CHICAGO | General Developments

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Crain's just reporting within the half-hour that the CVS deal did indeed fall through (yay!), but when it did, they came up with the novel tenant of Walgreens to take 15,000 of the 22,000 State St-fronting space in the Old Sears store. Not cool, man. I guess the Flagship State Street store and the store at 15 W Washington are simply not close enough to the corner of State and Madison. This seriously blows. I really wonder if part of the problem here is that the owner of the building (Chetrit out of New York) for some reason had MB Real Estate lease the retail space in addition to the office space - MB is not a retail specialist at all - they're pretty much an office shop AFAIK. For prime retail space like this, you definitely want to put the leasing into the hands of a true retail leasing team imo. Perhaps some far off-prime location you can get away with it, and who cares anyhow - but to botch this releasing effort (in terms of positioning for the retail high street) at such a main/main location like this..........this is a major disappointment, and huge missed opportunity - HUGE - to say the least...........

Crazy that it took this long to fill, I first noticed and posted about the for lease signs what, six months ago? I'm more confused than disgusted; how does this make sense with the other locations so close by?

[Via Chicago]

worst retailer bar none

id rather see a flagship MCDs go in that space than another fucking drug store. we could never build another drug store in this city for the rest of eternity and we'd still be set.

[SamInTheLoop]

^^ ^ Yeah, it's pretty mind-boggling. There are at least 2 Walgreens that are I believe technically even closer to the corner of State/Madison than the State flagship - north on State, right around the corner on Washington, and South on State, right around the corner on Adams (and I might even be missing a couple if we go east and west of State/Madison - but for the these purposes, let's limit to those located just - barely - off State St itself). I'm telling you guys, I think this debacle has a lot to do with the owner's inexplicable and regrettable decision to have an office brokerage shop lease the retail space.........well, hopefully they get the remaining 7,000 sq ft of old Sears State frontage leased to a compelling retailer or two. And good things elsewhere on State certainly, with the old Office Depot leased to a very compelling tenant (one of the off-price off-shoots of an upscale dept store - I'm blanking on which though) and that Michael Jordan shop coming, and of course very good things happening at Block 37 at long last. Now if we can just get the Gap redeveloped, and get some of the general sloppiness south of Adams cleaned up, and (how could I forget!) get Pritzker 'Park' developed this cycle (hopefully the developer that the city ends up selecting will have an aggressive timetable), we'll be alright....

[Via Chicago]

i mean obviously a bunch of walgreens analysts sat down and crunched the numbers and this all somehow makes perfect sense to them, but for the life of me i cant understand the decision

[SamInTheLoop]

^ It may or may not make sense in actuality though. Retailers have been (after 'analysts' crunching the numbers often times, sometimes just on gut) making bad location decisions since antiquity.......who knows - in the end this might be a good location for WAG financially, but most importantly for Chicago - and us - this is not a good location decision for State Street overall......

[Mr Downtown]

Surely Walgreen's will be closing the one on Washington when the new store opens. They're simply positioning themselves for the future—which includes lots of aging Baby Boomers with aches and pains—by moving to bigger and more attractive stores where the opportunity arises.

[marothisu]

What doesn't make sense? The fact that there's going to be two Walgreens very close to one another? This isn't surprising. Go to Manhattan - there's tons of Duane Reades only a block or two apart where there's either a lot of people working or a lot of people living. This is nothing that Walgreens hasn't done before.

[emathias]

Isn't there some ordinance barring banks from locating within some distance of each other to prevent streetscapes from being dominated by one type of low-contribution retailer? Can't we do the same with drugstores?

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Do a lot of families do their grocery shopping by L? The bus is one thing, but who carries bags of groceries three blocks and then up the stairs to the L platform to wait for a train back home?

As far as the number of spaces, isn't it also to serve the stores going into the "8,000 square feet of commercial space for other retailers?"

Exactly my questions. The Chicago forumers on this page seem to be living in some kind of hyper romanticized idea of a city. Unless you live within a few blocks of a grocery store, car-less shopping just is not practical. Public transportation + grocery shopping sucks. I fell bad for the less fortunate that can't afford a car and are forced onto our busses and trains. Oh, and please spare me all the anecdotal "I do my shopping one bag at a time throughout the week and take the train just fine" bullshit. No family shops like that, so don't even try.

