CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction - Page 367

Hayward · #**7321** Posted: **Mar 31, 2012, 3:58 AM**

It's absolutely absurd and unreasonable. It should just be assumed that any future development at Halsted on toward the lake will have considerable height.

It's not like anyone can argue view obstruction.
And it's not like anyone can argue the demolition of a historic building when there is none.

A parking lot that is there is destroying neighborhood character
A sizable building would redeem it.

I'll be real upset if these NIMBYs have any impact on this project. Back when I lived in Ann Arbor at least some justice was served when small midrise projects that were derailed by NIMBYS were ....seeemingly accidentally.....converted to dump sites and graffiti playgrounds. Take that property values!!

the urban politician · #**7322** Posted: **Mar 31, 2012, 12:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

It's absolutely absurd and unreasonable. It should just be assumed that any future development at Halsted on toward the lake will have considerable height.

It's not like anyone can argue view obstruction.
And it's not like anyone can argue the demolition of a historic building when there is none.

A parking lot that is there is destroying neighborhood character
A sizable building would redeem it.

I'll be real upset if these NIMBYs have any impact on this project. Back when I lived in Ann Arbor at least some justice was served when small midrise projects that were derailed by NIMBYS were ....seeemingly accidentally.....converted to dump sites and graffiti playgrounds. Take that property values!!

^ To some degree, NIMBYism is exactly why Chicago needs to be somewhat corrupt. Backroom deals are necessary for this very reason--the public is too fickle and selfish to allow things that benefit the greater good of the city to go forward.

Glad to see that the Alderman recognized the stupidity around him and is moving this thing forward. I especially applaud Cappleman because he recognized that this development would be much better for the community than a god-awful big box shopping center. I imagine there won't be any trouble landing financing for this project. Rental demand in this location has got to be quite high.

Buckman821 · #**7323** Posted: **Mar 31, 2012, 2:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Looking at the elevations just makes it clear how absurd this opposition really is. This site is surrounded by buildings taller than the proposed one.

Seriously. At this point is the density even considerably different from the vintage courtyard across the street to the south or the vintage flatiron-esque building to the east?

I might have to rejoin their facebook page and gloat. I have no respect or sympathy for these people. Sometimes people just need something to be angry about to occupy their dreary lives, which is why this opposition always seems so much worse in the gold/coast/lincoln park/east lakeview. Simply too many people with nothing better to worry about and who have false impressions of self-importance.

Kippis · #**7324** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 1:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

It looks like Ald. Cappleman is doing the right thing and putting his support behind 3750 N. Halsted despite foolhardy and myopic community opposition.

I am still a member of their Facebook page, and the overwhelming consensus actually seems to support a big box retail component over what is currently proposed. All these folks care about are their damn air rights over the greater future health of the neighborhood. I haven't really taken time to gloat on their page, but Ald. Cappelman seems to be doing a fairly good job of that as it is.

Interestingly enough, they have read -- and taken offense to -- our replies concerning their dilemma on this forum, but I'm going to say it anyway: Morons.

ChiPhi · #**7325** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 3:45 PM**

I feel as though some one should post the elevations here. These are from Ald. Cappellman's site, there are some floor plans there as well. I hope this gets built, its actually quite nice and would add a lot to this neighborhood. These NIMBYs need to learn that buildings like this only help their property value while no one is going to want to look out at a Jewel Osco, Target or parking lot. Save for the few people who will lose a view westward (toward the plains, I guess) I can't really see why anyone, even for self interest, would be against this.

If they keep that staggered glass, this building may end up looking like a relatively good knock off of Jean Nouvel's building in Chelsea.

the image is from a site called World Architecture News.

emathias · #**7326** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 3:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ To some degree, NIMBYism is exactly why Chicago needs to be somewhat corrupt. Backroom deals are necessary for this very reason--the public is too fickle and selfish to allow things that benefit the greater good of the city to go forward.
...

