CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by bradss

Hey Guys,

Longtime reader. I have rarely posted before but this warehouse fire in Bridgeport just made me sick. I couldn't agree more with UntitledReality and KingoftheHill about the importance of preserving these old Chicago Warehouse buildings. However, but the comment by Lasalle.St.Station just got me thinking about the Wrigley manufacturing plant up the street. Does everyone know that the plan for that site is a strip mall? The Alderman (Balcer) is very supportive of its demolition and is fed up with all the vacant warehouse property in his ward and wants to get rid of the PUD as soon as possible.

Here are the links to the development and site plan from the current owner Avgeris & Associates:

http://www.avgerisinc.com/details.php?id=67

http://www.avgerisinc.com/admin/ckfi...ite%20Plan.pdf

Does this make anyone else ill? With all the potential in that area why are we pushing for this suburban plan?

^ To be honest, this development doesn't really bother me. Yes, there are one or two nice warehouse buildings that would be worth preserving, but to me Chicago has too many derilect industrial districts like this, and not all of them (especially on the south or SW sides) can be converted into sexy hipster havens with overhanging balconies and Intelligentsia coffee shops.

I don't blame the Alderman for being fed up with a PMD and wanting to put said property back on the tax rolls. In an area like this, a few miles from downtown & the lakefront and not particularly adjacent to rail transit, retail of this type is probably a worthy compromise for a city/county that badly needs the tax revenue.

The 31st/ Ashland station is a couple blocks north of this, but ass clowns in the city already fucked up any hope of TOD judging by all the suburban development just next to it, so it's pretty pointless to suddenly try to build a main street-type development several blocks further south.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Yes, there are one or two nice warehouse buildings that would be worth preserving, but to me Chicago has too many derilect industrial districts like this, and not all of them (especially on the south or SW sides) can be converted into sexy hipster havens with overhanging balconies and Intelligentsia coffee shops.

River North was unsexy until it was sexy. Wicker Park was unsexy until it was sexy. Every neighborhood that is "cool" today is seen that way largely because of the built infrastructure that was preserved and later became appreciated. Theres no reason Bridgeport and the surrounding areas cant see the same kind of renaissance given their proximity to downtown and the largely intact bones. If you throw that all away, what do you have left to build on? Theres no reason to toss the baby with the bathwater.

Im not saying hipster havens are the cure all. But if zoning restrictions were loosened in some of these areas, at least some might have a chance of being converted to other uses as its clear manufacturing won't be returning to these kinds of structures.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by bradss

Hey Guys,

Longtime reader. I have rarely posted before but this warehouse fire in Bridgeport just made me sick. I couldn't agree more with UntitledReality and KingoftheHill about the importance of preserving these old Chicago Warehouse buildings. However, but the comment by Lasalle.St.Station just got me thinking about the Wrigley manufacturing plant up the street. Does everyone know that the plan for that site is a strip mall? The Alderman (Balcer) is very supportive of its demolition and is fed up with all the vacant warehouse property in his ward and wants to get rid of the PUD as soon as possible.

Here are the links to the development and site plan from the current owner Avgeris & Associates:

http://www.avgerisinc.com/details.php?id=67

http://www.avgerisinc.com/admin/ckfi...ite%20Plan.pdf

Does this make anyone else ill? With all the potential in that area why are we pushing for this suburban plan?

This is troubling. I mean they could always do what was done in Detroit by gutting the first floor of the warehouse to be used as big box retail. The outlot buildings could be wedged in between. You'd have a nice wall of retail on Ashland and then create a controlled traffic entry point to all the parking placed in back. You could knock down a couple of those lowrises behind since someone found the parking absolutely necessary.

Everyone wins with my plan

Satisfy the need for preservation of older warehouse buildings
Satisfy people's want for free parking
Provide much needed retail for the neighborhood.
Provide all retailers with prime visibility. I mean...sheesh look at what appears to be a Home Improvement store way at the back....

