CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS

[bnk]

City's TIF take drops 11 percent, maybe endangering office project
July 18, 2012 by Greg Hinz

Chicago's TIF honey pot has begun to run dry, potentially endangering promised support for a high-profile office tower across the river from the Merchandise Mart, according to Cook County Clerk David Orr.


...



2 p.m. update: The city says there is "no risk" it won't be able to provide the $29 million promised for the River Point project. The developers have agreed to front the entire cost of the building and to accept repayments that will come from additional taxes on the project in the future, says spokeswoman Kathleen Strand.


However, Ms. Strand did not immediately know whether the LaSalle TIF, which would get and process those payments, has any other claims from other projects on its future receipts. If so, that could complicate matters considerably.


Read more: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...#ixzz210YeMhuV

[Vlajos]

It's a bit odd to say that the TIFs ran dry. They collected $450Million in the City TIF districts in 2011.

[Via Chicago]

theres no reason the city should be throwing taxpayer money to finance a private office tower. either its economically viable or its not.

[ardecila]

The $30 million funds a public plaza which the developer doesn't need to build.

I have serious issues with the design of the plaza - its hard for the public to get to the plaza but easy for building tenants - but it will be essentially a public space.

[jarta]

So, essentially, the City promised to give money to build the public park on the platform which is relatively isolated from both Canal Street and the Riverwalk. But, the City turns up empty pockets.

So, Hines says we'll front the cost and, just like a loan being in place, will take repayment over time. Thank you Hines!

Still like the building itself. Price very high. Too much given away on access to the Riverwalk, access to the elevated Plaza and allowing the developer to build in the River (horrible precedent). But, there's open space for the building tenants and, occasionally, the public.

However, what idiot accounts for the TIF money and didn't know the well was dry back in May when the TIF "gift" was Emanuel-ized? Oh! I forgot. The TIF gift was approved in 2008 - but only recently used for the PR opportunity. Links to May 18 article and July 18 article:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader...s-for-the-rich

http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago...tegory=3691073

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jarta

allowing the developer to build in the River (horrible precedent).

the developer is not building in the river. some of the river is being reclaimed for the public riverwalk that is to be built as a part of this project.

and this would not be setting a "horrible precedent". parts of the river were reclaimed several years ago for the construction of the riverwalk from michigan to state.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ardecila

...
I have serious issues with the design of the plaza - its hard for the public to get to the plaza but easy for building tenants - but it will be essentially a public space.

I've noticed there are a number of riverfront plazas that are gated. What is the legal status of these? I thought they had to be public Specifically, the one for the Boeing building. Parts of the riverwalk in River North also have signs from the private buildings discouraging public access. Is that legal?

[jarta]

Originally Posted by emathias

I've noticed there are a number of riverfront plazas that are gated. What is the legal status of these? I thought they had to be public Specifically, the one for the Boeing building. Parts of the riverwalk in River North also have signs from the private buildings discouraging public access. Is that legal?

The Riverwalk has to be open during normal Chicago Park District hours. IIRR, that's 9am-9pm. Along with Boeing, nearby Kinzie Park and the EBC lock their gates most of the time. There are no gates to lock at Fulton House and RiverBend. I don't know if locking is legal. But it certainly is unenforced or permitted to occur if it's illegal. Re-privatizing the public Riverwalk seems to be some sort of a game.

What will happen concerning the "public space" at 444 W. Lake is anyone's guess. All Hines has to do is switch off the 2 outdoor elevators, lock the doors at the Tower, lock the gate to the Riverwalk at Lake and lock potential gates at the 3 stairways to the Plaza at Lake, Lake and Canal and near the Canal Street elevator. It is also unclear if Hines will go to the trouble of gating the Riverwalk at RiverBend.

Hines and Reilly haven't said much about the extent of public access to the Plaza and the Riverwalk. Most people assume it will be relatively broad access because no gates show on the renderings. Most people could be very wrong. It would be a shame if the stairways are blocked at all.

The night views from the Plaza into the canyon will be very, very pretty.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

the developer is not building in the river. some of the river is being reclaimed for the public riverwalk that is to be built as a part of this project.

and this would not be setting a "horrible precedent". parts of the river were reclaimed several years ago for the construction of the riverwalk from michigan to state.

Sure, the developer is building in the River. A small part of the Plaza and most of the Riverwalk at 444 W. Lake is to be built in the River.

The Riverwalk is supposed to be built in the set back zone. Developers are cannibalizing the River by pushing their developments to the very edges of their lots and then justifying it by saying they are "reclaiming" the River for the required public walkway.

It's just give away the Riverwalk area to the developer; make it up by building in the River. Any other description is sophistry.

