CHICAGO | General Developments

[marothisu]

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.

I think you're probably missing the point. The point isn't 100% that people don't own cars - of course there's many who do. The point is that it's right next to a brown line stop and completely downgrading density. This is not the right spot to do it in - put it somewhere else if you're going to downgrade density.

There's a reason we have trains, and there should be more density around those stops.

[wierdaaron]

If I had a parking lot right next to a train station I'd be worried about people using my lot as a free park 'n' ride lot. That means they'd have to pay for lot monitoring, security, and towing.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

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.

Originally Posted by Buckman821

Actually no, the area around that station is one of the most dense, if not the most dense, of all stops on the ravenswood branch.
This can plainly be seen from satellite view, but in case you need more evidence:

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map
(be sure to flip the map to population density)

I think we all understand why walgreens wants this - GASP!!!!- but the point is it is extremely damaging to the urban fabric, and as a city, we should be able to stop it.

Originally Posted by BWChicago

In particular the area north of Lawrence is heavily courtyard buildings. There's not all that much auto-oriented development along Lawrence east of Pulaski, save a few small strip malls and small grocery stores. Most of it is small, developable parking lots, which makes this all the worse.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ More of your trash. But I work in healthcare and I'm not buying your "debilitated old lady with a walker" imagery that you're trying to use to justify a corner parking lot.

I treat old people all the time. There are so many services out there that can deliver them drugs at home that it's ridiculous, not to mention that many have something called families that can do this for them. Lets also not forget that Walgreens is much more than a pharmacy at this point, and essentially operates as a convenience store that services far more than the quaint "old people" that your post attempts to conjure up as an image.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jibba

Yep.

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

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.

Originally Posted by ardecila

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.

I do intend to pile on: Mr. Downtown, I am amazed at how often you defend the status quo; it almost seems like a reflex. And it's frustrating because I would never guess I'd hear an argument like the one you just made from such a knowledgeable and well-informed person. I'm left thinking you're either being contrary or that you really do prefer a less robust urbanism than the majority of us here, in which I wonder if you're not meant for a sunnier and more southerly locale.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

I do intend to pile on: Mr. Downtown, I am amazed at how often you defend the status quo; it almost seems like a reflex. And it's frustrating because I would never guess I'd hear an argument like the one you just made from such a knowledgeable and well-informed person. I'm left thinking you're either being contrary or that you really do prefer a less robust urbanism than the majority of us here, in which I wonder if you're not meant for a sunnier and more southerly locale.

Guys, Mr. Downtown makes a very fair point.

My problem with Walgreens isn't necessarily their inclusion of parking lots in their projects; it's the suburban fashion in which they are designing their projects. Parking and accommodations for vehicles is necessary, even in the inner city. But I just feel like there are more creative solutions that do well to preserve this urban fabric that is slowly and steadily disappearing throughout Chicago. For me, it's an issue regarding character and urban feel. It is not simply an issue with parking lots. In the case of Walgreens, I just feel like their car-oriented suburban designs are harmful to our city's character. Simple as that. Solution? Find a more creative or responsible way to integrate a parking lot.

[ardecila]

There aren't any easy answers here.

Rooftop and underground parking won't fit in the budget.

Mixed-use developments require a far more complex financing structure and can be riskier (the developer needs strong demand in two categories).

A different site plan has drawbacks: flipping the plan puts the parking lot on one street only and puts a blank wall at the primary street corner. Modifying the building to provide two entrances wastes interior space and/or poses security/surveillance issues.

There's a Walgreens in New Orleans with a creative rear-parking arrangement and two entrances, but it requires the store to implement tougher anti-shoplifting measures (RFID tags I believe).

[wierdaaron]

Walgreens has shown no shortage of creativity in the city. Maybe they think that in this case it's not downtown so they're operating under their normal, everywhere-but-downtown-flagship-stores operating procedures.

I don't know anything about the internal structure of the company but I bet the people who plan the bank restoration or the State/Randolph location have never met or worked with the people who plop down the 99% of locations that make up their portfolio.

I guess it's the community's job to push back and hopefully get them to put more thought into it.

[ardecila]

Yeah, I was just gonna say that. Developers/landowners approach Walgreens with proposals and the company either gives a thumbs-up or thumbs-down depending on how closely the proposal adheres to Walgreens' design standards, traffic levels, and growth goals. If a thumbs-up is given, then the developer builds the store under contract and sells it to Walgreen Co. (like a build-to-suit arrangement).

