CHICAGO | General Developments

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by ardecila

You can't make it retroactive and expect existing strip malls to be rebuilt. The existing strip malls with parking in front just add confusion.

Better signage is the answer. My mom once circled for 10 minutes in the parking lot of a CVS on Milwaukee trying to look for a way out. The problem: both curb cuts into the parking lot had large signs saying "Enter" but not "Exit". (this is how we tell a native suburbanite, btw)

I am well aware of the fact that you would not be able to make this mandate retroactive, and as much as I like to address potential problems within my own arguments (I was going to touch on this fact) it would have expanded the scope beyond what I wanted to get across: the economics of these situations in a free market favor the production of convenient, visible parking in these types of developments, but that does not mean that we should allow this fact to negate any desires to produce schemes that go against what is economically the most sensical.

[honte]

^ This is one reason I like the strip center on Armitage / California. It manages to hold the streetwall somewhat and anchor the corner, but also presents an environment that retailers will find comfortable.

And the materials and detailing are nice.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by honte

^ This is one reason I like the strip center on Armitage / California. It manages to hold the streetwall somewhat and anchor the corner, but also presents an environment that retailers will find comfortable.

^ If you're talking about that strip mall as a unique, individual example, then yes, it's not the worst thing ever built. But to me it's still 10 times worse than a poorly executed strip mall that places parking in the rear. It's at best tolerable.

Lets put it this way. Would you like to see strip malls like the one at Armitage/California pop up all over the city in some of the densest neighborhoods? Is it really that ''attractive" to you, or are you simply tolerant of it because it's not as ugly as some other ones you've seen.

To me, all of the good materials and design in the world are for naught. Streetwalls and street-front shops define what I love about cities, and the utter disregard for the pedestrian is what I hate about suburbia. Whatever strip malls have already been built are obviously going to be grandfathered in, but the city is rightfully rejecting them as an ongoing part of the city's streetscape (except in some areas of town)

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Problem is that retailers want customer parking that actually attracts customers, and they only want to staff one door. If you're leasing space for your laundromat, UPS Store, or dry cleaners, you won't voluntarily choose a place with parking in the back. The person driving down Milwaukee won't think of it as convenient if he can't see a parking space, and the person walking down Milwaukee won't mind walking across 30 feet of parking lot.

Clybourn taught some sobering lessons in the early 90s to those of us who thought it would work to "just put the parking in the back." Those shopping centers didn't lease nearly as well, and one failed completely.

^ Well, that's because Chicago (and many other cities, of course) made such a big mistake by opening up Pandora's box. In other words, by allowing strip malls to get built with ample and convenient parking, the city essentially allowed these projects an advantage that traditional streetfront retailers never had. What Chicago should to is level the playing field--an argument I've made before.

If everybody has rear (or ideally, no) parking, then nobody will really have an advantage, unless they want to be west of, say, Western Ave.

What Chicago is doing now, this hodgepodge that we're seeing, isn't going to work. All of these wonderful condo buildings in the neighborhoods with ground level retail are being punished because, half a mile away in a former industrial site (whose zoning remains commercial due to community/Aldermanic prerogative), giant strip centers with huge parking lots will be built. Why would any retailer set up shop in the ground floors of these condo buildings when they can rent a space in the strip mall 1/2 mile away anyhow? That's why when you drive on Belmont west of the red line, you see blocks and blocks of new condo buildings with vacant ground level retail spaces.

Level the playing field, Chicago.

[Mr Downtown]

So your solution to level the playing field is to hobble all the players?

To say, "we prefer the streetscape produced by the 19th century, so we insist that those be the only kind of buildings allowed in the 21st" is just building tableaux and then trying to persuade people to live in them. It has nothing to do with a world where women work outside the home, where professionals value their time highly, where unskilled labor is more expensive than mechanization, and where consumers have high expectations about goods and services.

[VivaLFuego]

I don't see how every strip mall having their parking in back is a problem. If everyone did, then that's just how it would be in Chicago - if you need parking, always look behind the strip stores. Voila. tup is right in that it breaks down once you start allowing the parking in front (though I disagree with him that the 'ideal' is zero parking....I'd leave the quantity of off-street parking provided to the free market).

In higher-density areas with higher property values, then you can put the parking in a garage (behind), or as a deck on the roof, etc.

There are ways to do auto-friendly, modern commercial/retail space without making it sprawlburban pedestrian-hostile schlock.

