UCRDStatement
Dear Neighbors,
The Uptown Neighborhood Council and the Uptown Coalition for Responsible Development are hosting a community meeting this Thursday -- the main topic will be the extremely large development proposed for the corner of Montrose and Clarendon. The developer has been soft-pedaling this, but the plan calls for a gigantic complex, with eight-story walls all the way around running right up to the sidewalk. Partway down Agatite, it would become a parking garage 5 stories tall. No green space. The plan also calls for the erection of 30 and 39 story towers on top of the eight-story-tall box, and cutting an alley from Montrose to Agatite for truck and car traffic. Trucks would enter from Montrose, visit the loading dock, and exit onto Agatite. Cars would enter from Montrose to go to the garage, and exit onto Agatite.
As far as parking goes, they say they will “reserve” 125 parking spaces for the “neighborhood” but if they construct their proposed 850 new housing units and half of them are two car households, then their plans will lead to a net parking space deficit of 300… that is, 300 more people each night driving around looking for parking.
Obviously the developers want to make as much money as they can. They maximize their profits by building big. They have no incentive to build a development friendly to the neighborhood, unless we force them to.
In Wrigleyville neighbors were able to force developers to scale back another huge development from 22 stories to eight stories, resulting in something that might actually enhance the community rather than being a towering, alien mass of steel and concrete. See this May 12, 2010 Sun-Times article for more information.
The meeting is Thursday, hope to see you there! Thursday, May 27 at 7 P.M., 4343 N. Clarendon Ave. – Community Room (that’s the building on the southeast corner of Montrose and Clarendon).
Respectfully submitted,
Uptown Coalition for Responsible Development and the Uptown Neighborhood Council
Once a PUD goes for approval with the city, all previously negotiated items a developer makes are on the table.
ReplyDeleteGreenspace, zoning code requires a certain percentage of greenspace. Even if the developer stands before you at a community meeting and says one thing, once the plan is down at the city, the developer can change the plan.
Parking, the developer can tell you he will put a certain number of units in at a community meeting, but once its downtown, that will change.
FAR-- Floor Area Ratios. Once the developer tells you how many units will be built, the developer can change that downtown.
So ask the developer to post a bond agreeing that everything he has promised the community is what you will get, otherwise you will see massive changes.
Also, better find out how large trucks will negotiate the narrow streets to make deliveries to the stores in the shopping complex. Montrose east of the Jewel/Dearborn markets is very narrow and when you have trucks making morning deliveries how will that affect traffic flowing to Lakeshore Drive. You could end up having serious traffic tie ups.
I'm all for this development and I live about a block away from where this will be built.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but you can't whine about how the alderman does nothing about developing Uptown in a positive way and then be against a real project that will bring jobs and tax revenue in a big way.
I know it's a huge project and parking and congestion, blah blah blah. This is a big city and we have density and traffic.
We have a developer that is presenting something much more than low-income housing and fish farms. Let's go for it!
I hope we all rise up and stop this project cold. We do not need or want our little green space left in Clarendon Park replaced with steel, concete, traffic congestion, low income housing and everything else this project will bring upon us. We do not want it and I hope everyone else feels the same.
ReplyDeleteFred, here's the deal: Shiller lies.
ReplyDeleteHow are you liking those market rate rentals and condos at Wilson Yard? How 'bout the movie theatres there? What about the promised "complete top to bottom rehab" of the Wilson Red Line station we were told would happen with the TIF funding? What about all the construction jobs that were promised to Uptown residents?
If she told me it was sunny, I'd bring an umbrella. She knows the deal: lie and get community approval, then use the TIF money to do anything she wants, damn the community, full speed ahead.
With Shiller as our alderman, you simply cannot trust any TIF proposal to be what it seems to be. I have zero confidence that this won't turn into another Wilson Yard.
