HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1601  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 1:15 PM
DHamp DHamp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 195
^^ I don't want to destroy old stuff in good condition for it; just fill in vacant lots and crumbling buildings with good urban infill with progressive architecture like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1602  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 1:49 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Yeah, given that there is a great building on that corner, and since Cottage Grove is essentially a giant vacant lot, I cannot get very excited about this project.

Directly to the west of that site, there was a large Sullivan commercial building. Now, it is the world's most hideous one-story state facility. I'd love to see that thing replaced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1603  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 6:32 PM
headcase's Avatar
headcase headcase is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: East Village, Chicago
Posts: 455
While not really development, I thought someone might find this interesting ...

Building on Brach Candy factory site to be imploded for "The Dark Knight"

Quote:
Originally Posted by From HollywoodChicago.com
Here is the biggest information of all. Mark Aug. 29, 2007 down on your calendars. They will implode a four-story building on the former Brach Candy factory site.

I have been told this will be a day shoot. A typical building implosion does not have any flames. This will be different.

They will load the building with large amounts of gasoline and other flammable material for a huge explosion and ultimate implosion of the building.

This explosion/implosion will then be added to a CGI building for the film.
There is some more information about filming TDK and Wanted in the link. The building is located a 401 N Cicero, unfortunately I won't be able to make it out, but hopefully someone will.


EDIT : I found more recent info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by From HollywoodChicago.com
The new date is Thursday, Aug. 30. It is scheduled to happen between 10:30 a.m. and noon.

This will be two buildings. The larger building is to be filled with flammable liquids and the second smaller, four-story building will be imploded.
__________________
He was constantly reminded of how startlingly different a place the world was when viewed from a point only three feet to the left.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1604  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 6:51 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
Yeah, given that there is a great building on that corner, and since Cottage Grove is essentially a giant vacant lot, I cannot get very excited about this project.

Directly to the west of that site, there was a large Sullivan commercial building. Now, it is the world's most hideous one-story state facility. I'd love to see that thing replaced.
^ Yeah, BVictor mentioned that a long time ago.

However, this project is much bigger than that one building. If memory serves me, it will fill up a whole square block (which means a lot of vacant lots will be filled in). Take the good with the bad, I guess
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1605  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 6:58 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by LaSalle.St.Station View Post
Just saw a few low rise 1920 era low rises being demolished at 16th and Wabash today for a BS type highrise
16th and Wabash? What was still there from the 1920s? The Firestone store?

Or do you mean the Paramount Film Exchange in the 1300 block? The terra-cotta arch is being saved and will become part of Columbia's new film production center.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1606  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 7:27 PM
DHamp DHamp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Yeah, BVictor mentioned that a long time ago.

However, this project is much bigger than that one building. If memory serves me, it will fill up a whole square block (which means a lot of vacant lots will be filled in). Take the good with the bad, I guess
Aside from Hyde Park, NIMBY/preservationist groups don't seem well-organized... not yet anyway. For those who want to see progressive architecture and other ambitious developments in Chicago neighborhoods and not just downtown and nearby, this is the chance. There are a lot of south side gems that I would hate to lose, but then there's a lot of garbage that needs to be replaced. In a perfect world, the garbage would be in jeopardy first, but we all know that doesn't happen. I would love to see newer multi-story towers, lofts and town homes coexisting with existing pre-war buildings -- just fill in the gaps.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1607  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 7:36 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
^47th and Cottage,
Yes the project is for the entire square block, which is great, so I'm ok losing the decent corner building for some excellent (5-story tall) density and redevelopment on that block. A few other non-descript and bombed out buildings would also come down, and I think 3 or 4 greystones would remain on the block and are not part of the project.
EDIT: siteplan: http://skilken.com/pdfs/CHIC.pdf

^Brachs explosion
The Cicero Green Line platform should be an excellent spot to view this from.

Last edited by VivaLFuego; Aug 24, 2007 at 8:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1608  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 8:56 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
^47th and Cottage,
Yes the project is for the entire square block, which is great, so I'm ok losing the decent corner building for some excellent (5-story tall) density and redevelopment on that block. A few other non-descript and bombed out buildings would also come down, and I think 3 or 4 greystones would remain on the block and are not part of the project.
EDIT: siteplan: http://skilken.com/pdfs/CHIC.pdf
^ Not to get picky, but one of my biggest gripes about these retail centers with rear parking is when they also provide rear entrances to the retail space.

It really aggravates me, because it's nothing short of an inverted strip mall. People simply drive into the parking lot, walk into the store, get back into their car, and leave without ever stepping foot onto the sidewalk.

To sometimes makes matters worse, store owners even close 1 entrance (usually the sidewalk one) so that pedestrians actually have to walk around to the back of the building to get into the store--not good for the streetscape. IMO, it's not enough to 'maintain the streetwall' as a formality; we must also encourage sidewalk activity. If you look at the PDF, there are sidewalks behind the store. What ever happened to alleys being the ugly afterthought whose sole purpose was storage and delivery?

