CHICAGO | General Developments

[k1052]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

^ I've not noticed any vertical steel being placed after the first floor. Also, they have completely wrapped the first floor in some plastic tarp or something from the frontage on wells all the way down on Scott st. Is this for fireproofing? It looks odd, but more annoyingly, the delay in new steel is killing me!

Pretty sure I saw steel above the first floor when I went by today.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Oh please. Not everyone lives out of their car and Walgreen's does understand that, otherwise they would incorporate parking and drive throughs into every location; but obviously they don't. Its a given the customer base here is going to arrive by train and bus considering the huge transit terminal across the street; and as others have said, this neighborhood has many multi-unit buildings with car-free residents, SFH is not the primary housing type here, but rather flats, courtyards and corner buildings. I have 2 friends for example who live car-free in a condo a few blocks away, one of which rides a bike to the Metra station for a reverse commute to the suburbs.

There is not a need for a parking lot here, plain and simple. Its only 17 spaces as well, so clearly Walgreen's doesn't believe the need is that great either. Without the curb cut, there would be at least 2 spaces on the street which could perhaps be tagged as a 15 minute loading zone for the sick old ladies you speak of, plus there could be a few spaces off the alley while pulling the store to the corner. The problem is there isn't any imagination to fit this store and many others into the urban fabric. We all know creativity exists within the company, but its only selectively applied.

Yep.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Great to hear about 1000 N Damen. Currently a nasty vacant lot that is one of the few remaining in the area. It will be filled in with a nice modern design that holds the corner well. The design can be found here:

http://tarisrealestate.com/projects/...0-n-damen-ave/

Originally Posted by kemachs

What's preventing Walgreen's from locating..you know..IN the existing building. I guess the most obvious reason is parking, is there any room to put a lot behind or next to it?

Is re-use something the neighborhood could fight for?

No, Walgreens could not locate in a building like that. The floorplan of such a building is very restrictive and interrupted by numerous collumns and stairwells along the perimeter. I hope the community convinces the alderman to kill this project. If Wallgreens wants a store in that area they are just going to have to be the anchor to a large TOD project. They can go right ahead and tear the nice 3 story building down if they replace it with a 6 story one.

How about they tear down, gee I dunno, the big fucking strip mall right next to this building to build a Walgreens? God I hate Walgreens so fucking much. What the fuck is wrong with that company??? They spend all this money upping their game and then decide to start wreaking havoc right across the street from a L station.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But what's the point of posting this? Mr. D will likely not have a response, he'll just stay quiet and make another irritating, coy & antagonizing comment to some other post 2 weeks from now. He lacks the ability to defend his assertions beyond a single, initial post.

Yeah, that was one of the worst, least informed, posts I've ever seen on here. Lawrence in Kimball doesn't even remotely resemble the SFH filled, suburban wonderland he described. I remember looking at some listings for apartment blocks over there a while ago that were like "86 studio units!" and another was over 100 units. These were on like 4 extra deep city lots each. I'm sure all 100+ residents of those buildings have cars because clearly there are enough street parking spaces to allow each person in the area to have a car. Except there is only room for like 3 or 4 cars in front of each building.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Great to hear about 1000 N Damen. Currently a nasty vacant lot that is one of the few remaining in the area. It will be filled in with a nice modern design that holds the corner well. The design can be found here:

http://tarisrealestate.com/projects/...0-n-damen-ave/

Very nice. I like the design. I also see they're the ones developing 701 N Western - I wish a rendering for that one exists. Is that the care lot on the corner there or that 1 story warehouse looking building opposite of that?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Very nice. I like the design. I also see they're the ones developing 701 N Western - I wish a rendering for that one exists. Is that the care lot on the corner there or that 1 story warehouse looking building opposite of that?

I agree, this is a very nice upgrade!

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by markh9

Wicker Group Not Sold on 'Pretty Damn Big' Apartment Building in Main Hub

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20131...lding-main-hub



Didn't realize the NIMBYism was so strong in the heart of Wicker...

This: "the height doesn't warrant the density" doesn't make sense.

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I hope the community convinces the alderman to kill this project.

