CHICAGO | River Point | 730 FT | 52 FLOORS

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by WestLoopResident

as I have stated repeatedly, the area north of Lake Street has been designated for residential development, not offices. If you read the whole plan you will see that the West Loop that is intended for office expansion is between JACKSON AND LAKE, NOT NORTH OF LAKE!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

You did look at the zoning map when you moved into the neighborhood right? And you saw this site has been zoned DC-16 for very high density office (not even mixed-use...commercial use only) for a long time... right? That a high-FAR office building would be built here was a foregone conclusion and very intentionally planned by the city as part of the downtown core.

please go away.

[WestLoopResident]

That's right Schwerve, truth hurts. Next time you quote from the plan maybe you should take the time to read it!

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by WestLoopResident

That's right Schwerve, truth hurts. Next time you quote from the plan maybe you should take the time to read it!

yeah quoting a general statement sentence from a conceptual planning document which has barely been touched since it was written is so much more truthful than the actual historical zoning, keep holding that factual high ground.

[WestLoopResident]

Yeah, that's the kind of funny thing about plans that are passed by the City Council. People actually think it might mean something.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by WestLoopResident

In support of my position I thought I would take the time to post the District Recommendations from the City of Chicago's Planning Department for the Central Area Plan.

"The office core will expand into the West Loop between Lake Street and Jackson Boulevard. The West Loop will accommodate more than 30% of the anticipated growth in the Central Area’s office market. To provide expansion room for the growing office core, the West Loop will be up-zoned to permit highdensity office buildings comparable to those in the Central Loop. The West Loop will clearly be a business district, but the mix of uses will shape its character. While high-density office development will be the focus of new construction, the district’s residents and visitors will continue to add to its vitality. Well over 6,000 people currently live in and near the Loop between State Street and the Kennedy Expressway, with most living west of the Chicago River in areas such as the Fulton River District and the Jackson Loft District. Mixed-use buildings that combine residential, hotel or other uses with offices will be added. The residential neighborhoods immediately north and south of the West Loop office district will reinforce the vitality that this diversity of uses brings to the Central Area." ...

Well, instead of harassing us, why not spend the effort lobbying for the West Loop Transportation
Center (WLTC) mentioned in the next section that would benefit not just you, but the whole region?

[dagobert]

I hope that wrabbit doesn't mind me posting his picture, but this really goes to show how insanely residential the area is...
... in fact I think I see a driveway on the rightside of the picture and in the drive way we can see a few SUVs & a minivans. Ahhhh, an attack on the suburbs, my driveway will be eaten up to make way for an office highrise. Where will I park my Chevy Suburban now????

[Taft]

Originally Posted by WestLoopResident

That's right Schwerve, truth hurts. Next time you quote from the plan maybe you should take the time to read it!

Nowhere in the plan, or in the text you quoted, is there any indication that the area south of Jackson or North of Lake would be exclusively residential. While the preponderance of buildings there will likely be residential, the plan does not preclude office buildings and that fact is reflected in the zoning for this and other sites. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a fair amount of office space north of Lake already (see the corner of Fulton and Jefferson).

Given this sites prominence on the river and its proximity to other large office buildings (the CBD, Merch Mart, Boeing Building, etc.) I find the zoning very appropriate. I would be interested, however, in knowing the zoning history. My guess is that the DC-16 zoning for high density office was a very old decision or that it was an upgrade from a lower density office zoning. Anyone have access to that history so we can put this silly argument to bed?

Taft

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by WestLoopResident

And, once again I will state that I am not worried about my view so quit trying to use that against my position. Again, if this development was residential rental or condo I would be in favor of it. Got it!

That's good. Short of another Trump Tower (which could be decades away), I still don't see a residential path towards developing this site with both (1) drastically improved public amenities such as the riverfront park, continued riverwalk, decking over the Metra tracks, and (2) high-quality architecture and construction. If this were restricted to residential, I'd expect a large crap-pile with zero public amenities, or perhaps an even larger TIF contribution to provide any such amenities. I can certainly see merit in wanting more residential to enhance night/weekend vibrancy, but part of acheiving overall 24/7 vibrancy is increased intensity of all types of land uses, including office (which just so happens to contribute way more property tax revenue - not a nefarious consideration by any means, if you have an opportunity for drastically increasing tax revenues there'd be better be a very compelling reason for denying it). Your neighborhood is already in the process of getting ~2,000 new residential units from the K-Station development, along with the new Jewel there. Perhaps now it's time for some more office? Further, if any new office space is to be added to your neighborhood (work with me here for a second), wouldn't this proposed site be the absolute best place for it?

[the urban politician]

Why are we still arguing whether this building should be built?

It's over now, the zoning is there. At this point I"m just waiting to see if financing takes place.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Taft

Nowhere in the plan, or in the text you quoted, is there any indication that the area south of Jackson or North of Lake would be exclusively residential. While the preponderance of buildings there will likely be residential, the plan does not preclude office buildings and that fact is reflected in the zoning for this and other sites. As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a fair amount of office space north of Lake already (see the corner of Fulton and Jefferson).

