CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mr Downtown]

Why can't you ride the bus to this Jewel? The front door is closer to Roosevelt than it is to the dairy case. They have these things called "shopping carts" that let you push your purchases almost to the bus stop. If you pushed your own cart from home, what's another 60 feet? If you've crossed Roosevelt Road's 120-foot right of way and then Ashland's 100-foot right of way, why would you feel that 200 feet of parking lot is a dealbreaker?

I find myself shopping at this Jewel almost as often as Roosevelt/Wabash because it's so much larger and therefore better stocked.

But, please, post a site plan you think would work better. Remember the developer's goal is to sign Jewel (no parking garages), then use them to pull tenants past the inline stores along Roosevelt and Ashland as well as around the L of the center. There might be a reason that 99.8 percent of all grocery-anchored neighborhood centers in North America have a variation on this site plan.

[honte]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Oh, come on. Where in Chicago have you seen a neighborhood strip mall get "landbanked" and then redeveloped into a higher use. In the rare case it's happened, it's probably the exception rather than the norm. Even in Chicago's best neighborhoods I see strip malls here and there, but I sure as hell haven't seen any go away.

... because you don't live here?

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^

And there is one element in existence that screws your prediction all up--good old fashioned NIMBYism. "They're going to tear down that shopping center and build a what? And what about all that parking? Where's the parking going to go?"

Every time the city builds suburban crap--be it that strip center, or Dearborn Park, or large swaths of parking--it's building another Village of Bensenville ready to take on anybody with everything to protect what they perceive to be "theirs".

TUP, this whole thing is outrageous. This neighborhood is, uh, like 50 years out from NIMBYism at least. It has a population ... I don't know ... 30 strong at this point? I'll give you 40 on a good day. Second, the land behind (west of) this strip center is IMD - it's never going to have NIMBYs unless something far more major than NIMBYism changes this area. People west would be the primary ones against height, because they would be the ones losing their views. You'll notice that tall buildings west of the NIMBY areas usually don't get any complaints. To the East of this is the screwy ABLA area redeveloping, and the future of that area is anybody's guess, but I think they have bigger fish to fry than someone trying to redevelop a shopping mall.

There have been several shopping malls redeveloped in Chicago, but none this big, to my recollection. There are lots of reasons why this is the case. First, the oldest strip malls happened on the outskirts of the city, far away from the areas where high-density redevelopment is likely to happen today. Second, those strip malls in high-density areas are fairly new, so they are not yet ripe for someone to think about this. Third, you bet they are talking about these strip centers and their fate in several neighborhoods, including Lakeview and Wicker Park. I know for a fact that there have been discussions as to possibly improving that miserable thing at Ashland and Milwaukee (although it's possibly the coolest, most ghetto strip mall in Chicago). Why wouldn't there be? The neighborhood is 100% in favor of getting rid of it, so long as they keep some big box options and parking in there somehow. Meanwhile, the developer sees an opportunity to develop a taller-than-usual building in a very dense manner. Sounds like a perfect and unusual opportunity to me.

Last, your parking argument just doesn't have any traction. I don't care what form they built at this site on Ashland, even if it was 20 stories of big box lot line-to-lot line, they still would have had a proportional amount of parking. That's reality. So, the "where's the parking going" is a non-issue.

What we're discussing is so far in the future, it's pretty silly. By the time someone wants to build a real urban development on this land, there is no telling what people will demand or desire.

[Abner]

People might as well give up on Roosevelt and Ashland until something is done with the thirteen blocks of completely vacant land immediately south and west of the Jewel. That area is in serious running for the spookiest place in Chicago. Honte's right, a lot also depends on the future of the ABLA homes, which last I heard were mostly going to stay put. Even when Roosevelt Square is all done there is going to be a lot of land around.

[spyguy]

Truman College parking garage

[honte]

^ Thanks for that.

I am not 100% clear where this is going. I thought somehow they were going to tuck it back past the elevated, where their existing parking is located... ?

[woodrow]

^^looking at google maps, that appears so. The footprint of the building almost mimics the current parking lots which abut the L. The image seems to be from the west (look to the buildings on the left in image). The tracks are behind the larger portion of the building / garage.

It looks like they will be saving a little of the greenspace. Wow - a campus-ish.