Agreed. Status quo is definitely best case scenario here.

If anyone knows of any relevant public meetings etc, please post them here.

This is the exact type of project, that over several decades, has destroyed what was once special about a megacity like Chicago. Death by 1000 papercuts.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So sick old people can stop by and pick up medicine? So moms with kids in the SUV can stop on the way home from soccer to get milk? It's not for the employees. It's—gasp—to attract customers.

The neighborhood around Kimball Terminal is primarily single-family homes (some small apartment buildings) and their residents have children and busy lives. They also conduct many daily activities by automobile. Not everyone in every city neighborhood is a 27-year-old coder on his way to the Mart.

Not to pile on here, but the large crowd that congregates here for the northbound 82 and the eastbound 81 suggests a very large base of customers that do not have cars.

Also, haven't I heard you claim that strip malls are now not permitted under zoning? This is an owner-occupied proposal, but it's formally the same thing.

I hate to say it, but an acceptable compromise might be Walgreens flipping the site plan to place the building and entrance at the corner. Motorists on Kimball wouldn't see the parking lot but I doubt motorists will be the primary customer group. I'd also accept if Walgreens kept the current arrangement but shaved their parking lot to create a pedestrian plaza at the corner. Thise aidewalks are awfully narrow for the volume of bus riders who wait there.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I agree, this a very nice upgrade!

Here's a better rendering which I think shows off the building more than the previous page. This development company is building a handful of SFH's in the area too and I see they're doing stuff in Miami as well.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

This is the exact type of project, that over several decades, has destroyed what was once special about a megacity like Chicago. Death by 1000 papercuts.

^ But that's what's so annoying about this. The last 10-15 years or so has seen so many vacant lots/corners, etc filled in with good urban development, but then we see crap like this. It's kind of like a 2 steps forward, one step back process

[marothisu]

I know this is more business news, but I think it's still cool and there is a quote that may resonate with some of us. Who knows, maybe it could have an impact on development indirectly by causing some other business openings (there are some notable ones up there though).

Homaro Cantu of Moto and iNG is opening up a coffee/donut place in Old Irving Park near the blue line stop. He has a "miracle berry" that basically makes sour things taste sweet and eliminates the need for so much sugar. I guess he's been living in OIP for a decade

Though Cantu said he could have opened Berrista anywhere in the city, he opted for Old Irving Park, where he's lived for the past 10 years, because "all great movements, all great paradigm shifts start in a small neighborhood."

"I want to start out at the uber, uber local level," Cantu said.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

Agreed. Status quo is definitely best case scenario here.

If anyone knows of any relevant public meetings etc, please post them here.

This is the exact type of project, that over several decades, has destroyed what was once special about a megacity like Chicago. Death by 1000 papercuts.

Send a message to Deb saying this very thing along with the other insightful things you have brought up before. I just did, and while she might not take my submission alone and take it into account when considering her actions, she will likely be moved to incorporate ideas into her policy when sentiments of the same type are coming to her en masse.

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Send a message to Deb saying this very thing along with the other insightful things you have brought up before. I just did, and while she might not take my submission alone and take it into account when considering her actions, she will likely be moved to incorporate ideas into her policy when sentiments of the same type are coming to her en masse.

This is a question to the forum more generally, but I'd be interested in your opinion as well, Jibba. As I am not a resident of this ward, but rather the neighborhing 47th ward, are you perceived as overstepping your bounds if you contact an alderman about a project in another ward? Similarly, if you show up to a meeting about a project in another ward?

I care passionately about these topics even if they're down on 95th street. But I've always thought Lawrence ave west from Kimball held a ton of potential, so this one really stings. There's really great building stock in the area.

Thanks,

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Jibba

Send a message to Deb saying this very thing along with the other insightful things you have brought up before. I just did, and while she might not take my submission alone and take it into account when considering her actions, she will likely be moved to incorporate ideas into her policy when sentiments of the same type are coming to her en masse.

From a recent newsletter I saw from Deb:

"DEVELOPMENT: Reactions to Project at Montrose & Sacramento

From Deb:

It has come to my attention that the development project at Montrose & Sacramento is not being received positively by all neighbors. Please know that I, like most of you, am not thrilled with the idea of another strip mall going in at this location. However, this plan was in place before I was sworn into this office.