Then there's future development potential for the floors above. Like the Detroit mall, these floors don't need to be cleaned up and polished right away. They can be renovated to residential later. Oh look....my plan allows for higher density. I should really develop this into an illustrated concept.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

River North was unsexy until it was sexy. Wicker Park was unsexy until it was sexy. Every neighborhood that is "cool" today is seen that way largely because of the built infrastructure that was preserved and later became appreciated. Theres no reason Bridgeport and the surrounding areas cant see the same kind of renaissance given their proximity to downtown and the largely intact bones. If you throw that all away, what do you have left to build on? Theres no reason to toss the baby with the bathwater.

Im not saying hipster havens are the cure all. But if zoning restrictions were loosened in some of these areas, at least some might have a chance of being converted to other uses as its clear manufacturing won't be returning to these kinds of structures.

It's just my opinion...but I think Alderman jump on every opportunity to get big retail developments in their ward. It's not like parts downtown or northside where more people tend to value the "charm" and pedestrian scale of non-suburban development. I think the residents of Bridgeport probably think this proposed development is a godsend...at least I think. I think everyone including the alderman probably thinks those warehouses are great. But they know not to let them get in the way of a big development like this being at the mercy of ward residents.

Personally, I believe retail will come regardless. A unique and creative site plan will add some more cost, but not enough to hinder returns and leasing on this development.

[wierdaaron]

I've heard rumors that some telecom companies were scouting historic warehouses to convert into datacenters (Chicago is turning into a kind of datacenter darling due to its hub-like location), but when McCormick people heard about that they offered to lease their own convention space for datacenter use.

Probably just rumors. Lots of things you can do with warehouses. Lofts, retail, film studio space, indoor paintball...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Hayward

It's just my opinion...but I think Alderman jump on every opportunity to get big retail developments in their ward. It's not like parts downtown or northside where more people tend to value the "charm" and pedestrian scale of non-suburban development. I think the residents of Bridgeport probably think this proposed development is a godsend...at least I think. I think everyone including the alderman probably thinks those warehouses are great. But they know not to let them get in the way of a big development like this being at the mercy of ward residents.

Personally, I believe retail will come regardless. A unique and creative site plan will add some more cost, but not enough to hinder returns and leasing on this development.

^ Plus, even "charming pedestrian oriented" northside neighborhoods have their share of suburban-style shopping adjacent to them to fulfill that demand. I don't really see any difference on the south side, except that the "suburban style development" may actually precede the gentrification of the more urban areas. You still have tons of potential further east of this 35th and Ashland site, where there is a preserved building stock, expensive homes, and old warehouses that only a few years ago were being converted into condos before the recession started.

[sloop.chi]

Its seems as though the WLVN was misquoted in the Patch completely. I emailed the alderman with my opposition as it related to the article and they responded that both the alderman and the WLVN are pro-TOD for this plot. They sent me a letter that WLVN sent to the developers in August as a response to their first request.

August 27, 2012
Paul Bryant
Mid-America Real Estate Corp
One Parkview Plaza – 9th Floor
Oak Brook Terrace, IL 60181
Edwin Vdovets
Keeler Real Estate LLC
122 S Michigan Ave., Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60603
Re: 3400 N Lincoln Ave.
Dear Messrs. Bryant and Vdovets,

Thank you for taking the time to come to the West Lakeview Neighbors Board Meeting on Tuesday evening, August 15, 2012, to discuss your plans and answer questions on your proposed development of the parcel at 3400 N. Lincoln Ave. We greatly appreciate your candor about the project and we look forward to continue this open relationship during the balance of your project.
We offer this letter so that you are clear on our position with respect to your plans. Our hope is that the parcel is developed as a “Transit Friendly Development “in accordance with the City of Chicago’s Transit Friendly Development Guide. This would tend to call for a multi-story development with a residential component above a commercial space at ground level. With this parcel being located adjacent to the Paulina El stop, we view this location as ideal to support a higher residential density.