The city needs to step up and do something about this, perhaps making it illegal to have public entrances in the backs of buildings. It's a really bad precedent
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1609  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 9:54 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Not to get picky, but one of my biggest gripes about these retail centers with rear parking is when they also provide rear entrances to the retail space.

It really aggravates me, because it's nothing short of an inverted strip mall. People simply drive into the parking lot, walk into the store, get back into their car, and leave without ever stepping foot onto the sidewalk.

To sometimes makes matters worse, store owners even close 1 entrance (usually the sidewalk one) so that pedestrians actually have to walk around to the back of the building to get into the store--not good for the streetscape. IMO, it's not enough to 'maintain the streetwall' as a formality; we must also encourage sidewalk activity. If you look at the PDF, there are sidewalks behind the store. What ever happened to alleys being the ugly afterthought whose sole purpose was storage and delivery?

The city needs to step up and do something about this, perhaps making it illegal to have public entrances in the backs of buildings. It's a really bad precedent
Here I strongly disagree with you. Parking is gonna come whether you want it or not. The ONLY question is, parking lot in back, or in front? The choice is easy for me.

Also, try telling someone who just parked their car, in the middle of a snowstorm, or late at night, that they need to walk around the building through some dank little corridor to get to the front. It's not pleasant, it's not safe, and it will only discourage commercial activity and development.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1610  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 10:12 PM
DHamp DHamp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 195
The parking behind shops doesn't bother me so much, It might be difficult to attract the amount of business they want without SOME parking. I don't like the parking behind the town homes so much. I appreciate that they are going to keep those older homes on the Evans side of the block. I wish the town homes had similar lot depth as those older homes and if anything, garages instead of parking lots. With the underground parking and street parking, it seems to me that there should be plenty of parking and no need for a sea of asphalt in the interior of the block.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1611  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 10:27 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^

The city needs to step up and do something about this, perhaps making it illegal to have public entrances in the backs of buildings. It's a really bad precedent
I think the last thing we need at this point is additional regulation on new commercial buildings on the south side of Chicago. In the future when things pick up a little? Maybe. But at this point we should be thankful to get any new retail we can in that area. It may not be the best idea in the world from strictly an urban planning stand point, but most residents of the south side have been underserved by retail for over 50 years and we don't want to discourage development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1612  
Old Posted Aug 24, 2007, 11:52 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ While I agree, I think you guys are sort of missing my point.

I don't have a problem with rear parking, and in theory I don't even mind a REAR entrance to shops (bear with me here). What I MIND, however, is when the store owner CLOSES the sidewalk entrance and forces pedestrians/bus riders, etc to walk around back and use the rear entrance. It kills the sidewalk, and it's basically a strip mall in disguise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Also, try telling someone who just parked their car, in the middle of a snowstorm, or late at night, that they need to walk around the building through some dank little corridor to get to the front. It's not pleasant, it's not safe, and it will only discourage commercial activity and development.
^ On the same token, is it fair to ask a pedestrian in "the middle of a snowstorm, late at night" to walk around back to get to the entrance? I can easily flip that argument around, you see. It's just a matter of who you want to roll your red carpet out to--drivers or pedestrians.

In my experience in some parts of Queens and NYC suburbs (where the same model of parking behind new stores applies), one can clearly see that shop owners prefer to use 1 entrance--the parking one. And the shop turns its back on the sidewalk.

Take an extreme example--the Aldi which is part of Uptown's Wilson Yard development. To make the community happy, renderings showed a nice sidewalk entrance. But the actual store? THe pedestrian gets the shaft--no sidewalk entrance, just an entrance to the rear parking lot. Broadway gets a brick wall.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1613  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 12:01 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Deception (happy pedestrians entering Aldi's, at right):




Painful reality (stupid flowers and an impenetrable brick fortress. Thanks for caring):

__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1614  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 12:20 AM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,334
Point made, that is mighty ugly. I am guessing that the idea if not having two entrances is for security issues. One more exit to watch who potential shop lifters or to have to have a security guards look into at night etc. Maybe there would be a way to make an entrance only at least at the front though to make it more appealing at the street. Or at least what they could have done is not set up some glass panels instead of brick to face the street which still isn't great from an access point of view but aesthetically would have looked a hell of a lot better.