[the urban politician]

Big splash in the HP Herald today. Another irrelevant AlderNimby trying to assert their importance. And all the more reason why I've become bitterly against affordable housing set-asides and the so-called "right" of lower-income people to hang onto prime real estate. If you look further in the Herald, Ald Dowell also writes a belligerently emotional letter to U of C (discussing the low enrollment of African Americans at U of C, as if that has jack squat to do with the land acquisition at hand):

Dowell: University of Chicago buying up land west of Washington Park
Alderman Pat Dowell to University of Chicago: Respect our Community Alderman, university clash over acquisition plan
By Kate Hawley
Ald. Pat Dowell (3rd) said Friday that the University of Chicago has begun acquiring land just west of Washington Park - in an historic foray west of the Hyde Park neighborhood.
The university, which only in the last decade ventured south of Hyde Park into Woodlawn, has its eye on at least 15 privately owned parcels along Martin Luther King Jr. Drive and Garfield Boulevard (see map and list of addresses), according to Dowell.
The university wants the land "to satisfy their future development needs.
They believe that Garfield Boulevard is the gateway to the University of Chicago campus," she said.
Dowell said she's "disappointed" that the university has left the local community out of the loop about its plans, since the acquisitions could have a major impact on her ward.
The lots under negotiation fall in both the 3rd and the 20th wards. Dowell said she will reach out to other local aldermen as the university's acquisition plans move forward.
A university official confirmed that negotiations are underway but disputed Dowell's characterization of the university's dealings with her office.
"I can confirm that the university is in a variety of different stages in purchasing a modest amount of property in the Garfield Boulevard and King Drive intersection," said Sonya Malunda, assistant vice president and director of community affairs for the university. She declined to name the specific parcels, citing the ongoing negotiations.
"The university's planned acquisitions are just one piece of a larger puzzle," Malunda said. She did not give details about what that larger plan might comprise.
"The university would not initiate that conversation," she said, adding, "It is our hope that we can work with the city, the community and local alderman to craft a redevelopment vision."
Any comprehensive plan for the area would require the university to work closely with the city, which owns many vacant lots in the Washington Park neighborhood, she said.
According to Dowell, university officials told her in March that no negotiations to buy properties had begun, but when she met again with officials in June, negotiations had started for eight properties.
Dowell expressed anger that she and her community hadn't been included, accusing the university of "land banking" - holding property for development planned far down the line. That could prove detrimental to the 3rd Ward, long plagued with vacant and underused lots, she argued.
"Their eyes are bigger than their stomachs, Dowell said, of university officials. "They're being greedy."
And she said that if the university pays top dollar for the properties, it could have a destabilizing effect on land values in a neighborhood.
Malunda countered, "I can't see how the purchase of a handful of parcels will drive the market for Washington Park."
The broader goal of purchasing the land is to "help facilitate economic development west of the park, in partnership with others," she said. "We look forward to providing community benefits" as part of a redevelopment plan, she added.
Dowell said the university's dealings so far had left her unconvinced of its motives. "I will not use any of my power as an alderman to support the University of Chicago until they agree to work with my office and the community in a transparent and honest way," she said.
While aldermen can't stop private property from changing hands, they do have the power to approve or deny zoning changes that developers may need in order to proceed with a project.
Part of Dowell's anger appeared to stem from the university's track record of dealing with communities as it expands. In a June 26 letter to university president Robert Zimmer (see letter), she wrote, "Considering the history of the university's development initiatives, it is not difficult to understand why the African American community in Chicago's South Side would have a negative perception of them."
Malunda conceded that, "the university has had a mixed history with the community over five to six decades." But the tide has shifted, she argued.
"Over the last decade we've worked really hard to develop partnerships and programs that benefit the South Side," she said.



SUMMARY

The University of Chicago has its eye on the following properties, according to a "Land Acquisition Map" that university officials provided Dowell at a June meeting. Dowell said a few projects already had been purchased, and Cook County records show that transactions have been completed in recent weeks on three properties.

Likely already purchased:
356 E. Garfield Blvd.
344 E. Garfield Blvd.
301 E. 55th St.