It's really obnoxious how everyone on this forum has this bizarre attitude of car=bad or parking lot=bad

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Crain's just reporting within the half-hour that the CVS deal did indeed fall through (yay!), but when it did, they came up with the novel tenant of Walgreens to take 15,000 of the 22,000 State St-fronting space in the Old Sears store. Not cool, man. I guess the Flagship State Street store and the store at 15 W Washington are simply not close enough to the corner of State and Madison. This seriously blows. I really wonder if part of the problem here is that the owner of the building (Chetrit out of New York) for some reason had MB Real Estate lease the retail space in addition to the office space - MB is not a retail specialist at all - they're pretty much an office shop AFAIK. For prime retail space like this, you definitely want to put the leasing into the hands of a true retail leasing team imo. Perhaps some far off-prime location you can get away with it, and who cares anyhow - but to botch this releasing effort (in terms of positioning for the retail high street) at such a main/main location like this..........this is a major disappointment, and huge missed opportunity - HUGE - to say the least...........

I honestly do not understand the disappointment here. Walgreens is a Chicago company. I love Walgreens. Why is this a letdown and a "huge missed opportunity"? Were you wanting a handcrafted bath soap boutique or a micro-brew pub?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by emathias

Isn't there some ordinance barring banks from locating within some distance of each other to prevent streetscapes from being dominated by one type of low-contribution retailer? Can't we do the same with drugstores?

That would be good. At least the same company - or you could have them a few blocks apart if one of them had some goods or services that the other doesn't have.

But regardless, Walgreens does this with DR in Manhattan all over the damn place. Having Duane Reades there is the same type of joke that Dunkin Donuts is in Boston.

[the urban politician]

Walgreens is kind of lame, but the good news is, at least 7000 sf of frontage is still available for other retailers, so it's not all a lost hope.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Walgreens is kind of lame, but the good news is, at least 7000 sf of frontage is still available for other retailers, so it's not all a lost hope.

Agreed - lame but it's also a good sign in a way.

[Ned.B]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Exactly my questions. The Chicago forumers on this page seem to be living in some kind of hyper romanticized idea of a city. Unless you live within a few blocks of a grocery store, car-less shopping just is not practical. Public transportation + grocery shopping sucks. I fell bad for the less fortunate that can't afford a car and are forced onto our busses and trains. Oh, and please spare me all the anecdotal "I do my shopping one bag at a time throughout the week and take the train just fine" bullshit. No family shops like that, so don't even try.

It's really obnoxious how everyone on this forum has this bizarre attitude of car=bad or parking lot=bad

Though this is why I have never lived more than 6 blocks from a grocery store since moving here. I have been walking/carting my groceries home for the last 2 years and counting. It works in the densest parts of the city, but I can understand that it wouldn't be so great in others.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Ned.B

Though this is why I have never lived more than 6 blocks from a grocery store since moving here. I have been walking/carting my groceries home for the last 2 years and counting. It works in the densest parts of the city, but I can understand that it wouldn't be so great in others.

I've lived right near one for 6 years and love it. Never have to take any transportation other than my legs for that.

The city should have more markets scattered throughout and this wouldn't happen as much (having to drive or carry them on the bus). NYC, Europe, Asia, etc do these things right IMO.

[msu2001la]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Exactly my questions. The Chicago forumers on this page seem to be living in some kind of hyper romanticized idea of a city. Unless you live within a few blocks of a grocery store, car-less shopping just is not practical. Public transportation + grocery shopping sucks. I fell bad for the less fortunate that can't afford a car and are forced onto our busses and trains. Oh, and please spare me all the anecdotal "I do my shopping one bag at a time throughout the week and take the train just fine" bullshit. No family shops like that, so don't even try.

It's really obnoxious how everyone on this forum has this bizarre attitude of car=bad or parking lot=bad

Eh, ok.

I am married with a kid. I shop at the Whole Foods at Fullerton/Sheffield a few times a week since it's opened, and I've only driven/parked there 2-3 times. I buy 1-2 meals at a time, so that it's easy to carry home.