Sort of like giving TIF money to 444 W. Lake because it's necessary to get the project built - even though Hines now says it isn't necessary to get the project built - but you still owe us the money.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jarta

The Riverwalk is supposed to be built in the set back zone.

the railroad tracks at this site make that impossible, hence the perfectly acceptable compromise to reclaim some river for the public riverwalk.

and as i said before, this would not set any kind of precedent, the precedent has already been set years before by reclaiming the river for public riverwalks.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by emathias

I've noticed there are a number of riverfront plazas that are gated. What is the legal status of these? I thought they had to be public Specifically, the one for the Boeing building. Parts of the riverwalk in River North also have signs from the private buildings discouraging public access. Is that legal?

I don't know, but again this seems like an issue to take up with Alderman Reilly. Clearly some landowners are vigilant about closing and re-opening the access points on a daily basis (600 W Chicago, etc). It definitely helps if there are businesses at river level.

IIRC there's no private access to the riverwalk at Boeing, so if the gates are locked nobody can get in - it sounds more like the building manager doesn't want to have to clean an isolated little greenspace, it's not as if the riverwalk is being reserved for private use. The riverwalk at Kinzie Park is lined with townhomes, so they obviously get exclusive use of the riverfront if/when the gates are locked (which rankles). East Bank Club just has a skinny-ass walkway, but Park Kingsbury has a generous river level that is usually open I think.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The riverwalk at Kinzie Park is lined with townhomes, so they obviously get exclusive use of the riverfront if/when the gates are locked (which rankles).

KP has 3 times as many condos as townhomes. The more correct statement would be that when the gates are locked all KP owners then have exclusive use. (But, even that is not accurate. The gates may be locked - with Reilly's approval, but the gatehouse staff is instructed to let the public in whenever asked to during daylight hours.)

10 years of on-site experience. The issue is mainly dog poop from non-KP owners who don't confine their dog walking to the Riverwalk area and don't clean up (even though KP provides free doggie bag stations on the Riverwalk), not exclusivity. The Riverwalk is just the 30 feet along the River, not the entire area of residential KP. More like your justification at Boeing.

Perceived threats to personal safety also concern a few KP owners. There had been a few isolated instances of break-ins when the neighborhood was a lot rougher than it is now.

It doesn't make controlled access popular. Controlling access rankles non-KP owners. It's just another case of re-privatization of the Riverwalk by an ownership that is forced to maintain it (and assume responsibility for keeping it safe) with no City presence to help out. Hopefully, that will change as the Riverwalk fills in and becomes a more cohesive and more accessible public amenity on the North Branch.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jarta

Hopefully, that will change as the Riverwalk fills in and becomes a more cohesive and more accessible public amenity on the North Branch.

Chicken and egg, my friend. There isn't any demand for going on the Riverwalk past KP because north of Grand is the wasteful and ugly truck marshaling yard with PMD protection (they're really creating a lot of jobs there )

Again, hopefully Reilly will get some money to connect some of these segments.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by jarta

The Riverwalk has to be open during normal Chicago Park District hours. IIRR, that's 9am-9pm. Along with Boeing, nearby Kinzie Park and the EBC lock their gates most of the time. There are no gates to lock at Fulton House and RiverBend. I don't know if locking is legal. But it certainly is unenforced or permitted to occur if it's illegal. Re-privatizing the public Riverwalk seems to be some sort of a game.

What will happen concerning the "public space" at 444 W. Lake is anyone's guess. All Hines has to do is switch off the 2 outdoor elevators, lock the doors at the Tower, lock the gate to the Riverwalk at Lake and lock potential gates at the 3 stairways to the Plaza at Lake, Lake and Canal and near the Canal Street elevator. It is also unclear if Hines will go to the trouble of gating the Riverwalk at RiverBend.

Hines and Reilly haven't said much about the extent of public access to the Plaza and the Riverwalk. Most people assume it will be relatively broad access because no gates show on the renderings. Most people could be very wrong. It would be a shame if the stairways are blocked at all.

The night views from the Plaza into the canyon will be very, very pretty.

Kinzie Park will let you into the Riverwalk if you ask. 600 West Chicago has an internal elevator you must use, though it runs well beyond park district hours.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Kinzie Park will let you into the Riverwalk if you ask. 600 West Chicago has an internal elevator you must use, though it runs well beyond park district hours.

I also posted this about KP:

"The gates may be locked - with Reilly's approval, but the gatehouse staff is instructed to let the public in whenever asked to during daylight hours."

[Rizzo]

Ok, well I was just telling it from personal experience. Sorry to be redundant.

[StormFire]

Hines Senior Vice President Greg Van Schaack said work will start by yearend, give or take a few weeks. “We’re waiting for permits and things. We’ll be selecting a general contractor next week,” he said.

Per
http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...lakecanal.html

[Busy Bee]

[Steely Dan]

^ so are you implying that this building will be strong enough for a man, but pH balanced for a woman?

[Rizzo]

Ah great, just when I thought it looked like a McDonald's pie container