CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

If the streetsblog report is accurate, Walgreen's has threatened to just walk away, which frankly might be the best outcome. Let that building continue just as it is.

Still, I think it's interesting to consider what this forum's reaction to such aldermanic bullying would be if it threatened even a foot of height on a new skyscraper. Mell has no lawful leverage over the mix of uses or even the site plan.

True, although she can withhold the driveway permit and she has also considered designating it a pedestrian street, which I have long felt Chicago needs more of

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

I just sent her an email today to let her know. (hint... we all should. I really do think an influx of emails makes a difference, although she's already on the right track).

Good idea, just sent her a note of support as well.

[ardecila]

But she does have control over curb cuts.

For better or worse, we have a system where aldermen exercise near-total control over their wards. Forgive me for cheering when an alderman's decisions align with my own values.

[k1052]

Such a site plan shouldn't be acceptable for a tear down project across the street from rail transit in the first place. Really wish the city had gone a lot further with TOD and zoning in general around transit.

Walgreens has already screwed a number of other places in the city with terrible suburban designs that I'm not going to shed any tears if they lose this one. Would much rather see their store integrated into the ground floor of a 4-6 story residential building.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

True, although she can withhold the driveway permit and she has also considered designating it a pedestrian street, which I have long felt Chicago needs more of

I applaud Deb Mell's efforts here, but I think both strategies are very iffy legally. There's already a curb cut on this property for the current parking lot. As for designating Lawrence a P-street, I think that would be on very shaky ground west of Western because of how many curb cuts already exist. The P-street designation is about not further degrading existing pedestrian environments; it's not really designed as a way to transform the city into a completely different place.

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The P-street designation is about not further degrading existing pedestrian environments; it's not really designed as a way to transform the city into a completely different place.

I don't mean to be too combative here, but this is the second comment you've made that makes me wonder if you've ever even been on this street.

Sure, there have been a handful of damaging developments over the years, but no more so than any other pedestrian districts in Lincoln Park or Wicker/Bucktown. For the most part Lawrence is a very well intact 1920s commercial corridor. In fact, I'd argue that it might be the best preserved commercial district of that vintage in the entire city. Particularly west of the river, and then even more so west of Kimball.

Lawrence West from Springfield
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lawre...279.93,,0,2.64
Lawrence East from Avers
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lawre...2,89.8,,0,0.59
Lawrence East from Lawndale
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lawre...2,79.81,,0,3.4
Lawrence East from Spaulding
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=lawre...,93.29,,0,2.64

Yes, I chose these views specifically to showcase the area, but there is A LOT to chose from.

Just because something is far from downtown doesn't mean it's a sea of strip malls.

[the urban politician]

^ This situation brings to mind another reason why the worthless strip mall ordinance is so criminal. The language states (and I'm paraphrasing here) that "if the existing pattern of development around it is to have storefronts abutting the sidewalk" then the strip mall must do the same.

So in other words, if previous generations of developers defaced the street with strip malls, then the ordinance does not apply to you and you have license to do the same.

Add that stipulation along with the fact that the strip mall ordinance is optional, and one can see why it still has no teeth.

[Mr Downtown]

It's marvelous that you can choose places to stand where it's possible to pretend Lawrence is an intact, traditional pre-automotive street. But in the four blocks east of Kimball I count 10 curb cuts. It's a street already pockmarked with drive-in banks, auto repair shops, and fast-food restaurants. There are currently curb cuts on all four corners of this intersection, so to suddenly close and deny one puts you on thin ice legally.

[BWChicago]

But you know very well that Lawrence was never a pre-automotive street. It was one of the earlier auto rows and there are very old auto-related buildings - dealerships, service stations, garages - still extant there. Auto-oriented retail is the issue here.

I wonder how much longer Albank will stick around. Now THERE is a suburban design. (Though even there they didn't put parking at the corner) What a marvelous TOD opportunity that lot is.

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's marvelous that you can choose places to stand where it's possible to pretend Lawrence is an intact, traditional pre-automotive street. But in the four blocks east of Kimball I count 10 curb cuts. It's a street already pockmarked with drive-in banks, auto repair shops, and fast-food restaurants. There are currently curb cuts on all four corners of this intersection, so to suddenly close and deny one puts you on thin ice legally.

I fail to see your point. The Milwaukee avenue P street has a giant shopping mall entrance to a Jewel and K mart as well as a Walgreens with about 3 standard city lots of parking in front of it. The Division P street includes gas stations, drive thru banks, drive thru fast food joints, parking lots, and vacant lots. It abuts an enormous hospital complex and anti-urban high school. The Chicago avenue P street is adjacent to an entire city block made up by an auto oriented former dominicks and a giant McDonalds drive thru. I don't have time to do this for every single P street designation.