It's a 15 minute/1 mile walk for me. Sometimes I take the Fullerton bus if it's cold or rainy. Sometimes I ride a Divvy if I'm not buying too much.

I own a really nice car, but it's a pain in the ass to go home and get it, then drive out to a grocery store.

My experience may or may not be typical, but I do know that the Whole Foods at Sheffield/Fullerton only has a handful of parking spaces and most people shopping there seem to be on-foot, but I acknowledge that there are a lot of DePaul students in that area supporting it too, and don't assume every grocery store in every location of the city should be this way.

[marothisu]

In other news, there was a buliding permit issued a few days ago for a 7 story addition with 60 residential units at 1241 N Milwaukee Ave (Just north of Division)

This is the story from June 2014:
http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...ces-retail.php

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Exactly my questions. The Chicago forumers on this page seem to be living in some kind of hyper romanticized idea of a city. Unless you live within a few blocks of a grocery store, car-less shopping just is not practical. Public transportation + grocery shopping sucks. I fell bad for the less fortunate that can't afford a car and are forced onto our busses and trains. Oh, and please spare me all the anecdotal "I do my shopping one bag at a time throughout the week and take the train just fine" bullshit. No family shops like that, so don't even try.

It's really obnoxious how everyone on this forum has this bizarre attitude of car=bad or parking lot=bad

It's not that people think cars are inherently evil, it's that large surface lots create a number of issues in an urban environment and make it harder for people without cars to live their lives by reducing density in all forms. If a full block is taken over by large grocery story + large surface lot, that means a number of things: 1) people without cars have to walk further for groceries, 2) people without cars have to walk further for other items because there is now 1 block fewer people and/or services available in a given area. The lower residential density supports fewer walkable businesses, and the physical distance created by the surface lot means greater walking times.

Cars are very useful, but creating an environment just for them does feed into more people needing them, even if they'd really rather not spend thousands of dollars a year for a hunk of metal. Smaller stores located more frequently with limited parking enables people to live without cars and reduces the advantage of a car.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Exactly my questions. The Chicago forumers on this page seem to be living in some kind of hyper romanticized idea of a city. Unless you live within a few blocks of a grocery store, car-less shopping just is not practical. Public transportation + grocery shopping sucks. I fell bad for the less fortunate that can't afford a car and are forced onto our busses and trains. Oh, and please spare me all the anecdotal "I do my shopping one bag at a time throughout the week and take the train just fine" bullshit. No family shops like that, so don't even try.

It's really obnoxious how everyone on this forum has this bizarre attitude of car=bad or parking lot=bad

i am 30 (almost 31...crap) and have never owned a car in my life. why is this so hard for YOU to understand? i plan ahead where i will rent so that i have daily conveniences nearby. its really not that complicated or difficult if it is the way you decide to live and structure your life. if you choose to structure your life around a car....well, it wouldnt surprise me that you live your life based around one.

this isnt imaginary or a "romantic view" of city life, this is my life and the life of many other people who you can choose to pretend also dont exist. it has to do with choices you make and the tradeoffs you are willing to live with. theres far less stress to me in plopping down on a bus and reading a book until i get to my destination, than contending with traffic/parking/car issues, etc. In return, I have money left over to spend and save for things Im more passionate about. 6 months out of the year I dont even buy a CTA pass, and can get pretty much everything i need with a bike and a messenger bag. I realize this might not always be possible and life situations change, but it is now and I plan to get as much mileage out of it as possible.

and i DO shop 2-3 times a week. besides the fact that its less to carry at once, it means im eating fresher food and i can plan meals on the fly. you pick some bizarre crusades to get indignant about. rather than getting upset about how this is difficult wherever it is that you live, maybe, you know, petition for better planning rather than acting all befuddled by models that have been proven to work, and work quite well for many people all over the world.

the "first-world suburban model" is not the way the vast majority of the people on earth live either....

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by marothisu

In other news, there was a buliding permit issued a few days ago for a 7 story addition with 60 residential units at 1241 N Milwaukee Ave (Just north of Division)

This is the story from June 2014:
http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...ces-retail.php

Bout frickin time!

Did the demo in May 2014

Got the PD passed early in Dec.

I know they been waiting on a permit ever since.

I love the way the city enters the application date the same as the issue date. That way everything looks like same day service.