I think it'd be an easy case to make that NIMBYism is already a corruption and that backroom deals to get around it would be (are?) a fire-with-fire reaction.

ardecila · #**7327** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 6:50 PM**

I'm not a huge fan of the podium. I don't see why the building has to be segmented with a super-glassy tower and a boring brick base. The light, airy, De Stijl thing should continue all the way to ground.

ChiPhi · #**7328** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm not a huge fan of the podium. I don't see why the building has to be segmented with a super-glassy tower and a boring brick base. The light, airy, De Stijl thing should continue all the way to ground.

Couldn't agree with you more. One of the thing that really bothers me about 435 N park is that the podium doesn't even house any parking (it is all underground) yet they still made it look like it did with dark, oppressive precast. Maybe builders see it on other buildings and hope to be contextual...

lawfin · #**7329** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 7:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kippis

I am still a member of their Facebook page, and the overwhelming consensus actually seems to support a big box retail component over what is currently proposed. All these folks care about are their damn air rights over the greater future health of the neighborhood. I haven't really taken time to gloat on their page, but Ald. Cappelman seems to be doing a fairly good job of that as it is.

Interestingly enough, they have read -- and taken offense to -- our replies concerning their dilemma on this forum, but I'm going to say it anyway: Morons.

Yeah I was engaged with an ongoing argument in favor of the building with several members when this was brought forward back in december....some of the more odious members if recall Amy something, then there was the guy who called me a fascist , then there was the guy who got upset with me when I pointed out that he had the zoning issues backwards, and then there was the guy who simply denied that the area had any buidlings remotely close to this height, and the guy who denied or who didn't seem to care that this site is something like 1/4 -1/3 mile to 2 L stops, oh and of course the shadow /reflection guy...ie the lights from wrigley will cause harsh reflections and harsh shadows emanating from this building

lawfin · #**7330** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 7:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kippis

I am still a member of their Facebook page, and the overwhelming consensus actually seems to support a big box retail component over what is currently proposed. All these folks care about are their damn air rights over the greater future health of the neighborhood. I haven't really taken time to gloat on their page, but Ald. Cappelman seems to be doing a fairly good job of that as it is.

Interestingly enough, they have read -- and taken offense to -- our replies concerning their dilemma on this forum, but I'm going to say it anyway: Morons.

Yeah I was engaged with an ongoing argument in favor of the building with several members when this was brought forward back in december....some of the more odious members if recall Amy something, then there was the guy who called me a fascist , then there was the guy who got upset with me when I pointed out that he had the zoning issues backwards, and then there was the guy who simply denied that the area had any buidlings remotely close to this height, and the guy who denied or who didn't seem to care that this site is something like 1/4 -1/3 mile to 2 L stops, oh and of course the shadow /reflection guy...ie the lights from wrigley will cause harsh reflections and harsh shadows emanating from this building

ardecila · #**7331** Posted: **Apr 1, 2012, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawfin

then there was the guy who simply denied that the area had any buidlings remotely close to this height

It didn't help that the plan kept changing. At one point, it was a 32-story slender tower, which would have preserved most of the views but it would indeed have been taller than anything else nearby.

jcchii · #**7332** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 1:04 AM**

I'm hoping AMLI is so ugly it unwittingly slips toward brutalism

thanks for updates

ChiPhi · #**7333** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 3:29 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcchii

I'm hoping AMLI is so ugly it unwittingly slips toward brutalism

thanks for updates

Is 3750 N. Halstead by AMLI, if so, this would be their best building yet. Or was that just a non sequitor.

ardecila · #**7334** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 4:17 AM**

No, the Halsted project is JDL. AMLI (the River North one) is pictured on the previous page.

untitledreality · #**7335** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 6:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

Never fear, the NIMBYs have obtained a copy.

(PDF) http://www.halstedneighbors.org/wp-c...er_Proof_3.pdf

Looking at the elevations just makes it clear how absurd this opposition really is. This site is surrounded by buildings taller than the proposed one.

