CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News

[HowardL]

I live in the neighborhood and deal with the tourist/out-of-town crowds all of the time.

Are they awkward in crowd situations? Yup. Do they have any sense of the urbane? Not a lick? Do they understand inside voice on the Howard? Not remotely. Do I hate them? Not a chance.

Every time I get caught in a thicket of their goofy asses at the Addison L, I see little dollar signs. Thank your tipsy asses for supporting a sporting institution that I am too tired to support because I worked all day and I'm wrecked. Thank you for taking four forms of transportation to come to Wrigley tonight and being childishly gleeful about the experience.

Are you good house guests? Hell no. Do I appreciate your drunken effort? Always.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Of course they won't, as someone else mentioned, there are already plenty of vacant storefronts up and down Clark from here with a handful of underutilized and vacant parcels that are suitable for new construction three to six unit buildings. If anything, this development will suck in all the corporate chainy stuff and satiate the demand for that in a much more desirable location and keep prices low enough elsewhere that independent divey businesses can continue to thrive here.

I don't understand the people who gripe about gentrification and then oppose new, dense, supply. If you don't want all the little businesses to go, then let the huge underutilized parcel get redeveloped into a massive hulk so all the demand is absorbed there instead.

Sure, but why do these monolithic developments need to be so ugly? For me, I understand the need to acquire large parcels to make projects economically feasible, and I'm all for density in the area, and the death of several surface lots (I live a couple blocks from this intersection), but god damn is it ugly.
New City, the Mariano's on Broadway, and Addison Park are all very similar in design and all are pretty universally ugly. I just don't understand the design choices, and I think that is the gripe most people have with these developments, not so much the added density/traffic (at least that is not my gripe)

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

this is garbage and without value in your book?



i liked the salt and pepper diner too. it felt like a uniquely Chicago block. not everything needs to be a landmark to add character or a sense of place to an area. the vast majority of chicago buildings are not by the strict definition of the term "landmarks", but unless youre prepared to wipe out 90% of our prewar housing and commercial stock, thats a pretty precarious position. the fact that bungalows are a dime a dozen dosent mean i like to see one demolished either.

Yeah - it's really sad that iO (improv club) got torn down also. That was a Chicago institution and the new location is so corporate-feeling.

[Baronvonellis]

Are there any examples of mega mixed use buildings in other cities that are well designed? All the ones in Chicago I've seen are really ugly looking.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Are there any examples of mega mixed use buildings in other cities that are well designed? All the ones in Chicago I've seen are really ugly looking.

New York City.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Sure, but why do these monolithic developments need to be so ugly? For me, I understand the need to acquire large parcels to make projects economically feasible, and I'm all for density in the area, and the death of several surface lots (I live a couple blocks from this intersection), but god damn is it ugly.
New City, the Mariano's on Broadway, and Addison Park are all very similar in design and all are pretty universally ugly. I just don't understand the design choices, and I think that is the gripe most people have with these developments, not so much the added density/traffic (at least that is not my gripe)

Don't want to spend a lot of time defending this, but it is light years ahead of New City and Mariano's on Broadway...

At least it provides some thoughtful articulation without historicist 'old towne' storefronts...

[Baronvonellis]

Any specific examples in New York?

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Any specific examples in New York?

I'm not sure NYC is a good example, for the obvious reason, these developments don't really exist there as new construction in 2016. The City Point development in Brooklyn comes to mind:

https://www.google.com/search?q=City...3zDGIQ_AUICigD

[Zerton]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Any specific examples in New York?

New WTC Path Terminal (the Pathosaurus).

The Hudson Yards development with its glorious "Cultural Shed".

New Fulton Street Station.

Atlantic Yards development in Brooklyn.

These are all very large projects, though.

[ardecila]

I don't think those are really comparable... we're just talking about large residential/retail complexes, not places intended to be public spaces or transportation hubs.

A better New York comparison would be Time Warner Center or One Union Square South... but even then, you probably want something in the outer boroughs. Jackson Heights has a ton of blank-walled shopping centers, some of which now have residential components. Willets Point has a similar layout around a baseball stadium, but it's on a much larger scale and involved the city appropriation of land to assemble a big site.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Zerton

These are all very large projects, though.

Yes, and in no way can you relate multi billion dollar Manhattan mega projects to a dinky little 150 unit, 150,000 square foot project in Lakeview.


I think a New York development closer in component mix (parking/retail/apartments), with much closer price per square foot lease rates would be the SkyView development in Flushing... which is no prize pig itself.

