

How is down-zoning on an owner without compensation legal again? I really don't understand. I understand why it's done, but it effectively changes the value of land - why doesn't the city have to pay an owner based on that the same way it'd have to pay if it annexed a sliver of the land?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ This situation is preposterous. I believe - others more familiar with the legalities here can confirm or correct me here - that if the developer here were to take the city to court over this, they would need to show that they've already incurred significant expense to develop their project under the previous zoning....

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by pip

The Dominicks that burned at 3012(?) N. Broadway in Lakeview is completely fenced off now and the rendering on the property of what is going up is new.

Where is the rendering?

[Stunnies23]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ This situation is preposterous. I believe - others more familiar with the legalities here can confirm or correct me here - that if the developer here were to take the city to court over this, they would need to show that they've already incurred significant expense to develop their project under the previous zoning....

I'm assuming they would argue that they paid a market value price for the property under the old zoning. Now that the zoning has changed, their market value on the property has gone down significantly. Simply paying the market value price of the land would be a significant expense.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by emathias

How is down-zoning on an owner without compensation legal again?

Were it not, obviously no property could ever be downzoned anywhere, because all owners would claim they had plans for a 32-story luxury apartment building there.

To claim a total taking in an "inverse condemnation" suit, the owner must show that the affected property has no economic value after the new regulation went into effect—a pretty high hurdle. To claim a partial taking, as SamInTheLoop notes, the owner must show that his reasonable investment backed expectations have been quashed. That's also a bit of a hurdle for a project that wasn't even advertised yet, much less construction begun. X|O is a better example, where an inverse condemnation lawsuit might have had some likelihood of success.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Where is the rendering?

I meant the rendering was on the fenced off property. But here it is:

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Were it not, obviously no property could ever be downzoned anywhere, because all owners would claim they had plans for a 32-story luxury apartment building there.

To claim a total taking in an "inverse condemnation" suit, the owner must show that the affected property has no economic value after the new regulation went into effect—a pretty high hurdle. To claim a partial taking, as SamInTheLoop notes, the owner must show that his reasonable investment backed expectations have been quashed. That's also a bit of a hurdle for a project that wasn't even advertised yet, much less construction begun. X|O is a better example, where an inverse condemnation lawsuit might have had some likelihood of success.

Let me preface this by saying that, as a NIMBY, I feel that pre-emptive downzoning is a despicable act and the lowest form of NIMBYism.

But X/O is not really a good example for three reasons.
First, it is actually a failed PD that is supposed to revert to the DX-5 zoning.
Second, the zoning change to DR-5 hasn't happened yet.
Third, and most important, the request for a zoning change came not from city hall, but from the property's new owner.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pip

I meant the rendering was on the fenced off property. But here it is:

^ This is one of those "damn that thing is ugly but it serves a purpose and is better than a parking lot or strip mall" kind of developments.

Really it's only redeeming quality is that it physically creates a lot of street enclosure, which I always think is valuable in the urban environment.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

But X/O is not really a good example for three reasons.

I was referring to Ald. Fioretti's clumsy 2007 attempt to revoke the PD—not the current situation.

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ This is one of those "damn that thing is ugly but it serves a purpose and is better than a parking lot or strip mall" kind of developments.

Really it's only redeeming quality is that it physically creates a lot of street enclosure, which I always think is valuable in the urban environment.

I think the sense of scale is still off for that stretch of Broadway, but it's miles better than one of the previous iterations when there were two floors of blank, windowless wall covering the parking above the Marianos, and the vertical element at least attempts to break it into two facades

[jc5680]

Wells/Huron: