Indian Village

One of the Herald's front page stories this week concerns a proposal to construct a high-rise on what's now a parking lot at 4941 S. East End.  The parking lot is currently owned by several residents of the Indian Village high-rise.  Here's what C-Pop wrote in the comments of a related Hyde Park Progress article:

I love the subheading from this week's Herald: "Indian Village parking lot owners object to high-rise proposal."

"Parking lot owners."

Now there's a marginalized, oppressed minority speaking out against rampant development and the trampling of property values.

Where is their Cesar Chavez, their Victor Hugo, their Martin Luther King? Who will speak for the people (and their parking lot??

Well, I'll speak out for the rights of these parking lot owners.  And I hope everyone else will, too.  But not because I oppose a high-rise being built on this parking lot.  Far from it.  It would be completely in keeping with Urbanist values for that high-rise to be built.  However, there are some things more important than Urbanist values.  Let's consider the facts of the case, so far undisputed by HPP.  (Since Kate Hawley wrote the article, I think we can assume that the Herald got the fundamentals correct.)

The parking lot spaces are held by condo owners at Indian Village.  The developer will have to purchase air rights from those parking space owners to build the high rise.  Alderman Preckwinkle has done the right thing by putting off the table any thoughts of the city mis-using it eminent domain powers to hand these rights to the developer.  It doesn't really matter what the condo/space owners at Indian Village find unpalatable about this development plan-- whether they oppose it because the high rise will block their views or because they prefer to let their cars breathe in the open air or because they think C-Pop is arrogant and they just want to thwart his will.

You see, C-Pop, this isn't a communist country.  We have this thing called private property rights and, if a developer wants to build there, s/he's going to have purchase that land from its owners.  Urbanism is important to me, but private property is even more important and that's a value I'm willing to fight for.

Comments

[DS]

C-Pop never seems what sure kind of country it is. Does anyone care?

Tea. I need tea.

[ScottM]

I'm sure I submitted a comment about this to HPP but its not shown up.

The part I thought was shocking was that he goes out of his way to bash the owners of the parking lots (whose views are clearly an important part of their real estate investment), while completely ignoring the downzoning change that Ald. Hairston is pushing through.

I did think the idea for the sidewalk (or bike path) to 47th though and I don't understand why one doesn't exist.