ReplyDelete@ Fred – I don’t live a block away, I live directly across the street from this massive unwanted development. Lets start where the problem really exist in uptown and that’s with crime. What’s wrong with using MY property tax dollars to hire more policemen, or how about cleaning up Sheridan, or maybe provide more funding for social services that already exist. We have enough existing structures in uptown, why not improve on those instead of building a new one. This little splice of calmness on the lake is a much needed break for those who may want to take a walk along the lake to escape all the madness and sadness that surrounds them in uptown with homelessness and half-way homes. If we don’t remember the past we are doomed to make the same mistake in the future (Wilson yard)
ReplyDeleteI agree with BooHoo. I'd be willing to bet we will see more of the same bait and switch tactics Shiller has always used. Does anyone think we really need a grocery store and gym one block away from Jewel and World Gym? What kind of community planning is that?
ReplyDeleteI'm still on the fence on this whole thing; but this is the most lame argument evah:
ReplyDeleteThis is a big city and we have density and traffic.
Why is it lame?
Cuz the converse to that argument is what we've been hearing from the alderman's office regarding the supression of previous developments.
Further - why isn't it a bad thing to want to tamp down on added congestion and density?
Congestion and density are the polar extremes of "green", no?
I thought we were all going to go green.
Here's another way to look at it:
It's a big city, we have street violence and crime.
See what I mean?
you can't whine about how the alderman does nothing about developing Uptown in a positive way and then be against a real project that will bring jobs and tax revenue in a big way.
Sure ya' can.
It all depends on the development, now doesn't it?
No one is saying that we don't want development.
What I'm hearing is that we want well designed developments that will integrate into the existing community.
Just like the alderman has said to want, previously.
Again, I'm wouldn't recommend not going for it; but, as we've learned from the anti-gentrifiers (who are, again - oddly quiet on this subject), "new" or "any" does not always equal "good".
Bottom line: per Toto - if the developer wants to enter into a legally binding agreement as to the make-up of this, then we can talk.
Until then, regardless of what sorts of tired arguments are used, they can pound sand.
The amount of TIF$ last week was $50M. Has it really changed, now, to $69M?
Bottom-bottom-line: no one wants a repeat of Wilson Yard.
So, just to be clear, and I didn't read the document, but this is more low income subsidized housing or market rate condos..?
ReplyDelete30x - short version (from info provided by developers):
ReplyDeleteMarket rate condos in the two towers and the affordable housing component will be satisfied via a 10 story tower of senior housing.
that will bring jobs and tax revenue in a big way.
ReplyDeleteFred -
The problem is - this is being proposed as a TIF - all tax revenue will be siphoned to the developer's and Alderman's pockets. Remember Holsten got over $450 thousand a unit to build low income housing (not even including the cost of the land). And Shiller just keeps asking and getting more for her social experiments.
i agree with fred. nothing is perfect & this development will do a world of good in bringing people of means to uptown, which is what all you whiners complain the area so desperately needs.
ReplyDeletethere will be glitches, some things will not go as planned, and there will be more congestion (but not everyone there will drive a car, or have 2 cars even, so stop whining & ditch your own car before you complain about others driving).
if you haven't already noticed, the lakefront from end-to-end of the city is HIGH-DENSITY / HIGH-RISE buildings ... this development fits perfectly in there.
urbaneddie and fred, how long you been living here? Doesn't seem like you guys know a thing about what happened with Wilson Yard. Shiller and a TIF = poison. If you think this will all bee developed as promised, I have a bridge to sell you.
ReplyDeletewhich is what all you whiners complain the area so desperately needs.
ReplyDeleteGuess you haven't been paying attention.
No one has said there needs to be more "people of means" to improve the neighborhood.
What people are saying is that we need to revitalize the neighborhood.
That doesn't automatically require "people of means" to live here; but, no one would mind them spending their money here.
Additionally, not everyone is a fan of high-density high-rises (one of them being the alderman, herself [see my previous post]).
What people are fans of is coordinated community development that augments the existing environment and contributes to the improved health of the community.
But, hey - feel free to warp the intent to fit your narrative. It's a free country, after all.