Under negotiation:

226 E. 56th St.
323 E. 55th St.
325 E. 55th St.
331 E. 55th St.
371 E. 55th St. (western half of parcel)

Planned for future acquisition:
305 E. 55th St.
309 E. 55th St.
315 E. 55th St.
353 E. 55th St.
365 E. 55th St.
370 E. Garfield Blvd.
371 E. 55th St. (eastern half of parcel)

[honte]

^ I think her concerns are partly justified. But Dowell is a smart lady (huge improvement for that area) and has usually been accused of being too pro-development. I think you should check your facts before you accuse her of something she's not.

Are Aldermen allowed to say anything negative before getting thrown in the trash bin of NIMBYism? The only Aldermen who don't get panned on this forum are the ones who are completely useless and inactive. Her concern about land banking - totally justified, given the University's track record - seems to suggest that she wants that land developed sooner than later.

I am a huge fan of the U of C and obviously they anchor this part of the South Side, but really they run roughshod over the Hyde Park and Woodlawn communities. I would never purchase property within 5 blocks of the University because you just don't know and you won't know until it's over.

Plus, I would say that these properties are critical to the Olympic Stadium / Transporation plan if the city wins the games and if they keep the stadium in Wash. park.

[the urban politician]

^ And just to add, the Herald speculates that U of C is acquiring sites around the Garfield stop of the Green Line as part of a plan (with the Daley Administration's backing) to create a mighty "Olympic stop".

Good for the University, good for Chicago, if that's the case.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by honte

^ I think her concerns are partly justified. But Dowell is a smart lady (huge improvement for that area) and has usually been accused of being too pro-development. I think you should check your facts before you accuse her of something she's not.

Are Aldermen allowed to say anything negative before getting thrown in the trashbin of NIMBYism? The only Aldermen who don't get panned on this forum are the ones who are completely useless and inactive.

In what ways are her concerns justified? Does the university not have right to acquire land in a private transaction? Why do they have to "check with her office first"? I of course give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps historically she has been pro-development (you'd know better than I). But look at her tone, and take a look at the letter she writes to them--what does their enrollment demographics at all have to do with their acquisition of land in the community? She just sounds angry, perhaps belittled that they didn't get her "permission" first; and that's why I find this Aldermanic system to be so dangerous.

[sammyg]

Her concerns are justified if the University plans on creating anything that resembles Dearborn Park - low-density, walled-off from the community, and because it's the UofC, nearly impossible to undo once it's done.

The UofC isn't the best neighbor, and with the possibility of the Olympics, Dowell is doing the right thing by making sure that the land around Washington Park gets used well, holding out for the best option.

It's like Grand Plaza - the location is going to be a great one, why not hold out for the best?

[Chicago Shawn]

On the Roosevelt/Ashland stripmall...
I live 4 blocks south from it, and yes I can't stand it, but it does provide much needed retial; although I do the vast majority of my shopping in the mexican grocers on 18th. I go with what is closest, as I do not drive. I get irritated by the fact that two city blocks were de-mapped, the 1300 blocks of both Paulina and Washbourne Streets and the lack of a pedestrian friendly design, such as the stamped brick crosswalk leading from Roosevelt runing right into a column suporting the arcade. I mean, its detials like this which prove that pedestrianism was something not even really considered at all. The strip does sit within PD 30, which is the IMD; so it could be redeveloped by tweeking and amending the PD, which with the IMD I see that as a very probable possibility; much more so than other stand alone PDs containing stripmalls. Also Ashland and Roosevelt in this area are brutial pseudo-expressways, and I do not see any hope for them becoming pedestrian freindly in the future. IMD basically turns its back on Ashland, and the other side has that discusting Circle Park urban renewal shlock with a iron fence baracding off all entry points aside from one on Ashland. In conclusion it could have been designed better, but given whats around it, well I am not sure it would have made much of a difference, because the surroundings (to the north) will probably stay that way for a while, perhaps longer than the lifespan of this stripmall. And agian because its within PD 30, I see redevelopment to something better as likely.

BTW, Mr D, a poilce station was chosen for the land to south. Thank God too, as a Costco would cement the future of that property as developing into auto hell (I didn't a Costco was even pitched).


On the UofC land aqusition...
I say fantastic. UofC will pay for far better architecture and more intesive use than I could have hoped for comming out of the private market. I don't trust Pat Dowell after her push for downzoning the land at MLK and 43rd, which was supposed to be a pilot TOD site that DPD was pushing for. Garfield and 55th is far too important for alderhack crap. This is our Olympic gateway, and even if the games don't come this corner needs to have intensive uses and good desing given its prominate location were one of our great boulivards meets one of our grand inland parks. Plus we also have the Green Line station adjacent to it, and its one that has seen recent upgrades. It would be great to see a return on that investment.

