Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G
Right, because I was obviously referring to a historic five story brick building when I wrote: "The branded big box retail architecture propagating along North has turned those few blocks into a suburbanized shitbox."
|
My point is, putting it in more explicit terms, I have "been to this area" and in fact am there frequently, and I have in fact gotten out of my car and looked at the building being demo'd (2 weeks ago, actually), and then merely wrote here that it "doesn't appear to be a building worth saving".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G
Guh? Half the properties along North between Kingsbury and Clybourn are already surface lots-- for Best Buy, the Container Store, that little strip mall with the CB2. That fact alone nullifies your arguments, unless you honestly believe those retailers are going to give up their parking anytime in the foreseeable future.
|
It doesn't nullify my arguments because you are talking about the area north of North Ave (which in this context is a no-No).
North Ave acts as a natural boundary (being a traffic-choked four lanes with narrow sidewalks) west of Clybourn, while the commercial neighborhoods north and south of it (between the river and Clybourn/Halsted) don't have major arteries going through them, so one can consider there to be 1 contiguous commercial neighborhood on each side of North Ave.
I consider the neighborhood south of North to have quite a different character than no-No. First, its developable commercial area is much larger. Then, it is only a one-artery (Halsted or Clybourn) crossing to the Red Line station, Apple Store, and the entire New City complex - in fact because Halsted and Clybourn are less ped-hostile than North Ave, those destinations could end up being thought of as part of the neighborhood, especially New City. Then, you have lots of river frontage available to be redeveloped (river frontage in no-No is partially stifled already and partially thwarted by Kingsbury being semi-industrial and big-box loading docks). Then, you already have about 5 relatively well-done and recent multi-story / mid-rise developments (a. North/Sheffield; b. the Grossinger auto complex; c. the British School building with its retail + offices + parking; d. the mega Whole Foods; and of course e. SoNo phase I, essentially a full-fledged high-rise here). Finally, you have a huge number of abandoned lots and other dilapidated or economically sacificeable single-story or low structures, all waiting and ready to please.
So, with a huge contiguous, walkable area; initial critical masses of rail transit, residential, entertainment, commercial, and shopping; and a well-demonstrated interest in building muti-story, I do think the area is destined to be built up in the mid-term and onwards with new uses like those. Anything that tears down the dilapidated stuff and brings more people and dollars to the area, even in cars, to me is a step in the right direction.
Obviously success here is dependent on thoughtful planning (layouts, architecture, etc.). But the no-no of no-No is that during the 1980s (or whenever it was), planning was enslaved to car-friendliness. Decades later, the city has turned the corner on concealing parking, incorporating greenery, designing streetscapes and building facades, and so on, and so so-No can be expected to turn out better than no-No.
Prev
Linear Mode
