CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[Mr Downtown]

What reasons did he give for the 111 W Chestnut comment? Was he merely saying that there was nothing inappropriate about the religious institution proposed there, or was he actually saying that a highrise should not be built there?

NIMBY pandering? Has he ever said—as many aldermen do—the neighbors don't want it so I won't approve it? Or are scraperfans just leaping to that conclusion anytime legitimate questions are raised about a big erection?

Where has he championed the best interests of the city? LSAC and the Childrens Mausoleum, for starters. If you think there's some instance where he's made a decision based on pandering, cite some specifics.

[10023]

There is no rational reason for anything 2 stories in height to be built within Chicago city limits, or any major city. In the central area, a six-story roofline a la European cities would be the bare minimum to make economic or aesthetic sense, and even in the neighborhoods, rowhouses are 3-4 stories.

[Nowhereman1280]

From earlier in this thread:

Reilly said he prefers a two-story building, which is prescribed by the planned development, with "as much open space as possible." He said the site is an "eyesore," and suggested a community center or two stores of retail.

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...36&TM=85009.23

That article is full of quotes of raging NIMBY's who think that area is "too dense". Do you really think that pandering to these morons had no effect on Reilly's decision to express "his" opinion that there should only be a small 2 story structure with lots of open space on this lot? Its the few quotes like that which make me think Reilly is a moron...

[honte]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What reasons did he give for the 111 W Chestnut comment? Was he merely saying that there was nothing inappropriate about the religious institution proposed there, or was he actually saying that a highrise should not be built there?

NIMBY pandering? Has he ever said—as many aldermen do—the neighbors don't want it so I won't approve it? Or are scraperfans just leaping to that conclusion anytime legitimate questions are raised about a big erection?

Where has he championed the best interests of the city? LSAC and the Childrens Mausoleum, for starters. If you think there's some instance where he's made a decision based on pandering, cite some specifics.

My understanding is that the River North Landmark District is stuck in a permanent holding pattern due to Reilly's unwillingness to accept it and the criticism that comes with that, otherwise known as "pandering" to the powerful business interests in the area. I don't have first-hand evidence of this, but the fact that the district hasn't gone anywhere is proof that something is going on. Generally once the Landmarks Commission makes a move toward something, only the Alderman can hold it up. Even the skyscraper devotees on this forum have generally agreed that this district is in the best interest of the city.

Concerning the Chestnut building, just dig around for quotes. As someone who tried to have an open mind about this guy, his comments made me miserable.

[honte]

Oops, forgot to give a big thanks to Jibba for the lobby shots. It's a little hard to see, but the lobby ceiling slopes dramatically, giving it a very powerful presence.

[Mr Downtown]

Thanks, Nowhereman1280. You'll notice that there is no actual quote from Reilly in the Journal article. As someone who has been a newspaper reporter, editor, and interview subject, I will simply caution that it can be risky to assess an alderman's entire planning and development philosophy from a young reporter's paraphrase in a story that's focused on the cleanup of the lot, not it's eventual development. I field a lot of queries from inexperienced reporters, who seldom ask the question they really should and who then paraphrase my words in an unrecognizable way.

As the Journal story points out, the 111 West Chestnut proposal was withdrawn solely because the developer and current landowner could not reach an agreement on price, not because the alderman opposed it. In October 2008, developers were looking for outs, not pushing ahead with risky projects.

Reilly's own website makes no mention of any opposition to a taller building. It simply notes that he wanted the neighbors to feel they had been heard, and notes that the current PD (allowing a two-story community center) continues in force for the moment. Surely a true panderbear would at least conclude the paragraph with something like "Alderman Reilly will work to ensure that any future development is not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood" or some such winking signal to his highrise-hating constituents.

[Jibba]

^^No problem. It was difficult to capture it properly through all of the fencing and what-not, and I didn't have the best lighting for that sloped portion, either. It does look it could be a nice space, but it looks like a re-hash of most of the other recent Wacker high-rises like UBS and 111 S. Wacker. Not surprising since Goettsch was behind both of those towers as well.

[VivaLFuego]

Mr Downtown,

Please explain Reilly's rational, principled stance on landmarking.