[honte]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

In what ways are her concerns justified? Does the university not have right to acquire land in a private transaction? Why do they have to "check with her office first"? I of course give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps historically she has been pro-development (you'd know better than I).

Obviously the University has whatever right to acquire land that they want - just like any other buyer. Unfortunately, they also feel that they have prerogative very different than any other buyer when it comes to doing what they think is acceptable with their land. Tear down historic buildings blocks at a time, turn real neighborhoods into dark hospital back alleys, attempt to "remake" already functional streetscapes in a mode that fits with their objective and without taking much community input, etc. In short, they are a development bully and Hyde Park looks to them fearfully as the indentured would to a brutal master. You used to live there; I'm sure you know about that. The City usually just rolls over to whatever request they make, which is why I'm glad Dowell is saying something.

Why should they check with her office first? Because one of the Alderman's roles is to steer development in her ward. They are not obligated to do this, but it would be a very good idea. And I think, overall, this practice is for the better even if sometimes totally foolish things result.

If they think people dislike and distrust them in Hyde Park and Woodlawn, just wait until they see Washington Park. At the least, they should be talking to DPD, which it sounds like they are and makes me feel better.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But look at her tone, and take a look at the letter she writes to them--what does their enrollment demographics at all have to do with their acquisition of land in the community? She just sounds angry, perhaps belittled that they didn't get her "permission" first; and that's why I find this Aldermanic system to be so dangerous.

Of course, those aspects sound absurd. I have to read the whole article, which I don't have time to do yet.

I am no fan at all of the Aldermanic system and I wish the whole gang were disbanded. But that's not going to happen any time soon...

Needless to say, I would like nothing more than to see a stunning gateway at this intersection, anchored by a 30+-story, starchitect-designed tower of quality comparable to what's been built at the U of C lately. I just hope their approach doesn't backfire.

[Abner]

I would add that the U of C has hardly had everyone's interests in mind regarding development. In fact, in most ways (as in, regarding things people would actually see as positive development, like new stores, etc.) they have been very anti-development in Hyde Park. At least in general opinion, this stems from the university's desire to keep its employees and students in the neighborhood while making it as boring and lifeless as possible so that everyone else stays out. Their recent moves to redevelop Harper Court and the Village Foods shopping center--regardless of opinions here on their merits--definitely don't help the university's reputation among the black community in the neighborhood. (Edited to add: neither do the hospital's recent attempts to get out of the business of providing health care for the community, desirable as that may be.) And whether you like the U of C's land policies or not, having a strong alderman in this case can be necessary to check the university's overwhelming power in the neighborhood.

Regarding land banking, the U of C has extremely deep pockets and a very long time horizon, and it certainly isn't interested in providing services for the current population of Washington Park. It's also currently engaged in the biggest expansion plans in its history, including getting rid of the last remaining bits of neighborhood in southwest Hyde Park and strengthening its presence south of the Midway. I'm a little surprised that they're already working on Washington Park when their grasp on north Woodlawn is still very tenuous. I wouldn't expect them to be making any small foray into an area so far from the safety of the university--expect something big.

[VivaLFuego]

The U of C acquiring and developing land around Garfield and King is the best hope we have for making that area an attractive gateway and not just a bombed-out pit. U of C's declared intention to invest in Woodlawn, between 60th and 63rd, has done wonders to stabilize that community in recent years.

If anything, I'd guess this is the result of specific discussions between the University, City Hall, and the Bid Committee (with encouragements by the latter), because everyone knows Washington Park (the neighborhood) needs to look a lot nicer if the Olympic Stadium is gonna be there with people arriving from King Drive buses and the Green Line.

There are valid historical reasons to skeptical of UofC's intentions of course, but as long as they keep communication channels open I hope things proceed and the neighborhood welcomes the investment in property there. People need to realize that the U of C, as an investor and employer, is the single most important entity holding the south side (or at least, Hyde Park) together. The U of C has an interest in making the area livable and nice, in fact it has a much stronger interest than any single individual or any community group. So I wouldn't worry about their intentions.