[the urban politician]

I think the problem with the "New York would never do anything so lame" nitwits around here is that they are comparing first rate Manhattan projects with a neighborhood development here in Chicago. Clearly apples to oranges.

Go out to Queens or Brooklyn and look at the countless developments going on out there. Most of it is pretty mundane stuff

[ardecila]

^ I would tend to agree, except that this site is a premier site in Chicago. Wrigley is not just a common tourist destination, but literally a landmark in baseball known around the world. If Chicago has a "Manhattan", this is part of it.

Other stuff like New City or Broadway Mariano's... Yeah, those are peripheral locations. Not great design, but definitely better than the previous generation of urban retail (hello, Clark/Barry)...

As far as giant blank boxes go, I think Target's done pretty decent designs and the new Whole Foods in Lakeview will be pretty easy on the eyes.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ I would tend to agree, except that this site is a premier site in Chicago. Wrigley is not just a common tourist destination, but literally a landmark in baseball known around the world. If Chicago has a "Manhattan", this is part of it.

Other stuff like New City or Broadway Mariano's... Yeah, those are peripheral locations. Not great design, but definitely better than the previous generation of urban retail (hello, Clark/Barry)...

As far as giant blank boxes go, I think Target's done pretty decent designs and the new Whole Foods in Lakeview will be pretty easy on the eyes.

You consider the North/Clybourn Corridor to be peripheral? It is the second largest shopping district in the city, and very much included in the core of the greater downtown area, imo. I'd say Broadway in Lakeview is a premiere site for Chicago as well. Are these developments better than the 1980's / 90's shopping blocks that are standing? Of course, but that is a pretty low bar to set.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think the problem with the "New York would never do anything so lame" nitwits around here is that they are comparing first rate Manhattan projects with a neighborhood development here in Chicago. Clearly apples to oranges.

Go out to Queens or Brooklyn and look at the countless developments going on out there. Most of it is pretty mundane stuff

Yeah, I was going to say that Queens has some really monolithic shit. There's a big mall thing (with residential) in Flushing right outside of the Chinatown that is pretty much like a New City type of thing with more units (Flushing has a density of 54,000 people per sq mile which is much denser than any community area in Chicago):

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7581...8i6656!6m1!1e1

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7571...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Queens Center is pretty bad too. Keep in mind this is in Elmhurst, with a density of over 75,000 people per sq mile, which is over double the density of the densest Chicago community area:


https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7353...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Then of course there's this great thing in the Bronx right near Pelham Bay:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8679...8i6656!6m1!1e1

As someone else said though, people are comparing first rate Manhattan stuff to here which is apples to oranges. Once you get outside of Manhattan you will run into stuff, especially in parts of Queens (I always found this part of Astoria weird - with an Applebee's, Panera, and Uno's next to a big monolithic movie theater across the street from a generic appliance and electronics store with a big parking lot right in the middle of a dense, very mom and pop neighborhood: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7557...8i6656!6m1!1e1). To me, a lot of Chicago is more like Queens - you've got some great neighborhoods with some great density - some great main streets and everything is below 5 or 6 stories on average, and then you've got some streets that have a bunch of industrial-ish stuff on it like auto repair shops and used car dealerships (like parts of Northern Boulevard in Queens versus Western Ave in Chicago). If you're going to compare this stuff to NYC and you only look at Manhattan, then it's pretty much pointless. You have to bring in the outer boroughs into the conversation.

[prelude91]

^^^Great post Marothisu!

I think we can all agree Manhattan comparisons are apples and oranges; however, your examples are not highlighting "flagship" (for lack of a better word) neighborhoods in NYC. Astoria functions pretty similarly to the NW side of Chicago (though many times denser).

New City, Mariano's on Broadway, and Addison Park are all in top tier Chicago neighborhoods, and will all stick out like a sore thumb. I hate any comparison between Chicago and NYC, because let's be honest, Chicago isn't New York; but you'd be hard pressed to find these types of developments in top tier neighborhoods in NYC outside Manhattan (Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Forest Hills, etc.).

I understand these shitty developments are a reality, but where I have an issue is the locations of them (top tier Chicago Neighborhoods) and how ugly they are, seriously, why are they all so ugly?

[the urban politician]

^ Since when is North/Clybourn some sort of top tier location? It's been treated like a commercial shopping district for years, and laden with shitty suburban style development.