And, for the record: complaining about whiners complaining is whining about complaining.
Ain't it fun stepping through the looking glass unintentionally?
I wouldn’t exactly call my concerns “whining” when MY tax dollars are being used to fund a project that is not needed. Existing structures are already in place, senior living locations are in abundance in uptown (upgrade those). Its not just congestion with automobiles but also influx of more people along the lake that is yet to be identified as “people of means” or people of affordable housing. If the lakefront is already congested with high rises, why add more? Live in the places that’s already on market (Check condo listing, there is no shortage). Why settle for anything less than perfect, if you accept what’s being suggested where do you stand up for your right? I’ve forwarded the petition to all my friends, posted a link on my social media sites and I encourage everyone else to do the same. Oh is anyone else curious about this “Hotel” in the plan also? I love my neighborhood but lets be honest, what’s the draw to uptown that tourist must see?
ReplyDeleteAdding density is going green.. it reduces our carbon footprint per person, takes up less actual land, allowing more land to be green, and because of the added congrestion , less people will actually use their cars.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of adding density to the neighborhood in order to alleviate the high concentration of poor we have in our neighborhood. But like before, I have no doubt that shiller will turn this into low income housing as well.
Although it's a great idea, with some setbacks -grocery store and gym - the retail composite can change later. It probably also needs to be more pedestrian friendly and on a scale that compliments the neighborhood. I would like to see it go through - under any other Alderman but Shiller. I just don't trust where this is headed - soon enough she'll say, "Oh yeah, I forgot about Jewel a block away. Well, we can put my fish farm in there instead."
Truman,
ReplyDeleteThe draw isn't so much to have people visit Uptown.
The draw is to offer a lower cost alternative to the more expensive hotels, downtown.
Instead of complaining about this building, why don't we come together with solutions for this area...
ReplyDeleteThere is already a grocery and gym - what could survive there? What would you guys support?
If we can't answer these questions, then Uptown is doomed because we can't help the alderman by offering no direction.
Do we want more low income housing? Do we want more market rate condos? Do we want more rental properties?
Do all developments have to supply parking?
We need to give the Alderman plain explicit directions as to what we want versus throwing every option we are given out the window. Be very very specific - the more specific we are, when she doesn't come through, we will have very very valid reasons and maybe even a checklist of what she wasn't able to accomplish for us.
Who?What? - I see what you're saying, but let me offer this:
ReplyDeleteWon't the added congestion (specifically carbon emitting vehicles idling on the roads) adversely affect air quality in the immediate area?
And, if reducing the footprint aids in being green by allowing for more land to be green, is this project even necessary since there are plenty of existing condos that are currently unused? (see: south loop)
Again, I hear ya' and on one or two levels, you're dead on accurate.
But, there are other options to consider.
I see Pickett is charging.
ReplyDeleteBe careful there, didn't turn out that well in 1863 for the more famous Pickett.
Given what we have experienced with TIFS and Wilson Yard I wouldn't believe anything Helen Shiller says.
If she told me it were a bright and sunny day I'd go outside to look myself. If I found a bright and sunny day I'd start thinking about what angle she is playing.
Now this plan as presented seems ok to be. Could be better, but in a real ward there would be positive changes made over time.
In this ward you could expect massive federal, state, and local subsidies to add hundreds of units of low income housing and then the hotel would turn out to be some chicken wired flophouse after the developer talked about the "economic" realities.
Nope, sorry. I don't believe it.
The truly horrible thing is that come Summer this will pass as everything passes through the political intestines of this city.
We all know what happens at the end of that process don't we?
The neighborhood gets shit on.
I am surprised any Realtor would think the City needs more housing stock right now.
ReplyDeleteToo much supply drives everybody's property values down.
Where are all the buyers going to come from?
The market is saturated with condos for sale.
Here are few questions I'd like answered...
ReplyDeleteHow long has this property been vacant?
Can the city/county/state force the Good Sisters to either "use it or lose it" regarding the exempt status?