We also wanted to offer some feedback on parts of your presentation. You had indicated that you were looking to maximize parking for your commercial tenant and were looking to have on the order of 17 parking spaces. You expressed concern over the City’s parking requirement for residential units. There is precedence for having reduced residential parking requirements in certain areas and we would be in favor of recommending support for this. We would also prefer to see garage space versus open parking to further increase the residential component of the development. As discussed in our meeting, we will not support opening Roscoe to two-way traffic.

We encourage you to come back and present your plans as they further progress. Again, we hope to work in concert with you so that your project is both a success for you and the neighborhood.

Sincerely,
William DeMille
President
West Lakeview Neighbors

[ardecila]

Good on them. Between them, SOAR, and the East Village Association, I'm starting to see some progress. Chicagoans are slowly beginning to come around on density, at least at key transit-adjacent sites.

[the urban politician]

^ Wow, I take back my "NIMBY scum" comment! Quite impressive...

[BWChicago]

On the Wrigley Factory site, the Wrigley factory building facing Ashland takes up relatively little square footage and is worth keeping, and the 8 story Larkin Company Warehouse (yes, THAT Larkin Company) is very worth saving. Especially when you consider the site plan calls for, what, a bank, a fast-casual restaurant, a fast food restaurant, and 2-4 shops on the footprint (=dry cleaners, mattress store, cell phone store, currency exchange). If you're going to lose these buildings, don't lose them for outlot developments. That's just sick. You'd still get your anchors with 35th St frontage and enough space for the planned gateway to the development at 36th even if those two factories were retained and reused, just marginally less visibility.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Personally, I believe retail will come regardless. A unique and creative site plan will add some more cost, but not enough to hinder returns and leasing on this development.

This. x1000. Anti-preservation folks are fond of arguing a false dilemma. The best/worst recent example is Prentice. Northwestern was all, "EITHER we keep this unusable building that will sit empty and unused forever OR we invest in JERBS and TECHNOLOGY and ADVANCED SERVICE ORIENTED BIOMEDICAL ECONOMY!" But the truth is Northwestern would build that shit regardless. Adaptive reuse might increase the costs but Northwestern would still turn a profit, and, at the end of they day, that's (clearly) all that really matters to them.

I don't think forcing some big box retailers to put parking on the roof is enough to dissuade them from expanding into a neighborhood like Bridgeport. If it were, then the benefits were likely marginal not only for the retailer but the community as well, meaning the Aldermen or whoever had been overstating their potential impact.

(In fact, I'd go even further and say these kinds of developments hinder gentrification in transitional neighborhoods, but that's a different argument.)

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

On the Wrigley Factory site, the Wrigley factory building facing Ashland takes up relatively little square footage and is worth keeping, and the 8 story Larkin Company Warehouse (yes, THAT Larkin Company) is very worth saving. Especially when you consider the site plan calls for, what, a bank, a fast-casual restaurant, a fast food restaurant, and 2-4 shops on the footprint (=dry cleaners, mattress store, cell phone store, currency exchange). If you're going to lose these buildings, don't lose them for outlot developments. That's just sick. You'd still get your anchors with 35th St frontage and enough space for the planned gateway to the development at 36th even if those two factories were retained and reused, just marginally less visibility.

Agree. Since this proposal isn't highway commercial category, a retail strip behind the larger buildings (which could still house outlot tenants within) would be successful. You'll notice the larger neighborhood strip malls have some spaces buried deep. Doesn't matter. You cater to locals, familiarize them once with a big sign and they know all about the place. It's not anticipated that someone from the burbs will come to Ashland and Pershing to shop at random.

