Quote:
But, this is the end result; a major improvement along Addison for a probably downgrade along Clark. It won't be the end of the world; you call this a "suburban strip mall design" but we should be so lucky that suburban strip malls had 12-foot sidewalks, a continuous streetwall, minimal curbcuts, all parking underground, etc. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Have you actually seen some of the real suburban strip malls built in the city? Been up and down Elston, or near North and Clybourn before? What do those and this development possibly have in common, besides the actual retailers themselves? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Seriously, Im just having a very difficult time understanding the vehement issue people have with this block. |
Quote:
This forum is full of some of the most pro-urban, density-obsessed city-loving, architectural-crazed fanatics on the planet. Do you think anyone here likes Schaumburg strip malls? Have you seen a Schaumburg strip mall? Seriously, have you gone out there and looked at a strip mall? What in flying hell are you talking about? I see nothing in common between this and a strip mall. Zero. Zilch. Most of us here love that there will be a huge increase in density--not only from the apartment and hotel, but even from the retail. Yes, the retail. Instead of just having a lot of traffic on Friday and Saturday nights, which most of these bars cater to, there is the prospect of generating traffic throughout the day and week. A Best Buy and Apple Store will be bringing people to the area on Monday and Tuesday afternoon, while the bars will continue to draw the night crowd. It's a far better balance and ultimately a better use for land adjacent to a mass transit stop. Last I checked, this strip of Clark is pretty much dead on weekdays up until dinner time. This kind of development can change that. And you're opposed to it because of a bunch of nondescript, unornamented brick buildings of zero historical significance whatsoever other than the fact that they just happen to be old? Not feeling you here... |
Quote:
While we're at it, and since this style of devleopment is obviously so superior, lets just demolish all of our old stock and implement it in every neighborhood on every block. Then everything will be perfect. |
Quote:
How much awesomer would Chicago be if its neighborhood commercial corridors were that dense? How much would that boost mass transit ridership? Ahh, but I can still dream.... |
Quote:
Honestly, the more time I spend on this board the more I realize that I have far less in common with this community than I thought I did. And it makes me sort of glad that we do have NIMBYs to balance out the other extreme, which is equally as detrimental to the city fabric as a whole. And awesomer isnt a word. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I would argue that block is one of the few in that immediate area with soul actually left. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is actually one of my least favorite corners of the city, so you guys who actually live there can petition for whatever you like. Its the principle of this type of development (and the means to its end) that Im arguing against. |
Red Ivy, Goose Island, and Starbucks are all worthy buildings. And maaaybe Salt & Pepper. Red Ivy particularly livens the street with its open front. I think the real thing to be angry at in this development is the Sports World souvenir shop. If they weren't holding out on the most visible and important parcel, it would open up quite a bit of square footage and perhaps spare Red Ivy.
VC is totally right about the importance of the streetscape, generally. Perhaps not this specific set of buildings - the Triangle Building and whatever goes in where McDonald's is will help it fit in more like real infill - but Wrigleyville can't stand to lose much more of its streetscape than this. Imagine something like this going into Boystown. It would totally change the character. |
Quote:
As far as IO goes if they never wanted to leave their space they should have purchased the property. Conversely I believe most (if not all) of the bars in Boystown are owned by their operators. |
I think the Addison Park development is fairly bland, inoffensive architecture. That being said, the 7-Eleven, its surface parking and the surface lot west of it is one of the most offensive locations in the city. I clicked my heels together when I saw plans for development there.
The iO building, Mullens and bar Louie are worse than what is going to be built. Chicago benefits from having some mass to buildings on our corners, especially along the diagonal streets. This is the only way we can add some relief when we look down our low, flat geography. Not a problem they have in cities that aren't on a grid or that have some geography in them, like Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. We're upgrading Addison between Clark and Sheffield and we're upgrading on some of Clark. I like the Goose Island and Red Ivy facades. They are attractive and, like you say Via, they represent old building stock that adds some variety to the streetscape. In this case, I'm not too broken up about losing them. The rubric I use when I consider a demolition isn't just age, but whether or not the building has a unique character. There are tons of buildings that once they are torn down could never be practically recreated. We don't have the masons or Terra Cotta factories to build them any more and cost would be prohibitive at modern labor prices. The Red Ivy and Goose Island buildings are nice, but ordinary brick structures that aren't that different from new construction. I don't feel like we're losing anything too valuable or unique but we are getting something good (from an urbanist, not aesthetic perspective) and we don't have to look at the 7-11 any more! On balance, I'm happy. |
Are there other renders of the Wrigleyville development besides the one in the SunTimes article? I couldn't find any.
|
Here's some: http://www.addisonparkonclark.com/proposed.asp
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 7:13 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.