Uptown Coalition for Responsible Development

Comparison with JDL Development Corporation, also developing a project in the 46th Ward

At the 46th Ward Zoning & Development Committee meeting on December 8, 2011, two proposed projects were presented. The first was presented by the proposed developer of the Halsted-Bradley property, JDL, and its architect. The second, Montrose-Clarendon, was presented by Rob Nash of Resolute Consulting, the PR representative of the developer, Sedgwick Properties. Note that JDL sent an architect, Sedgwick sent a PR person.

For UCRD, the main takeaway from this meeting was the surprising contrast between the level of information and plan detail given on the two projects; Halsted-Bradley very comprehensive, Montrose-Clarendon very incomplete. Another important takeaway was the contrast between the amount of an open community dialog each developer engaged in to address community concerns. Again, Halsted-Bradley pursued a very open community process, and made design changes to address community concerns. Sedgwick has never sought community input, and when it was offered by community initiative, Sedgwick has ignored it.

After seeing both presentations it was apparent that the two firms have been taking very different approaches to informing and engaging with the community.

Process Comparison

Halsted-Bradley

JDL provided complete and thorough drawings, models, and alternate studies
JDL stated that it follows a standard best practice of meeting with residents in an open dialog with the community and resolves issues before project plans are finalized and submitted to the city for review and approval
At the meeting, JDL presented newly-revised plans based on resident feedback from a December 1 community meeting, and reviewed alternate studies considered in coming up with the new plan

Montrose-Clarendon

Sedgwick submitted revised plans to the city for review and approval on August 18, 2011, without seeking or receiving any community input
The first opportunity the community had to learn anything about the proposed project was at the end of October 2011, when Resolute Consulting (the PR and lobbying firm) began sending e-mail messages to local block clubs offering to give them a marketing presentation (which included little detail and no architectural drawings, but did include attractive hypothetical renderings)
After a Freedom of Information Act request was filed with the city and was on the verge of being acted on, Sedgwick, through its attorneys, did release additional documents to the Alderman’s office (they had not seen them yet!)
The only changes Sedgwick has made to its plans have been in response to city requirements, not in response to community concerns

Analysis: First of all, there’s a huge difference in the level of information provided. Specifically, while both have a perspective rendering, JDL’s package includes a comprehensive set of drawings including 3D renderings that clearly show the building from all angles and put it into the scale and context of the surrounding high rise and small scale residential buildings. Their presentation slides also included images of 3D scale models they built of the development and surrounding existing high rise and small scale residential buildings. It’s obvious by the comprehensive scope of information that their intent is to clearly inform the community.

Compare that to Sedgwick’s initial marketing package noted above, where, except for a site plan & block massing diagram, the main information given consisted of two perspective renderings, (1) aerial and (1) street level perspective at Montrose and Clarendon, and no details regarding the grocery store. That’s it. This is not enough information to determine the impact the proposed development would have on the community, and to assess its integration into the context of the surrounding area. There’s no way that anyone looking at the information provided in that Sedgwick marketing package could possibly begin to fully understand the plans.

That gap was apparent to us when we first received access to the Sedgwick marketing materials on November 11th, so we asked, through the Alderman’s office, for actual informational drawings suitable for understanding of the project (similar to the information provided by JDL). Subsequently, since Sedgwick was unresponsive to that request, UCRD sent a FOIA request to the city for the amended PD Application, including plan drawings. A few days before the FOIA request was approved, Sedgwick’s attorneys, Schain, Burney, [William] Banks & Kenny, Ltd, sent the drawings to the Alderman’s office, who then forwarded them to us on November 29th. The amended PD Application drawings were dated and submitted to the city for review and approval August 18, 2011. In the beginning of December, those drawings were finally uploaded to the Sedgwick website.

Sedgwick is still engaging the community in the same way they did for their first, failed, proposal. Both times they’ve filed the plans with the city for review and approval far in advance of their marketing presentations and PR campaign. This time around it’s the same story, however there was even less plan information in the marketing material, and they are now using a better-connected PR firm.

Sedgwick now says they’re in a big rush for approval. They even managed to get on the 46th Ward Zoning & Development agenda in December rather than in January, without having all the needed information available and without any type of meaningful open community process having taken place. They say they want to start demolition and construction in spring 2012, so now there’s a big rush for approval. They need to time to produce and submit stamped construction drawings and engineering drawings and issue them to the city’s Building Department permit process, which takes 2 to 3 months.

Meanwhile, it’s BUY NOW! DON’T THINK! HURRY! HURRY! This is not an acceptable community review process.

What’s next? WHAT WE’RE SUGGESTING is that if Sedgwick is to be given our ward’s approval for the development, that first we need to insist that they give us complete drawings and information similar to those that JDL provided, and that time is allowed for review of that information and for questions to be asked, and that Sedgwick respond by making plan revisions to address community concerns.

This project as proposed is over $200 million and Sedgwick is requesting a $31 million taxpayer subsidy, even though the proposed development would be built on prime lakefront land. It’s a very big deal. Whatever is built on the Maryville site will have a major impact on the 46th Ward. This is not the time to make a rush to judgment.

Volunteer.

Send us an e-mail if you're interested in volunteering. UCRD needs volunteers to help with the web site, with a new facebook page, and with keeping people informed of meetings, and helping navigate the various city entities who control what happens in our neighborhood. You'll be very welcome, and you'll meet some great people!

Please e-mail us with suggestions and comments.