Regarding Dowell's wild flailing in public, there's very obviously a good deal going on here politically behind closed doors that we the public aren't privy to.

[alex1]

i think its interesting to study how DePaul expands to see how a university can grow in a tight urban context. They've done a pretty great job fitting into its environment. UC has built some amazing structures recently but it doesn't gel quite well overall.

I also think its important for a community to be involved with how local institutions grow and its even more important for universities to be good neighbors. This has been an ongoing problem in cities like Boston. UC is best advised to be stay open to community concerns.

I live in NewHaven now and it's astonishing how awful Yale's outreach with the community is. Might as well throw up a 10 foot electric wall and shoot anyone who comes within 20 feet of the school. Makes for an awful environment even if the school is stunningly beautiful.

[honte]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The U of C acquiring and developing land around Garfield and King is the best hope we have for making that area an attractive gateway and not just a bombed-out pit.

I get the impression that no one here respects Little Niko's. What's wrong with you people???

[Breezyfingers]

Another Jewel is part of the development at Kinzie and Desplaines

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Abner

I would add that the U of C has hardly had everyone's interests in mind regarding development. In fact, in most ways (as in, regarding things people would actually see as positive development, like new stores, etc.) they have been very anti-development in Hyde Park. At least in general opinion, this stems from the university's desire to keep its employees and students in the neighborhood while making it as boring and lifeless as possible so that everyone else stays out. Their recent moves to redevelop Harper Court and the Village Foods shopping center--regardless of opinions here on their merits--definitely don't help the university's reputation among the black community in the neighborhood. (Edited to add: neither do the hospital's recent attempts to get out of the business of providing health care for the community, desirable as that may be.) And whether you like the U of C's land policies or not, having a strong alderman in this case can be necessary to check the university's overwhelming power in the neighborhood.

^ In what way is it in U of C's interests to keep Hyde Park as "boring and lifeless as possible"? That's absurd, what evidence do you have of that?

In fact, part of the reason why I'm glad that U of C is acquiring such important property is because they are probably the only ones who can get something done. At the end of the day, Hyde Park's lack of retail & entertainment options are despite the presence of the University, not because of it. It wants a hotel, BAM neighbors block it. In the past several years, besides the University name one private developer who has built anything substantial in Hyde Park.

Our only other hope is Antheus Capital, who so far has bought and rehabbed large numbers of properties and made them useful again. Yet instead of applauding them, the local Hyde Park press virtually treats them with disdain. I'm crossing my fingers for the Studio Gang project.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ In what way is it in U of C's interests to keep Hyde Park as "boring and lifeless as possible"? That's absurd, what evidence do you have of that?

At the end of the day, Hyde Park's lack of retail & entertainment options are despite the presence of the University, not because of it. It wants a hotel, BAM neighbors block it. In the past several years, besides the University name one private developer who has built anything substantial in Hyde Park.

Part of urban renewal (which was largely spearheaded by U of C, of course) was a very intentional effort to strip Hyde Park of its status as the entertainment/activity/nightlife destination of the south side. To a large extent, this mindset still persists, and I don't think it's entirely unfounded. One can make a defensible argument that Hyde Park has maintained its charm precisely because it is an island. I'm not sure I fully agree, but I don't fully disagree either.

I really hope that the next time Hyde Park is such a destination (after the Harper Court redevelopment, Village Center, etc.) that the results are much better, and it seems to be the direction things are headed, but there is some definite risk involved. It depends on which demographic groups stake out Hyde Park as the epicenter... would it the more benign yuppies, students, academics, and other professionals from throughout the south side? Or would simply import the problems of other neighborhoods to play out in dramatic fashion on the streets of Hyde Park? Time will tell, and I'm hopeful that the demographic shift of the south lakeshore implies future success, but the more recent developments in places like nearby South Shore (now a war zone) where many former public housing residents have resettled give me pause. Would the University be wrong to not want that sort of 'excitement' brought to 57th street? Better to be boring and lifeless than have gang fights and turf wars outside bars and restaurants.

That said, I agree with you that the University is the single largest force of positive progress in terms of real estate development and livability in the area, despite some definite hiccups along the way. Antheus Capital are also, so far, remarkably great new neighbors, having invested a great deal in improving some of the older rental housing stock (pilloried for modestly raising rents in return, of course ) and of course their awesome Gang proposals.