Can the Good Sisters be penalized (economically) for the abandoned building?
"We need to give the Alderman plain explicit directions as to what we want."
ReplyDeleteAld. Shiller does not want our suggestions. She does not want our input. She does not want to speak to us. She doesn't want us living here.
All she wants is our money to pay for her schemes.
If you think that this proposed plan will ever come to fruition, or that she doesn't have in mind exactly what will end up there (and it won't be an upscale grocery store and market rate housing), then you are very, very naive.
If the past 20 years have proven anything, it's that the truth never came between Helen Shiller and her single-minded devotion to shoehorning as much non-market rate housing and as many social services into the 46th Ward (above Irving Park and below Lawrence) as she can.
Yo -
ReplyDeleteYou are right that idling cars will lead to more emissions, however, we're already idling on our streets. The fact of the matter is that the City of Chicago and every city across the nation is increasing in density whether or not you want it. It will lead to more efficient infrastructure for the cities, reduce traffic, force people to be more dependent on public transit, and make all of our communities more economically dependent because people won't drive to the mall, but will go their local retailer to buy socks. It's a win - win. Understanding that with the current water shortages and infrastructure needs in the suburbs, people will be forced to move back into the city. We will be dense whether or not the people who have lived here for 20+ years want it.
By Uptown becoming more dense, we are welcoming a new population into the area. We are making headway into a new environment for ourselves and will help lead the Northside in high dense development.
It would be more green to tell people to buy the condos in the South Loop, however that offers little incentive or improvement to our neighborhood - which is my primary concern.
TrumanSquareNeighbor - I don't trust Shiller either, but she will be out of office before any of this gets resolved, so let's think of solutions so the next person in line can take our feedback and run with it. They can fix her evil schemes so long as it is before the ground is broken.
I'm generally in favor of developing dilapidated / unused buildings, but find some of the concerns legitimate. Does anyone have a link to building designs? I'm a visual person, so that would help.
ReplyDeleteAs to Yo's concern about density, the question becomes if you don't have density, where do people go? The alternative to density is sprawl which pushes people further from where they need to be for work. The end result is increased use of cars, gas, etc.
Shouldn't it be "Citizens for Responsible Uptown Develeopment" instead?
ReplyDelete'Cause that's what you're gonna get from Helen - CRUD.
Why does the developer need a TIF subsidy? One has to wonder if the developer needs such a large injection of cash from the taxpayer, why doesn't the developer build a smaller building?
ReplyDeleteWhat guarantee will there be that the space for a hotel won't be magically turned into low income housing?
Why do poor senior citizens need prime lakefront property? They could easily be located in very nice accomodations west of here and probably at a much lower cost.
Make the developer put up a performance bond to insure that promises made are promises kept.
Ask the developer if "Friends of the Parks" have approved the taking of parkland.
It will lead to more efficient infrastructure for the cities, reduce traffic, force people to be more dependent on public transit
ReplyDeleteWill it?
Or, rather, shouldn't we prep the infrastructure to be able to handle the increased density prior to creating the need?
Other than the insanely paultry $3M directed towards the Wilson L stop, what has been done, or even discussed, with regards to the increased strain this density will have on the existing infrastructure?
Any?
Not to be icky; but, will our existing sewage system (which is admitedly in serious need of upgrading ... unless you're on Carmen, in which case you're totally cool) be able to handle the increased density of waste?
And, if anyone says,"Well, we're already pooping" ..., I'm gonna' hurl.
A couple of points...
ReplyDeleteWhen I asked one of the showmen last week what the target marget for this grocer/gym was, he responded that it ws pramarily people outside the community. My experience with shoppers coming from outside the community is that they stock-up; they drive their cars/minivans/SUVs and fill 'em up. He specifically wouldn't answer my question of the effects of this type of business on the current businesses in the community. So yes, it's safe to say this development will be adding significant traffic to an already taxed two-lane street which will be experiencing even more traffic with the arrival of Target a few blocks away.