I am a huge fan of Hakeem Durojaiye getting his 15 seconds of local infamy bitching about a mixed use mid rise project when he is a board member of 810 W. Grace, which is MASSIVE (and a piece of shit) in comparison. In addition, I saw something recently where a owner in 828 W Grace (the Sedgewick building) was also complaining about this project being 'too much' for the neighborhood. What a bunch of fucking hypocrites and urban wannabes.

How can any city dweller who lives in a thriving neighborhood say with a straight face that they support a big box retailer over additional residents? You think 200 apartments are going to drag in endless traffic? WTF do you think a Marianos or whatever else would do? You'd rather live across the street from a blank concrete wall than 300 new neighbors? How can they make the bullshit 'this will hurt property values' argument, then turn around and be pro big box? Since when has owning residential property that is big bix adjacent EVER pumped up property valuations?

God these people are a special kind of stupid. If only they would take a lesson from EVA and fight for better design, decreased dependency on parking and filling a void in the marketplace... maybe then they could even have a reasonable discussion with the developers instead of throwing temper tantrums like my five year old niece... maybe then something positive could come from this where both sides feel good about the resolution (ala EVA)

Nowhereman1280 · #**7336** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 1:43 PM**

^^^ What it comes down to is A. general ignorance of urban issues and B. a reckless obsession with views.

These people are 90% living in the abomination known as 828 W Grace whose views stand to be heavily obscured by this new building. The end result is less than optimal because of their bitching and will result in widespread view disruption instead of blocking just a thin sliver of views as the 30 floor version would have. Serves the morons right.

In any case, I hope Cappleman's commendable approach to this situation will attract more development to his ward as this signals that he is ready to work with developers to bring quality development to appropriate sites. Hopefully we will see one or two more towers of this type go under construction in this ward in the coming years. Basically any site in Lincoln Park and Lakeview that is within 4 blocks of the EL and on a commercial street should be fair game for the construction of 5+ story buildings. This should be a major boost to density in the area.

Steely Dan · #**7337** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 3:03 PM**

I love the smell of a NIMBY-loss in the morning!

freaking idiots protesting for the sake of protesting. instead of a slender 30 story tower only partially obscuring their views, now they get the short and squat "view-destructor" that these NIMBY ass-hats so rightfully deserve.

it's always fun when ignorant people lose, but it's even better when their very own monumental ignorance makes their loss that much worse for themselves.

Nowhereman1280 · #**7338** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 3:08 PM**

^^^ Plus the final design is quite a bit better from an urban design perspective so we also kinda get a win out of it as well. The shifted massing (while not the best possible) does a lot to allay our concerns over whether this building would crowd the side streets with a big wall, the driveways onto the side streets/curb cuts, and the nasty podium effect. At the same time the final massing also hems 828 Grace in to teach the morons a lesson for advocating poor urban design in an attempt to save their views.

ChiPhi · #**7339** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila

No, the Halsted project is JDL. AMLI (the River North one) is pictured on the previous page.

Thanks, that's what I though. I was just confused...

Also, I have no major qualms with AMLI River North. Though I find the inept approach to historicism offensive (though I don't hate every attempt at historicism), I know that there are a lot of people (not on this forum) who will disagree with me on that. I spoke to someone the other day who called St. Claire Optima "boring and lifeless" and AMLI "interesting and pretty." Who am I to tell him that he is wrong? Just because I read Architectural Review and Domus does not make me an architectural Gatekeeper (nor are those magazines gatekeepers). As far as assumed principles of urban design go, I think the AMLI does relatively well. It has a nice open first floor with windows and such. It doens't have that awful suburban style setback that both AMLI 900 and the other planned sloop building do. It avoids the parking podium that we all malign so greatly (I believe this is a bit of an unfair point to give to the AMLI b/c they will use the horrific self park next door - anyone?). But overall, ignoring taste, for which there is no accounting, I can't say that I hate it. Besides, as a few people on this thread have started saying, "tis better to have an ugly skyscraper built than never to have had one built at all..."

jcchii · #**7340** Posted: **Apr 2, 2012, 7:15 PM**

^ yeah I was commenting on the prior page. Seemed close enough to just weigh in on it, sorry