[wrab]

Go figure - guess you really can't please some people. From today's Trib:

Residents oppose Edgewater lakefront park plan
Privacy and safety top concerns for condo owners

By Noreen S. Ahmed-Ullah | Tribune Reporter
10:52 PM CDT, March 20, 2008

When Friends of the Parks revived an idea for expanding Chicago's string of lakefront parks further north, they thought they had a way around the objections—enlist residents to design their own vision of beaches, an extension of the bike path and off-shore islands.

But it's turning out to be not so easy. Residents living in high rises abutting the shoreline north of Hollywood Avenue are putting up a fight.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1474243.story

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

I don't see how every strip mall having their parking in back is a problem. If everyone did, then that's just how it would be in Chicago - if you need parking, always look behind the strip stores.

The city can standardize a "parking in back" sign that strip malls can use to make drivers aware of the available parking. It really wouldn't be an issue.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

So your solution to level the playing field is to hobble all the players?

To say, "we prefer the streetscape produced by the 19th century, so we insist that those be the only kind of buildings allowed in the 21st" is just building tableaux and then trying to persuade people to live in them. It has nothing to do with a world where women work outside the home, where professionals value their time highly, where unskilled labor is more expensive than mechanization, and where consumers have high expectations about goods and services.

^ I think Viva's post (right after yours) sort of answers this for me. I really don't see everybody being "hobbled" by requiring retailers to put the parking that they need in the rear, and I think it's a gross exaggeration to suggest so.

With the parking in the rear, it's a reasonable compromise, and ultimately everybody wins. The pedestrian/transit user doesn't have to dodge insensitive drivers, the drivers still get a place to park, and the aesthetics of the city remain intact.

[wrab]

^ Comparable to the service uses of Chicago's alley system

[honte]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ If you're talking about that strip mall as a unique, individual example, then yes, it's not the worst thing ever built. But to me it's still 10 times worse than a poorly executed strip mall that places parking in the rear. It's at best tolerable.

I am looking at it in terms of the circumstances. That land was a total crap vacant lot before the strip mall went in. The area was very rough. I used to go over there all the time.

What we got out of it is an aesthetic solution that was able to draw businesses into the area. It addresses some of your concerns. It addresses some of mine. Without question, it has helped revitalize that section of the street. You may not like it 100%, but I give it credit and I think it's a decent solution.

I am not as streetwall-anxious as many of the rest of you. I actually appreciate breaks in the streetwall from time to time, as long as what I am looking at isn't ugly or hostile. Retail that is set back from the street allows light to come down to the street and provides visual interest. Honestly, many of Chicago's pedestrian strips that have buildings built up to the sidewalk at all times can be rather depressing. West Montrose or parts of Lawrence, for example. It's too narrow and so repetitive. I am not saying that strip malls are the answer (like on Milwaukee Avenue), but I do believe that an environment like Clybourn near North is actually more stimulating to the eye and potentially more pleasant to walk around. I'd far rather walk around there than the depressing cheap-materials-in-your-face streetwall they've managed to build on Belmont. In fact, I don't think I've ever walked down Belmont since they started ruining it with ugly buildings on every block.

Now, an area like Armitage in Lincoln Park by the Brown Line is unbeatable, I am sure we can agree. But you have to remember that you are talking about great architecture, lots of money, good upkeep, and streetwall. It's a very unusual circumstance.

Oh, and by the way TUP, before you start getting on the city for allowing strip malls, I would mention that there are examples of this that date back all the way to the early 1930s (possibly 1920s).

[SolarWind]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but there's a work stoppage at the La Quinta (1 S. Franklin). A sign says that the site is in violation of code 13-32-120 Construction Contrary to Approved Plans. It's dated March 12.

[Pandemonious]

^Its ugliness certainly is a violation of my taste...

Id also prefer to see a mixed use building there, or something as well.

[UChicagoDomer]

apologies for the off-topic question: does anyone know what CHA's plans for the Harold Ickes Homes (app. Cermack & State) are? the last I heard, it was being used as a re-location area for CHA residents kicked out of Cabrini and as a re-location area for the so-called "worst of the worst" in the CHA system. thus, as one recent report showed, it has the highest crime level and lowest income level in all of CHA. but that was over a year ago, so i was wondering what's going on with it now.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by honte

I am not as streetwall-anxious as many of the rest of you. I actually appreciate breaks in the streetwall from time to time, as long as what I am looking at isn't ugly or hostile. Retail that is set back from the street allows light to come down to the street and provides visual interest. Honestly, many of Chicago's pedestrian strips that have buildings built up to the sidewalk at all times can be rather depressing.