Putting a whole stop on back lot parking though in retail poor areas though is not a good idea on principle especially since I do find it much more pleasant then front lot parking even if it is a a bit phony and not ideal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1615  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 12:26 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee
Point made, that is mighty ugly. I am guessing that the idea if not having two entrances is for security issues. One more exit to watch who potential shop lifters or to have to have a security guards look into at night etc. Maybe there would be a way to make an entrance only at least at the front though to make it more appealing at the street. Or at least what they could have done is not set up some glass panels instead of brick to face the street which still isn't great from an access point of view but aesthetically would have looked a hell of a lot better.
^ Yeah, I can dig 1 entrance. But the one entrance should be the sidewalk entrance, not the parking entrance. It's ridiculous that the city allows preference for the driver instead of the pedestrian, especially in pedestrian-heavy areas. If I lived in that neighborhood and saw that go up, I would be royally pissed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Putting a whole stop on back lot parking though in retail poor areas though is not a good idea on principle especially since I do find it much more pleasant then front lot parking even if it is a a bit phony and not ideal.
^ That's not at all my point. I am not criticizing rear parking. Please reread my prevous few posts
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1616  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 1:30 AM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Hmm TUP, that Aldi gives me pause. I agree with you. It should be absolutely illegal not to have a working entrance from the sidewalk. I haven't been by there, but are you sure the Aldi is finished? It sounds horrible not to have a sidewalk entry.

In the few developments of this nature that I have been to lately (that ugly Pointe 2100 or whatever it is on State / Archer comes to mind), the stores definitely were accepting pedestrians and people from the rear entrances. I've never seen a store with a locked door on the sidewalk before.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1617  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 2:35 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
This is a frequent topic on new urbanism listservs (and has been for more than a decade). Optimistic designers put in a sidewalk door, merchant promptly locks it and puts up a sign saying "use rear entrance." There was a huge stink in Atlanta over a new in-town Galvin's that had promised a sidewalk entrance and kept it open about two weeks. We don't have many examples of rear-parking shops in Chicago, but I'd be interested in hearing of any such shops that also have a functional sidewalk door. None of the shops in (Treasure Island) Market Square on Clybourn do.

About the only compromise I've seen to work is having parking on the side, so the store can have a single door only a couple steps off the sidewalk. Lots of new Walgreens do it this way. If the stores are shallow enough, you can possibly convince rear parkers to return through a wide, well-lighted and sheltered driveway to the sidewalk entrance of the shops.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1618  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 3:44 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
We don't have many examples of rear-parking shops in Chicago, but I'd be interested in hearing of any such shops that also have a functional sidewalk door.
I just listed one. It's at State / Archer, and has about 10 storefronts: Two restaurants, a coffee house, marketing place, etc. They all have working sidewalk doors and rear doors. Granted, some are not occupied yet, but so far it's 100% success.

Also, consider North / Clybourn area. Most of those stores would also fit your criteria: Crate and Barrel, CostPlus World Market, etc, all have street and parking entrances that function. Same with that ugly "North Avenue Collection," which is a vertical mall with a huge parking garage, but all of the stores on North Avenue have working storefronts.

As I said, except for areas with very low pedestrian activity such as Elston, I really cannot think of any place in Chicago that has seen this phenomenon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1619  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 4:39 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Restaurants and coffee shops and mortgage offices are sort of special cases because they don't have merchandise in the traditional sense. Some of the Chinatown Square restaurants have back doors from Archer that let customers sneak in past the restrooms and busboy area.

North Avenue Collection, Trader Joe's on Clybourn, etc., generally have the model of funneling parkers to the sidewalk or a side entrance that serves both peds and parkers. Do any of them actually maintain two doors? World Market is the only one I can think of. Crate & Barrel is a side-parking model, with merely a sidewalk from Clybourn that lets peds access the single entrance from the parking lot.

Another special case is big boxes and supermarkets that have a line of cashiers at the front end. The paid area can--and often does--stretch between two doors. Target at Clark/Roosevelt is a good example.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1620  
Old Posted Aug 25, 2007, 4:50 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Not to get picky, but one of my biggest gripes about these retail centers with rear parking is when they also provide rear entrances to the retail space.

It really aggravates me, because it's nothing short of an inverted strip mall. People simply drive into the parking lot, walk into the store, get back into their car, and leave without ever stepping foot onto the sidewalk.

To sometimes makes matters worse, store owners even close 1 entrance (usually the sidewalk one) so that pedestrians actually have to walk around to the back of the building to get into the store--not good for the streetscape. IMO, it's not enough to 'maintain the streetwall' as a formality; we must also encourage sidewalk activity. If you look at the PDF, there are sidewalks behind the store. What ever happened to alleys being the ugly afterthought whose sole purpose was storage and delivery?

The city needs to step up and do something about this, perhaps making it illegal to have public entrances in the backs of buildings. It's a really bad precedent
I'm generally ok with it, because by keeping the parking in back and basically building up to the lot lines in front you make it much more inviting for pedestrian activity, a huge improvement from strip malls. The strongest argument against the rear parking for me is that there's already a laughably large cornicopia of free street parking for several blocks in every direction, so other than garages for the townhomes I don't see the need to provide any parking for the retail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.