There are two separate issues here that have become intertwined in this project.
ReplyDeleteThe first issue is the way TIFs have been abused in the past. The mistrust that has been created is evident in the concerns expressed about how the TIF money will be used.
The second issue is the density of the development. It doesn't sound to me like most people are against development of this property per se, it is a question of what is appropriate for this location.
It would be great if we could figure out how to separate these two issues. TIFs are a big problem. The TIF laws need to be either rewritten or eliminated. I am opposed to creating a new TIF district here because there is too much evidence that the system is broken.
I am not opposed to the development in general, but if the developer can't make it work without taxpayer subsidy then the development shouldn't happen as proposed. We should let the market determine what this property can support.
In simpler terms - development yes, TIF no.
Hi everyone...Please remember that developers always try to cram as much as they can onto a site because that generates more profit for them… It’s always up to residents to push back and pressure the developer to 'modify' their plan so that it works better for the neighborhood in general.
ReplyDeleteNeighborhood push back to developers happens all the time in every community and everyone is better off for it.
The maxed out, crammed in, Sedgwick development plan for the Montrose Clarendon site is a poorly conceived design, motivated to maximize profits at the expense of residents.
Anyone who cares about their neighborhood should pressure the developer to come up with 'better' design ideas and solutions that will both benefit the community and fit into the surrounding neighborhood scale in a more thoughtful, integrated way.
For the long term good of our community, we should not rush so quickly to approve the developer’s plan as it currently submitted. Once built, this massively dense building will surely have a heavy impact on the surrounding area for many, years. There are also some serious Traffic and pedestrian safety issues still to consider and solve.
What’s the harm of exploring some possible plan modifications or a few different solutions to design of the site ‘first’ with the goal of a creating a better plan ‘before’ rushing to construct something, so permanent and so big as this building, as soon as possible? - Janis
I am for this project. This developer is not Holstein, aka, champion of low income structures. Segwick is more of a champion of gentrification (for lack of a better over-generalization). I like the project because it has the opportunity to boost Uptown in a positive way. I don't like the hotel part (note it is in phase 3, therefore has the lowest probability of actual implementation). I may not like it, but OF COURSE there will be a TIF. I mean, DUH!!! Any developer focused on Uptown is going to go for a TIF, good or bad. If any land in Uptown is slated has potential for development, believe a TIF is of utmost importance to the developer. Shiller is handing them out like candy. For the record, I don't think the property needs or should get a TIF.
ReplyDeleteI don't buy this one-sided and opinionated document. Whoever wrote this may be educated on the situation yet has chosen a near propaganda position on the issues, very biased.
I'm an optimist, I believe this project has a lot of potential and merit. We should be working to shape it for Uptown instead of bashing it in every way possible.
The scope of this project will be more influenced by the Developer than Shiller. Segwick already owns the property. Some of you write like Segwick is a marionette at every beckon call of Shiller. Segwick is going to create a marketable building (not like WY) with the community in mind.
We live in a city of large developments and big thinkers. Projects like this are possible in many neighborhoods, especially lakefront areas. Inevitably, buildings will be built that some don’t like. To these people I say, you can’t bake a cake without breaking a few eggs.
"Segwick is more of a champion of gentrification (for lack of a better over-generalization)." Uptownunity
ReplyDeleteUU, you're telling me that Segwick is a champion of gentrification and that's why Helen is ignoring input from the community because she's now done a complete 180 degree turn in favor of gentrifying the area? Really?
"Sedgwick already owns the property."
ReplyDeleteAre you sure about that? Last I heard, the Sisters still owned it.
When did the sale go through?
that's not what i am saying, holy moley. Shiller is a champion of lining her pockets. This is why she supports the project.
ReplyDeleteUptownUnity, burned once, shame on her. Burned twice, shame on us. The final outcome of the Wilson Yard is nothing like the plans that were originally presented to us.
ReplyDeleteHow in blazes can you keep trusting her over and over again to keep any promise? How?