He's also spoke of seizing rare opportunities to downzone land in River North, in addition to his already-documented positions regarding 2-story buildings being appropriate for Near North parcels (including not only 111 Chestbut but also for whatever schlock ultimately replaces the doomed Regina at State/Elm). He cited bogus planning rationale for the Esquire redevelopment. If you're right and his decisions are motivated by rational planning rather than political pandering (the latter not exactly being unexpected from an Alderman), then he's really just learning and making it up as he goes along.

Sounds to me like you and he happened to agree for similar reasons on an important issue (Children's Museum debacle), which isn't the same as him being anything other than a pandering pol. The latter always seems great - it's how they get elected - until they spurn you for someone more powerful. In this case, the unions who will demand construction jobs overpowering the smog-belching NIMBYs terrified of any change.

[Nowhereman1280]

Well there is no direct quote about the height, but there is a direct quote about "as much open space as possible" which is exactly the kind of mentality that causes certain types of urban blight (COUGH TOWERS IN A PARK COUGH).

Also, I remembered another thing he did that really pissed me off. He refused to let the Children's Hospital pass unless they had 1100 parking spaces. Seriously? 1100 spaces? The hospital did the math and decided they didn't need that many, who is going to fill that garage up? Oh yeah, people who would otherwise use public transit. Wasn't the garage for Childrens only going to be like 700 originally? Yeah, that is really good planning Mr. Downtown, forcing a private developer to build MORE of something that is decidedly bad for dense urban areas... Guess what, that was entirely a result of pandering to NIMBY's. Do you think a bigger garage is going to increase or decrease traffic in Streeterville? We all know it will make traffic worse, but NIMBY's are uneducated in such things so they conclude the opposite, if Reilly was really listening to sound planners he would have allowed the Developer to meet their own needs and no more. Here is a direct quote provided by chicagocarless.com:

“Public transportation and shuttles aren’t enough to accommodate the thousands of new commuters coming into this area…We’re working toward securing a commitment to provide, at a minimum, 1,100 new parking spaces prior to the opening of the hospital.”

Oh really Mr. Reilly? You have done very intense studies on how much parking this not yet built hospital needs? You know Real Estate better than people who do it for a living? He went on to say this, basically flat out saying "I am pandering to public opinion, not good planning standards":

“My interest is in building consensus . . . to move the project forward. I want to make sure we address these concerns and get this right before it goes to Plan Commission.”

By concerns he means, I want to address the NIMBY's who want infinite new parking spaces built in their neighborhood.

http://www.chicagocarless.com/2007/1...ville-streets/

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ That reminds me of some more Reilly bullshit. Remember the helipad issue with the Children's Hospital? Yeah, Reilly again pandered to NIMBYS (even though he himself didn't think it would be unsafe) and forced the hospital to do an extra expensive new study. That is just another small example of BS NIMBY pandering. Really? There are hundreds of tall buildings in the world with helipads on the roofs, there is no safety issue, it was just an attempt by the citizens of the area to sacrifice the lives of children in exchange for slightly more peace and quiet. That was a complete waste of money and made the cost of NW's expansion greater. Its little things like that that help force the likelihood of VE on project higher since they have to pay for more unnecessary permits and studies.

[jc5680]

2.24

155 n wacker




silver tower

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Hot damn to that first picture!

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Please explain Reilly's rational, principled stance on landmarking.

I don't know what issue has arisen where there's been any controversy over landmarking. I give him a lot of credit for the deal he forced on LSAC and ongoing scrutiny at Three Arts Club. He supported landmarking of the Germania Club and the Village Theater. It sounds like he supports landmarking Marina Towers.

My recollection of the Children's Memorial Hospital debate is different. Northwestern Memorial agreed that the additional parking spaces were required, but wanted to put off a decision about where they would go with vague promises of future studies. Though we might wish otherwise, hospitals are not like office buildings; they do require lots of parking spaces for both staff and visitors.

I also thought there were legitimate technical reasons for close study of the CMH heliport. It is not atop an isolated tower in LA; it will be below and between surrounding buildings in an area of severe wind shear just off Lake Michigan. The hospital's reassurances were rather hollow sounding, and this was before the recent tragedy in Aurora demonstrated that "pilot's judgment" is not always unquestioned.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

(including not only 111 Chestbut but also for whatever schlock ultimately replaces the doomed Regina at State/Elm)

The Regina apartments are going to be demolished?