This system does not encourage creativity but it does get Walgreens rock-bottom construction costs.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Today
Google Campus and Racine and Madison

[Rizzo]

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.

Nonsense. Cars are mostly unused. Our need for parking is based on frequency of use. Not whether lots of cars are on the street. There's a place where parking should be allowed, but not a busy corner across from a transit stop. This is Chicago, not the suburbs.

Back when I had my truck, I kept it parked downtown for months on end and only moved it when street cleaning was scheduled. How much on site parking was required of me? Zero. I walked or took trains everywhere like a greater percentage of Chicagoans.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I treat old people all the time. There are so many services out there that can deliver them drugs at home that it's ridiculous, not to mention that many have something called families that can do this for them.

Walgreens does not offer free delivery. Whether it's an old guy in need of hemorrhoid cream, a young mother needing antibiotics for a screaming toddler with an ear infection, or a healthy Olympian marathoner who's out of eggs. . . they'll at times all find a parking lot convenient.

That's not to say the parking should be unscreened, or its placement should be unregulated. It's not even an argument that zoning should permit this type of building here. But let's remember that the original question, the one to which I was responding, was "Why the hell do [Walgreens] need a parking lot across the street from the Brown Line?" And the simple answer is that Walgreens thinks it will make more sales with a parking lot than without one. You could even invert the question: why would a Walgreens with a parking lot want to be near the Brown Line? Same answer: they think it will help them sell more stuff. Even the Walgreens at Noel State Bank, in the heart of Wicker Park, has convenience parking.

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.

Any time I feel my original post has made a complete and cogent argument, I think of it as impolite to belabor the point in follow-up posts. The argument will stand or fall on its logic, not the number of times it's repeated.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

So the endless rows of parked cars on every street in that and most neighborhoods are all just abandoned?

You are correct. All those cars are parked. And Im sure if you sit and watch you will find a whole lot of them dont move all that much. For four years I had a car while living in Lakeview, I would use it maybe twice a month to visit friends and relatives, otherwise it would only move on street cleaning days. I would walk, ride a bike, use CTA... and I benefited from living in a dense urban neighborhood that prioritized residents, not machines. I stayed in my neighborhood for typical amenities because it had those amenities within easy reach. I never had to drive anywhere, it was all there already.

Replacing a mixed use building with multiple commercial tenants, and multiple residential units with a single use commercial tenant that prioritizes the storage of machines rather than users is trading community user convenience for non community user convenience.




Or you could just ignore the basic principles for successful urban neighborhoods while posting on a public forum devoted to urbanity and hold up your cheer flag for formulaic commercial real estate investor developments under the guise of "logic" and annoy the piss out of people. It all depends on how you prefer to spend your free time I suppose.

[markh9]

Chicago Filmmakers to buy city’s landmark firehouse

http://reelchicago.com/article/chica...irehouse131216

Executive director Brenda Webb’s dream of having a permanent home for Chicago Filmmakers became a reality when the city chose it, out of several competitive arts and community groups, to buy and renovate an abandoned city-owned landmark firehouse.

Chicago Filmmakers would buy the 5,892-sq. ft. firehouse for $36,000 and commit over $600,000 towards renovation, no small task as the firehouse has been unoccupied since firefighters moved out 10 years ago.

...

Once the renovation is completed, estimated taking 8 to 12 months, Chicago Filmmakers will host its established weekly screenings, the annual Onion City experimental film and Reeling: LGBT festivals and initiate partnerships with neighborhood schools.

When the sale is completed, plans call for the basement, first and second floors to be entirely rehabbed, said James Gorski, Chicago Filmmakers’ architect. The basement would be mostly used for storage. The first floor would be converted into a 75 to 99 seat screening room and the second floor used for classrooms.

From the picture, looks like a little gem of a building. Article says its at Ridge and Clark. Anyone know the actual address?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by markh9

From the picture, looks like a little gem of a building. Article says its at Ridge and Clark. Anyone know the actual address?

Cool building and glad it's not going to be knocked down I found an article from DNAInfo stating it's actually around 5714 N Ridge, which is not Ridge and Clark - it's about 2 blocks south of that intersection. It's just north of Hollywood Ave.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I walked or took trains everywhere like a greater percentage of Chicagoans.