^ Sorry, but seeing the back ends of cars is not my idea of something even remotely aesthetically attractive. Strip malls are ugly, and I would even venture to say that they add nothing to urban streetscapes. I view them as placeholders waiting for something more significant to make better use of their space

I am not saying that strip malls are the answer (like on Milwaukee Avenue), but I do believe that an environment like Clybourn near North is actually more stimulating to the eye and potentially more pleasant to walk around.

^ What? One of our most vocal architecture critics suddenly doesn't mind completely design-less, featureless strip-centers with nothing more than corporate signage and acres of pavement? Hello Schaumburg? And you follow that with this statement:

I'd far rather walk around there than the depressing cheap-materials-in-your-face streetwall they've managed to build on Belmont. In fact, I don't think I've ever walked down Belmont since they started ruining it with ugly buildings on every block.

^ Yet somehow Best Buy (or is it Circuit city? I forget) at North/Clybourn solves the issue of using cheap materials by simply hiding its ugliness behind 1,000 belching mufflers..

Oh, and by the way TUP, before you start getting on the city for allowing strip malls, I would mention that there are examples of this that date back all the way to the early 1930s (possibly 1920s).

^ Sorry, but something being built in 1930 draws no reverence from me like it does from some people. Putting the car in front of the pedestrian is just a bad idea when applied to city planning, and I have little tolerance for it. Some people (Mr. D) falsely attribute it to some 19th century nostalgia, but I'd gladly welcome streetscapes of glass and steel, or even other zany materials, over anything that puts the pedestrian in harm's way. That's why I'm excited about projects like the British School. If they can do it in European cities, then why not here?

[honte]

^ The last statement was not about historic significance, but to point out that this is not a new phenomenon. It is incorrect just to state that all the "good old" streetwalls were perfect lines of buildings without interruption, and to blame this on modern policy.

You guys must have a ton of plazas and arcades in New York, but around here people park cars on the street too. So, you kind of see them (front and back) when you walk down the street anyway. I guess you could only look to the side at the storefronts, but you tend to run into things if you do that.

I stand behind my comment about North / Clybourn. Why do I prefer it? Because there is diversity, good design every so often, activity, and a mixture of old and new. I am more referring to the part of Clybourn north of North Avenue, which has a smattering of old buildings - some Victorian, some rehabbed lofts - mixed in with a variety of styles of urban retail. There are strip malls, buildings with parking to the side, some vertical configurations, etc. It's much more engaging. Belmont from California to the Red Line is a disaster now, with only a few bright moments.

On the other hand, something like Elston Avenue is far worse than Belmont - it has followed the pattern of a Schaumburg or, really, more like Villa Park or something less upscale. It is lifeless and ugly from start to finish. Driving down it is bad enough; I would go out of my way not to walk there.

[honte]

^ By the way, there are several examples throughout Chicago of large commercial / residential buildings from the 1920s that have parking in back and portals that allow cars through to the parking. That model never seems to have any problem with people finding the parking. They put a giant sign in front of the portal, and since the building consumes the whole lot, there aren't any other places for grandma to mistake for the entrance. It's probably a bit more dangerous to the pedestrian than a strip center, but you can't have it all.

[Dr. Taco]

^ I like the North/Clybourn area, but I would never view it as a place I'd like to walk around in. I certainly don't mind walking from my parked car to any given place (typically AE ), but i wouldn't walk around there for fun (maybe once the new bridge is completed, I'll give it a try)

But Belmont?? are you kidding me? Belmont is about as walkable (from Damen east, anyway) as anywhere in the city. I love that frickin street

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by honte

^ By the way, there are several examples throughout Chicago of large commercial / residential buildings from the 1920s that have parking in back and portals that allow cars through to the parking.

I can think of vintage Lake Shore Drive residential buildings like this, but no commercial examples spring to mind. What examples were you thinking of, and how did the drivers get into the shops? How did the peds access the shops?

The inevitable result of parking-in-rear solutions is a hand-lettered sign on the sidewalk entrance saying USE "REAR" DOOR.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I can think of vintage Lake Shore Drive residential buildings like this, but no commercial examples spring to mind. What examples were you thinking of, and how did the drivers get into the shops? How did the peds access the shops?

The inevitable result of parking-in-rear solutions is a hand-lettered sign on the sidewalk entrance saying USE "REAR" DOOR.

Offhand, the building on Belmont that used to house Ann Sather's leaps to mind. I think honte's right, I've seen a couple others but I'm blanking at the moment. It definitely wasn't a 'prevalent' paradigm though.