Given this sites prominence on the river and its proximity to other large office buildings (the CBD, Merch Mart, Boeing Building, etc.) I find the zoning very appropriate. I would be interested, however, in knowing the zoning history. My guess is that the DC-16 zoning for high density office was a very old decision or that it was an upgrade from a lower density office zoning. Anyone have access to that history so we can put this silly argument to bed?

Taft

The DC class of zoning is a new creation from the 2004 zoning code re-write. The purpose of D districts was to give downtown its special type of zoning, which is not found elsewhere city, and that includes your neighborhood WLR. The D districts though were overlayed onto existing zoning classes which were allowing the same types of density, uses and height. This site in particular, I believe was zoned B6-7 before 2004, which was intended for downtown office buildings. Furthermore, in many respects the new zoning code is more restrictive than previous code, particularly with lowered PD thresholds (a certain unit count, height or size triggering the requirement for the PD process).

Long story short, even before the new zoning code rewrite, this site was intended to be office. The Residences at Riverbend PD was approved to include two towers, with the second one being an office building. Since the second tower never came as the original PD intended, a new PD was created for the south end of the site, with this new design.


Furthermore, WLR, according to your post, you would have no problem with this tower if it was built across the street (south of Lake Street). Really? Are you really making a huge fuss over 100 feet of distance? Would you not oppose this tower if it was built right in front of the old Butler Brothers Warehouses?

[Taft]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

The DC class of zoning is a new creation from the 2004 zoning code re-write. The purpose of D districts was to give downtown its special type of zoning, which is not found elsewhere city, and that includes your neighborhood WLR. The D districts though were overlayed onto existing zoning classes which were allowing the same types of density, uses and height. This site in particular, I believe was zoned B6-7 before 2004, which was intended for downtown office buildings. Furthermore, in many respects the new zoning code is more restrictive than previous code, particularly with lowered PD thresholds (a certain unit count, height or size triggering the requirement for the PD process).

Long story short, even before the new zoning code rewrite, this site was intended to be office. The Residences at Riverbend PD was approved to include two towers, with the second one being an office building. Since the second tower never came as the original PD intended, a new PD was created for the south end of the site, with this new design.

Excellent info! Thanks a lot. So we have established that this lot was zoned for high-density office before the rezoning of 2004.

Further, I did some research into what the Central Area Plan actually lays out and this parcel falls into the "expanded loop" as defined by the plan. Take a look:



This is a screen capture taken from the CAP document (find the full document here) The image on the left shows the "current loop" in red and the image on the right is the expanded loop under the CAP. The expanded loop is clearly designated as "high-density mixed use." Note that the site of 444 W Lake clearly falls within the expanded loop as defined by the CAP.

Further, the CAP also lays out the following principles (emphasis mine):

•Strengthen the Loop as a single, dense, walkable office core that is
well-served by transit
•Emphasize office, hotels & related commercial uses in the West Loop
and the Central Loop
•De-emphasize residential development in the Central Loop and the
West Loop
•Promote mixed-use, cultural use and innovative adaptive reuse in the East Loop
•Promote historic preservation throughout the Loop
•Develop active retail and commercial services at the street level
•Emphasize the pedestrian environmentExpansion of the high-density office core west of the river offers many advantages:

To sum up:

• This site has been zoned as high density office for a long time (pre-dating plans for this specific building).
• This site clearly falls in the expanded loop as defined by the CAP.
• The CAP also clearly tries to emphasize commercial high-density buildings in the west and central portions of the loop.
• Therefore a high-density commercial building at 444 W Lake is inline with the goals of the CAP.

Man, I spent WAY too much time on this. However, this should put to rest any griping about "not following plans."

Taft

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Taft

Excellent info! Thanks a lot. So we have established that this lot was zoned for high-density office before the rezoning of 2004.

There was never any doubt. . . doesn't anyone remember the SOM Levy/RiverBend proposal? Four towers and a river-front promenade. . .

. . .

[X-fib2]

Interesting. Since Wolf Point is virtually across the river from River Pointe does this mean that the proposed supertall, assumed to be a residential or multi-use development, is doomed by zoning irregardless of the state of the market?

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Taft

Excellent info! Thanks a lot. So we have established that this lot was zoned for high-density office before the rezoning of 2004.

Further, I did some research into what the Central Area Plan actually lays out and this parcel falls into the "expanded loop" as defined by the plan. Take a look:



This is a screen capture taken from the CAP document (find the full document here) The image on the left shows the "current loop" in red and the image on the right is the expanded loop under the CAP. The expanded loop is clearly designated as "high-density mixed use." Note that the site of 444 W Lake clearly falls within the expanded loop as defined by the CAP.

Further, the CAP also lays out the following principles (emphasis mine):


To sum up:

• This site has been zoned as high density office for a long time (pre-dating plans for this specific building).
• This site clearly falls in the expanded loop as defined by the CAP.
• The CAP also clearly tries to emphasize commercial high-density buildings in the west and central portions of the loop.
• Therefore a high-density commercial building at 444 W Lake is inline with the goals of the CAP.