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Though we might wish otherwise, hospitals are not like office buildings; they do require lots of parking spaces for both staff and visitors.

...do either you or Alderman Reilly have a background in hospital administration or otherwise work for Children's Memorial? If not, who are you (or Reilly) to tell the hospital how many parking spaces they require?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I don't know what issue has arisen where there's been any controversy over landmarking. I give him a lot of credit for the deal he forced on LSAC and ongoing scrutiny at Three Arts Club. He supported landmarking of the Germania Club and the Village Theater. It sounds like he supports landmarking Marina Towers.

Correct... but he didn't support landmarking the Esquire (much more architectural merit than the Village), and as honte mentioned he has done nothing in furtherance of a River North landmark district. While I sometimes I agree with his conclusion regarding a potential landmark (LSAC and Germania for sure, Three Arts mostly), his incoherent/inconsistent reasoning is still cause for concern. By all means, claim victories where possible, but I don't see how happening to agree on certain issues makes Reilly a planner's best buddy. Stopped clock, and all that.

The Regina apartments are going to be demolished?

Yeah. Not a question of if, but when. Retail and apartment tenants have gradually had their leases expire, and the building is by now almost completely vacant. At one point, the owner/developer hoped to redevelop with a glassy hotel in the 15-20 story range (not an implausible use of a site zoned DX-7, mixed use with FAR of 7.0), but thanks to pandermania and the site's unfortunate inclusion within the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, the ultimate replacement will probably be 1-2 story retail. Only the best for Reilly's dense, urban wonderland.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

who are you (or Reilly) to tell the hospital how many parking spaces they require?

Um, you look in the Parking Generation Manual and—based on NMH's experience in the same location—discount by a quarter or a third for proximity to transit. The methodology is pretty well understood. It ain't rocket surgery.

The question wasn't whether 1100 new spaces would be required; it was where they would be provided. NMH and Children's wanted to just say "trust us; we'll eventually find them somewhere."

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What reasons did he give for the 111 W Chestnut comment? Was he merely saying that there was nothing inappropriate about the religious institution proposed there, or was he actually saying that a highrise should not be built there?

NIMBY pandering? Has he ever said—as many aldermen do—the neighbors don't want it so I won't approve it? Or are scraperfans just leaping to that conclusion anytime legitimate questions are raised about a big erection?

Where has he championed the best interests of the city? LSAC and the Childrens Mausoleum, for starters. If you think there's some instance where he's made a decision based on pandering, cite some specifics.

4th Presbyterian as well as the hotel that had been proposed for the Esquire Theatre site.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I also thought there were legitimate technical reasons for close study of the CMH heliport. It is not atop an isolated tower in LA; it will be below and between surrounding buildings in an area of severe wind shear just off Lake Michigan. The hospital's reassurances were rather hollow sounding, and this was before the recent tragedy in Aurora demonstrated that "pilot's judgment" is not always unquestioned.

Just to clarify, it's a heliopad not a heliport. It's not as if a fleet of helicopters were to be landing and taking off every few minutes.

[woodrow]

^^^Boring - any other news other than Reilly bashing/praising?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ If there was news we'd be talking about it, if you find this boring then don't read it. Whether it entertains you or not, Reilly is very important to Chicago highrise development, therefore we are talking about it.

@ Mr.Downtown That's it! The Regina is what I was thinking of earlier where he killed a 20 story building in favor of demolishing the historical one and constructing a 3 story pomo shitpile. This man wants nothing more than to increase parking, limit heights and zoning, and allow historical buildings like the Regina and Esquire to be replaced by rows of sterile Pomo precast NIMBY havens.

Also, I don't buy that there are "certain amounts of parking" that are prescribed specifically for hospitals. NWCH draws from all over the country and therefore most people aren't going to be driving here anyhow. I don't think just having some manual that says "this big of a hospital = this much parking" is better than an actual hospital going "hmm, well we only need this much parking, but we'll promise we'll build more in the future to make those assholes shut up." I don't know what city you live in, but every time I've been in a NW parking garage, which is often, its more than half empty and most of the people in there are not going to a hospital but over to Michigan instead. I dunno, maybe there is a huge peak in demand for these garages at 3am that I don't see since I'm only down there during business hours and my evening walks... I think a larger parking garage there is only going to be used to encourage tourists to drive and clog up our streets...