I can buy the Wrigleyville argument because it has a century of precedence for being a Mecca for out of towners, and has one of the nation's revered stadiums in its center. But the ship sailed long ago for North Clybourn, and until all of that suburban crap gets redeveloped it's hard to expect high quality design there given the context

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Since when is North/Clybourn some sort of top tier location? It's been treated like a commercial shopping district for years, and laden with shitty suburban style development.

North/Clybourn has some of the highest retail rents in the city, and the new high rises (SoNo, New City) have some of the highest rents in the city, I'd say that qualifies as a top tier location. Is the area an embarrassment in terms of urban design? Of course, but that doesn't excuse every future development from being complete shit.

As for Wrigleyville and the Addison Park project, one could argue it will have the biggest impact in it's immediate area than any other project in the city, and coincidentally it is arguably the ugliest project going up in the city.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

^yeah, would have been cool if they could have kept the facade of that

Surely you must be joking, it's not ugly, but the expense of that would have been silly for something so banal. It's literally low grade facebrick with decent detailing.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

this is garbage and without value in your book?



i liked the salt and pepper diner too. it felt like a uniquely Chicago block. not everything needs to be a landmark to add character or a sense of place to an area. the vast majority of chicago buildings are not by the strict definition of the term "landmarks", but unless youre prepared to wipe out 90% of our prewar housing and commercial stock, thats a pretty precarious position. the fact that bungalows are a dime a dozen dosent mean i like to see one demolished either.

The Goose Island building was nothing special. It wasn't when it was built and it isn't now. I would rather have it than a vacant lot or strip mall, but I'd rather have ye olde jumbo brick 6 flate than this building. Even the most bland of ye olde jumbo brick 6 flates have equal or better detailing than this and the brick quality is comparable for each buildings respective time. I would certainly rather have this mega development than the old building.

Also, the comparison with bungalows is totally off. Bungalows are generally fairly interesting, ornate, well constructed buildings with good detailing and craftsmanship. The building you are lamenting was slapped up as a benign commercial property and the facade was made of the most economical materials available at the time. Even the most modest bungalows tend to spring for at least mid grade face brick and usually contain quality interior features as well. That said, there are plenty of blocks of bungalows I've seen that were nothing to write home about and which I would gladly see replaced by a 6 story beast of a building. But that's not something that ever happens because bungalows tend to be located in places where a development like this would never happen.

Though it's not my favorite design and could certainly be much better, this new development is light years better than a bunch of run down single story cheapo commercial buildings.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

^^^Great post Marothisu!

I think we can all agree Manhattan comparisons are apples and oranges; however, your examples are not highlighting "flagship" (for lack of a better word) neighborhoods in NYC. Astoria functions pretty similarly to the NW side of Chicago (though many times denser).

New City, Mariano's on Broadway, and Addison Park are all in top tier Chicago neighborhoods, and will all stick out like a sore thumb. I hate any comparison between Chicago and NYC, because let's be honest, Chicago isn't New York; but you'd be hard pressed to find these types of developments in top tier neighborhoods in NYC outside Manhattan (Park Slope, Brooklyn Heights, Forest Hills, etc.).

I understand these shitty developments are a reality, but where I have an issue is the locations of them (top tier Chicago Neighborhoods) and how ugly they are, seriously, why are they all so ugly?

I don't know how I left this out, but I think that the Shops at Columbus Circle (Time Warner Center) are kind of a good example of something like it in Manhattan in a way:

http://www.theshopsatcolumbuscircle.com
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7686...8i6656!6m1!1e1

Armani Exchange, Hugo Boss, Bose, Microsoft, Michael Kors, H&M, Sephora, JCrew, Whole Foods, Williams Sonoma, Swarovski, Coach, etc are all there. Time Warner obviously has offices there, but there's also a hotel and condos. I know that one of the towers has around 200 condos. It's pretty much that center, and whenever I'm around there, it definitely feels like a flagship type of development you'd see in Chicago.


Also, we obviously have differing of opinions of what top tier neighborhoods Chicago consists of because I do not consider North and Clybourn top tier. Minus the Apple store, there's nothing really good about it from a neighborhood perspective that would make me put it into the same tier as most anything downtown, Wicker Park, Lakeview, prime Lincoln Park (like even up the road on Halsted), Hyde Park, Lincoln Square, Roscoe Village, etc. I do not consider Alinea part of the same neighborhood, or anything around there. The food in that area is not that good minus a few places nor is the nightlife minus one or two places. In terms of the neighborhoods in town, people are not clamouring to move there more than any of the other neighborhoods I just listed and others.