Man, I spent WAY too much time on this. However, this should put to rest any griping about "not following plans."

Taft

I wonder if in 20-40 years we may be speaking of an expanded, expanded loop. Is there a point in the future that the designation of the loop as THE cbd becomes anachronistic? 300 Lasalle, 353 clark, possible office component on wold point, some other commercial uses north of the river.

Is there a point where we stopping thinking strictly of the loop and more of an expanded downtown say extending from north avenue south (for example)?

[Chicago Shawn]

^That would be the definition of the Central Area, which stretches to North Avenue, Halsted and the Stevenson Expressway. This is the area defined as downtown by the City. The Loop is just the core office market, the central business district. As we all know, downtown Chicago has grown to be much more than that; and has a different environment than many other US cities which have an office core downtown and not much else. You can see a rough outline of the central area on that map, shown as a gray line. Although, that map only shows the boundary as far north as Division. In reality, the central area does go all the way up to North and Halsted.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I wonder if in 20-40 years we may be speaking of an expanded, expanded loop. Is there a point in the future that the designation of the loop as THE cbd becomes anachronistic? 300 Lasalle, 353 clark, possible office component on wold point, some other commercial uses north of the river.

Is there a point where we stopping thinking strictly of the loop and more of an expanded downtown say extending from north avenue south (for example)?

First, we should be so lucky since that would require very strong economic growth to attain.

Second, I actually would hope that the central area would be filled out and that instead of expanding the office core in the Loop, we might bolster transit to/from a couple other areas and have "satellite cores." Maybe one near 63rd, either by Hyde Park or a little west by the Dan Ryan, one in Ford City by Midway, and one near Jefferson Park. Tying those together with transit would motivate the build-out of several long-talked about, never started transportation projects benefiting the whole city, as well as providing alternative sites to companies that would like to be in the city, but not the Loop (for whatever reason).

I think doing that would greatly enhance the city as the core of the region and if done right would compete more with places like Downers Grove and Schaumburg than with the Loop.

[budman]

I have lived a block away from this site for 10 years and I was ecstatic when this project was announced. If you bought here expecting this area to become solely residential you are an idiot. This is not a historically residential area (at least in the last 50-75 years). Living in a mixed use, vibrant, urban environment is exciting and stimulating. I purposely avoided the West Loop because I did not want to live in a residential wasteland. Much of the Fulton River District does not fall within the confines of the West Loop anyway. The West Loop really ends at Lake Street (which, by the way, is industrial).

[budman]

Originally Posted by WestLoopResident

Thank God that this ill-conceived development will most likely fall apart. As those of us that live in the "neighborhood" have thought for so long, putting a 50-story office tower smack dab in the middle of a budding residential community is a mistake of epic proportions. It's not that we are anti-development, rather we think it makes more sense to build residential/retail on this site instead of another glass office tower that does nothing to enhance the area. In the day time it adds to traffic congestion (as some of you have already noted) while at night the streets remain vacant as all the occupants head back to suburbia.

Given the state of financial markets there is no way this gets done in the next year. And that means that the pre-leased tenants will have to make other arrangements given their need to vacate existing premises. I know I will take a lot of grief on these thoughts but anyone that has even a smidgen of urban planning sense should know that this was a bad idea from the start.

^I just saw this. I am guessing I live closer to this development than you do, and that I have lived in the area longer than you have. Your comment does not reflect my feelings nor those of any of my many friends in the area.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by X-fib2

Interesting. Since Wolf Point is virtually across the river from River Pointe does this mean that the proposed supertall, assumed to be a residential or multi-use development, is doomed by zoning irregardless of the state of the market?

I wouldn't make that assumption. The Central Area Plan is really more of a set of guidelines than a strict code or plan. It uses words like "emphasize" and "de-emphasize" to guide aldermen and planners to make good zoning decisions and influence development plans where possible. However exceptions to the "rules" laid out in the CAP are frequent. Though wolf point lays on the west-central side of the loop where development is supposed to be more commercial than residential, the CAP certainly doesn't preclude a residential building from being built. For instance, an apartment tower is currently going up on the corner of Wells and Lake and a building at Wacker and Jackson (or is it Van B?) is being repurposed for residential.

The CAP, I think, allows for and encourages some degree of variety (hence, it calls for "high-density mixed-use" development in the loop area). From an urban planning perspective, I think the CAP encourages the right things.

We should probably get back on topic before incurring Steely's wrath...

Taft

[the urban politician]

This was posted at SSC:

Originally Posted by Broderick Teaming Co

Hey guys. I just spoke to Case Foundation. They are going to be doing a few sections of the foundation here, and from what he told me is that they have a meeting with Amtrak, and that they are starting with a bunch of C Can casings in March, and that the actual cassion work will be done in May. Again, this is just what they are projecting. Will update if I hear anymore news.