Unimpressed With Changes, West Loopers Still Vehemently Opposed to 111 South Peoria

Rendering of 111 South Peoria (Courtesy of LG Development)

Rendering of 111 South Peoria (Courtesy of LG Development)

For the second time in two months, Alderman Walter Burnett, Jr. (27th) held a community meeting to discuss a proposed development for 111 South Peoria Street in Chicago’s West Loop neighborhood, currently a surface parking lot. And for the second time, West Loopers came out to the Merit School of Music loaded to the gills with ammo in an attempt to see to it the site remains undeveloped.

LG Development Group's Brian Goldberg

LG Development Group’s Brian Goldberg

Not that developers haven’t tried to appease the masses. LG Development Group, represented by partner Brian Goldberg, modified its plans considerably for the project. Among the changes:

  • Instead of rental apartments, all units would be for-sale condos
  • A decrease in number of units, from 205 rentals, to 95 condos
  • Average unit size increased from 836 sq ft to 1,572 sq ft
  • Overall building height lowered from 140 ft to 115 ft
  • Pedestrian lobby moved to Peoria Street
  • Rooftop pool and common amenities area removed
  • Zoning change request reduced from DX-7 to DX-5
Nothing subtle about the hand-out from West Loop residents

Nothing subtle about the hand-out from West Loop residents

While some felt those changes seemed to be a tremendous concession on the developer’s part, one unimpressed statistician calculated they had only made alterations amounting to 13 percent of the overall plan. And that was just one of the many objections brought to the table.

While a hand-out provided by residents of the West Loop began with the assertion the 111 South Peoria project would block skyline views from Mary Bartelme Park, Ald. Burnett let it be known at the start of the night’s proceedings that “views” are never a factor in his decision-making process.

But the focal point of those opposed on this night wouldn’t be views at all; rather, the residents surrounding Bartelme Park are concerned about the effects on property values should this development be allowed to proceed.

Several speakers, including attorney Sam Tenenbaum, of the 850 West Adams Association, drew applause with each sentence that pointed out what they perceived as flaws in the developer’s plan. Mr. Tenenbaum’s two main points against the proposed building were that it 1) is too big for this particular site, and 2) would have a “substantial negative effect on neighboring property values.”

Fire safety also drew a great deal of attention. After LG representatives spoke of discussions with the Chicago Fire Department that indicated CFD personnel would not be obstructed in rescue and fire fighting efforts, a retired fireman told the assembled crowd, with a rendering of the proposal as his backdrop, that the physical characteristics of the space seperating 111 South Peoria from Monroe Manor (841-849 West Monroe Street) would dramatically delay rescue efforts due to an inability to extend ladders within the confined space.

Other speakers on behalf of the community pointed to the topic of the zoning change itself. That Chicago’s zoning changes are intended to “support the safety and quality of life for the residents and visitors of the City of Chicago,” not so that developers can better benefit from building on a property. And 111 South Peoria Street, in their estimation, would not succeed in supporting that quality of life for West Loop residents.

A meeting expected to be tense and intense surely was. What will we see next for this proposed development? Ald Burnett mentioned in opening the meeting this site had been used against him in campaign efforts. That “you shouldn’t vote for Burnett; he’ll let someone build on that lot.” And he saw again tonight that the opposition is not about to back down. Can LG Development Group modify its plans once more to the West Loop community’s satisfaction? Stay tuned, folks. This one ain’t anywhere near being over.

Related Articles

Astrolab Condos Ready to Rock It You can trade your pencils for pens on this one.  The modest Near North condominium block marked down for 61 West Erie Street is a "go."  The Chicago ...
West Town’s Hottest Potato About to Plant Roots on Peoria Street In the 14-year history of this publication, we've never seen a building so hated, so demonized, so despised as this one.  When 111 South Peoria was an...
The Plymouth Building: Printers Row’s Newest Landmark Chicago's Printers Row neighborhood is a walk-though gallery of great architecture.  Even the ugly buildings have pretty details.  And the pretty buil...
Contentious 111 South Peoria Plan Passed by Plan Commission A rendering from LG Development of 111 South Peoria. Not the same rendering shared in August, which did not sit well with a some attendees. 111 So...
Daniel Schell

Author: Daniel Schell

Daniel Schell is a West Loop social media addict who lives for Cubs baseball, good pizza, and big cities. If you bump into him on the street, it's likely because he's taking photos instead of watching where he's going, and he apologizes.

Share This Post On

4 Comments

  1. I’m not a fan of Burnett in general, but I hope he just decides to support the development and calls it a day. It’s sad that the entire West Loop is held hostage by some busybodies who would rather their neighborhood be filled with ugly surface parking lots than productive buildings.

    Post a Reply
    • The building is still way too big, a fire hazard and will indeed hurt the property values of the buildings its butted up against. This is just plain logic.

      Post a Reply
      • Except that the fire department says it’s not a fire hazard. But you’ve hit on the real reason for the opposition possibly hurting the property values of the buildings adjacent to it. And so it always is when you buy property next to an empty lot and are clueless about something maybe being built there. Course it the NIMBY’s have their way, nothing will ever be acceptable. Maybe a nice gated park for area residents only.

        Post a Reply
  2. Decrease property values? Only because those in the adjacent buildings were too stupid to over pay for a view that is contingent on an undeveloped, vacant lot in the city. I looked at one of those units 12 years ago (before the park existed) and still knew the price was too much for a view that was out of my control. Their inability to properly value a property shouldn’t inhibit development of this lot.

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.