WTF?!

Originally Posted by Hayward

Nonsense. Cars are mostly unused.

Come again? Good god, are fucking joking?! I can't believe I'm reading this. There's more to this city than just the Near North Side, Lincoln Park, and Lakeview. Transplants from Michigan or the suburbs or wherever may opt to sell their cars and use our shitty busses and trains because it's some kind of novelty or romantic city thing or something, but this is the exception to the rule. MOST Chicagoans use a car on a daily basis. And if you wanna argue this point, I challenge you to drive down Western between 4 and 5 this afternoon.

Absurdity. While I am in favor of dense urban design over car-oriented design all day, we all need to end this fantasy that people in Chicago don't drive.

Mr. Downtown seems to be one of the few members that actually thinks before he posts. Accommodations for cars are a necessary evil in all cities, but especially in Chicago where we average 1.5 cars per household. That being said, I still feel Walgreens and many other businesses need to flex their creative muscles a little harder when designing inner city projects.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

You are correct. All those cars are parked. And Im sure if you sit and watch you will find a whole lot of them dont move all that much. For four years I had a car while living in Lakeview, I would use it maybe twice a month to visit friends and relatives, otherwise it would only move on street cleaning days. I would walk, ride a bike, use CTA... and I benefited from living in a dense urban neighborhood that prioritized residents, not machines. I stayed in my neighborhood for typical amenities because it had those amenities within easy reach. I never had to drive anywhere, it was all there already.

Again, you guys need to do a little research regarding car use before posting such absurdities. Lakeview is filled with post college transplants and is in NO WAY representative of the City of Chicago. Period.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Mr. Downtown seems to be one of the few members that actually thinks before he posts. Accommodations for cars are a necessary evil in all cities, but especially in Chicago where we average 1.5 cars per household. That being said, I still feel Walgreens and many other businesses need to flex their creative muscles a little harder when designing inner city projects.

^ Give me a break, Tom. A lot of us recognize the need to accommodate cars in this city, and if you bother reading many of our posts we are saying the exact same thing you are saying right here. It's not about the existence of parking, it's about the placement of it.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ 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?

Yes, I do see a middle ground in this instance. If moving the parking away from the corner improves the environment, I'm all for it. On the other hand, according to the rendering, it looks like the plan includes a small bit of open space, which might create a more comfortable space for pedestrians or folks waiting for the bus...compared to the bricked in window wall and narrow sidewalk currently in place.

I do not see any middle ground with those that think there should be zero parking...at the corner, in the alley, or anywhere, simply because a train terminal exists across the street. I don't know with moral certainty that it's true, but I suspect a significant portion of the local population meets their daily transportation needs via private car, and it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Walgreen's to make an accomodation for them in their plans.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Nonsense. Cars are mostly unused. Our need for parking is based on frequency of use. Not whether lots of cars are on the street. There's a place where parking should be allowed, but not a busy corner across from a transit stop. This is Chicago, not the suburbs.

Back when I had my truck, I kept it parked downtown for months on end and only moved it when street cleaning was scheduled. How much on site parking was required of me? Zero. I walked or took trains everywhere like a greater percentage of Chicagoans.

I see your anecdote, Hayward, and I raise you one:

When I lived in Lakeview, I owned a car and used it every single day to get to work. So now what?

[SamInTheLoop]

^ And then you moved to the suburbs.

Win. Win.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The Trib is reporting that CPS will move its offices to 1 N Dearborn (the Sears flagship w/the Argo Tea). They have already retained a consultant to help them sell their current building.

I'm glad CPS will be putting that building back into private ownership... Hopefully it can be restored from its current sorry state. It might make a good hotel. I don't see it working for offices and the location is weird for residential. I won't shed any tears if a replacement is planned either.

It's time. I'm really hoping that Sears decides to completely throw in the towel on its sad State Street towel (as opposed to downsize it) with the CPS lease. The stores's an utter dud, a microcosm of what Eddie Lampert has done to the entire company (it wasn't on the right path before he took the helm - but he certainly did his very inept best to catapult it headfirst into its death spiral). Great opportunity to re-tenant the first floor (and possibly 2nd) State St. side with with much more productive, relevant retail uses to re-energize this important stretch of the street......