It's a prototypical design that's typical since the 80's. Design for visibility on 50 mph thoroughfare. I'm shocked this crap still get proposed. I've seen plenty of exurbs take more progressive approaches. Regardless, there was an article saying mall development is coming back on strong. If that's the case, it makes sense to raise standards here in the city quite a bit....since the city's neighborhoods will be a strong market in coming years.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Mall development is definitely NOT coming back strong. That was a ridiculous Tribune article that effectively seemed to serve as little more than an extended misleading press release for a retail real estate brokerage. The data show (from a very, very low base of activity), a small bump in retail deliveries from '11- '12, and then an even larger DROP projected for '13 to set an even LOWER very, very, very low base of activity. Talk about mischaracterizing trend data in the extreme! Yes, there are some decent (and a small number of excellent journalists) on the local scene, but the overall state of, and skill level exhibited by the local industry is kinda scary.......

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Mall development is definitely NOT coming back strong. That was a ridiculous Tribune article that effectively served as a misleading press release for a retail real estate brokerage. The data show (from a very, very low base of activity), a small bump in retail deliveries from '11- '12, and then an even larger DROP projected for '13 to set an even LOWER very, very low base of activity. Talk about mischaracterizing trend data in the extreme! Yes, there are some decent (and a small number of excellent journalists) on the local scene, but the overall state of, and skill level exhibited by the local industry is kinda scary.......

I read that article this morning and chuckled. A horrible puff piece essentially written by a retail brokerage.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

This. x1000. Anti-preservation folks are fond of arguing a false dilemma. The best/worst recent example is Prentice. Northwestern was all, "EITHER we keep this unusable building that will sit empty and unused forever OR we invest in JERBS and TECHNOLOGY and ADVANCED SERVICE ORIENTED BIOMEDICAL ECONOMY!" But the truth is Northwestern would build that shit regardless. Adaptive reuse might increase the costs but Northwestern would still turn a profit, and, at the end of they day, that's (clearly) all that really matters to them.

I don't think forcing some big box retailers to put parking on the roof is enough to dissuade them from expanding into a neighborhood like Bridgeport. If it were, then the benefits were likely marginal not only for the retailer but the community as well, meaning the Aldermen or whoever had been overstating their potential impact.

(In fact, I'd go even further and say these kinds of developments hinder gentrification in transitional neighborhoods, but that's a different argument.)

Could not agree more. Those patently 'false choice' arguments could make me go mad. Even worse are the often gullible politicians who actually buy the s%i$ that such developers are slinging in this regard. In the case of NW and Prentice, it was one of the more extreme examples of these absurd arguments (in that case I'd argue that that the 2 key politicians are not gullible to the 'falsiness' of the argument....(again, that one was so obviously "false" as to be almost humerous)......in that case I think they had other motivations - not to get too off track by delving into more here........NW's false-choice argument I think was designed mainly for public sympathy (as opposed to politician persuasion) as part of its broader ham-fisted pr campaign on Prentice.

In the case of the S. Ashland proposed demo/retail site, I'm sorry but I don't think the 'but other neighborhoods are doing it too, mom' argument holds any water either, nor for that matter does the 'but johnny 3 blocks north does it all the time, and he's right by the el' etc work any better.....

[SamInTheLoop]

We've had some nice positive surprises lately with enlightened community groups' position regarding appropriate development. Denser, taller, more in-line with its transit-proximate location? What's going on here? The Mayans were wrong last month, we're actually getting winter-like temperatures and a little Jaunuary snow in Chicago, the Eurozone is not disintegrating......is the future really not so bleak??

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I read that article this morning and chuckled. A horrible puff piece essentially written by a retail brokerage.

A much better article could be written by an economics/business reporter with strong anlytical skills and expert judgment......would would delve into the trend in retail starts, and prospective outlook for this year and next.......there will be a growth story there, however still quite muted to be sure, and once again, coming off a base that is at historical lows (I'm assuming as far back as quality market data on retail development go)...

[J_M_Tungsten]

This would be awesome.











http://m.chicago.curbed.com/archives...-navy-pier.php

[the urban politician]

^ Not a big fan of this.

I would much rather see the actual ferris wheel expanded. Right now the ferris wheel as-is is pretty underwhelming

[J_M_Tungsten]

I personally think it's kinda cool, but I think the tourist will love it. They will make their way to Navy Pier and likely be pleasantly surprise by these.