It is my intention to develop a good relationship with the developer in order to work with her to place businesses on her property that the neighborhood sees as beneficial.

It is important that you know that I will not be in favor of new developments like this in the future. Thanks for your patience and for your constructive comments as we move forward with building up our neighborhoods."

This tells me she should be against this Walgreens at Lawrence and Kimball.

[hygge]

Excuse my ignorance on this topic and if this is posted in the wrong thread, but does Chicago have any avenues which allow citizens to do an end-around the pols to initiate zoning reform? Or any way there could be systemic change in how projects get reviewed, i.e. taking the aldermen out of the equation? Do ballot initiatives exist in the city? It is absolutely absurd to think that projects over 4 stories in wicker park or along the north branch of the redline create mass hysteria amongst the bourgeoisie .001%ers in Wicker Park/Lincoln Park/West Loop/ect. And dont even get me started on Walgreens or other chains of their ilk. Do people ever stop to think that there might be some connection between Chicago's planning or zoning laws and the myriad problems that exist, weather that be social of fiscal? Chicago has so much potential, but seems stuck in some goofy twilight zone.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

This is a question to the forum more generally, but I'd be interested in your opinion as well, Jibba. As I am not a resident of this ward, but rather the neighborhing 47th ward, are you perceived as overstepping your bounds if you contact an alderman about a project in another ward? Similarly, if you show up to a meeting about a project in another ward?

I care passionately about these topics even if they're down on 95th street. But I've always thought Lawrence ave west from Kimball held a ton of potential, so this one really stings. There's really great building stock in the area.

Thanks,

All I ever say is that I am more than just a citizen of a ward and that I am a citizen of Chicago, and what happens in Chicago can affect me as much as what happens in the ward where I live (and I bring up specific examples or hypotheses that supports this, if I feel it necessary). And then I suggest that they as aldermen should understand this as well as I do. That's when I'm corresponding with them, and I don't hide the fact that I'm outside of their domain (my address is always listed).

Neighborhood meetings are a different story, though. According to offices I have asked, anyone is welcome to attend any neighborhood meeting (they are certainly public, at any rate). Though, I have never announced that I don't live in the area when it is for a meeting for an area that I don't live in, and there has never been anyone there to audit for that (there's just a sign-in sheet that you can sign if you want).

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

From a recent newsletter I saw from Deb:

[...]

However, this plan was in place before I was sworn into this office.

[...]

This sounds like she is either being sure to retroactively evaluate the proposal to make it clear where she stands or that all of the needed aldermanic approvals have already been granted. I am hoping that it is the former.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

Oh please. Not everyone lives out of their car and Walgreen's does understand that, otherwise they would incorporate parking and drive throughs into every location; but obviously they don't. Its a given the customer base here is going to arrive by train and bus considering the huge transit terminal across the street; and as others have said, this neighborhood has many multi-unit buildings with car-free residents, SFH is not the primary housing type here, but rather flats, courtyards and corner buildings. I have 2 friends for example who live car-free in a condo a few blocks away, one of which rides a bike to the Metra station for a reverse commute to the suburbs.

So the endless rows of parked cars on every street in that and most neighborhoods are all just abandoned? Personal cars are a huge and integral part of getting around in Chicago, and Walgreen's is smart to consider them in their plans.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

So the endless rows of parked cars on every street in that and most neighborhoods are all just abandoned? Personal cars are a huge and integral part of getting around in Chicago, and Walgreen's is smart to consider them in their plans.

^ Yes, but that doesn't mean that the pedestrian should be treated like a second class citizen.

So put the entrance at the intersection and put the parking on the side away from the intersection. Then you have parking and easier & safer access for transit users and pedestrians.

You and Mr D (still awaiting his response, by the way. Where are you, Mr D, do you have any response to us all or are you just sitting there plotting your next annoying and antagonizing single comment of the week?) can't see a middle ground here, or shall we keep destroying all of our urban corners with surface parking lots?