Most of these P streets are shorter stretches than the area I'm discussing on Lawrence - so it's actually easier to put together a few relatively untinterrupted blocks.

For whatever reason, you are just not giving due credit to this stretch of Lawrence. It is among the most urban in the entire city, especially for a non-lakefront area this far from downtown.

@BW, I'm not sure if you are trying to suggest that this means it ought to be OK to cater to the automobile today. I hardly think you can compare 1920's "auto oriented" to that of today. The issue here is that the VAST majority of this commercial corridor fronts the street.

[markh9]

This Old House Will Soon Be a Vacant Lot
http://www.chicagomag.com/real-estat...-a-Vacant-Lot/

“I’ll knock it down and it will be another vacant lot in Uptown,” Mike Finan told me. [....] Because it dates to the early urbanization of Uptown, predating the multi-unit apartment buildings on its block, Truman College around the corner, and Uptown’s trio of grand old theaters a few blocks away, the house is coded orange on the city’s landmarks inventory. Orange is for buildings with potential significance, either architectural or historical.

.....

Also, in more positive news:

Sale of Congress Theater pending
http://www.wbez.org/blogs/jim-deroga...pending-109543

Controversial venue owner Erineo “Eddie” Carranza has given up the fight to maintain ownership of the embattled Congress Theater in Logan Square and has signed a contract for its sale to the developer of the swanky Cadillac Palace Theatre in the Loop, according to several sources familiar with the pending transaction.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by markh9

Also, in more positive news:

Sale of Congress Theater pending
http://www.wbez.org/blogs/jim-deroga...pending-109543

Yup, took a few months longer than I anticipated to leak out... There is more to come regarding this project once they are officially ready to announce plans. This was more of a leak than an official announcement.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

If the streetsblog report is accurate, Walgreen's has threatened to just walk away, which frankly might be the best outcome. Let that building continue just as it is.

Still, I think it's interesting to consider what this forum's reaction to such aldermanic bullying would be if it threatened even a foot of height on a new skyscraper. Mell has no lawful leverage over the mix of uses or even the site plan.

Even if one thinks that Aldermen shouldn't have as much micro-level power as they do, is it still not worth cheering on the occasion that they use that power for good?

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's marvelous that you can choose places to stand where it's possible to pretend Lawrence is an intact, traditional pre-automotive street. But in the four blocks east of Kimball I count 10 curb cuts. It's a street already pockmarked with drive-in banks, auto repair shops, and fast-food restaurants. There are currently curb cuts on all four corners of this intersection, so to suddenly close and deny one puts you on thin ice legally.

But any site four blocks up or down Lawrence is not directly across the street from a major rapid transit terminal and at the intersection of two of the busier bus routes in the city. Denying new cuts would only be shaky if done arbitrarily or punitively, not if as part of a policy that implicitly admits the previously granted cuts at that location were a mistake and embody the form that the city wishes specifically to get away from at such locations.

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by Buckman821

@BW, I'm not sure if you are trying to suggest that this means it ought to be OK to cater to the automobile today. I hardly think you can compare 1920's "auto oriented" to that of today. The issue here is that the VAST majority of this commercial corridor fronts the street.

My point exactly - just because there are existing auto uses and curb cuts from past development patterns hardly justifies more auto-oriented retail.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yup, took a few months longer than I anticipated to leak out... There is more to come regarding this project once they are officially ready to announce plans. This was more of a leak than an official announcement.

Can you give us a sneak peek at what they'll be doing there? More of the same, more theatre related, a little of both? Would be nice to see with Concord just a block away..

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Can you give us a sneak peek at what they'll be doing there? More of the same, more theatre related, a little of both? Would be nice to see with Concord just a block away..

I have seen a few renderings, but unfortunately I think the details need to stay a surprise for now. All I can say is I think everyone here will be pleased with the masterplan.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I have seen a few renderings, but unfortunately I think the details need to stay a surprise for now. All I can say is I think everyone here will be pleased with the masterplan.

I understand and hope it's announced/shown soon. Now I'm excited to see what will be. I know Congress was operating until recently, but with all the stuff randomly opening on Milwaukee a few blocks north of this, I wonder if it will spur any new business development south of the California stop.

Now, if only the Uptown Theater could be renovated. BTW, what the hell happened to the New Regal Theater in Avalon Park/South Shore with that supposed big secret investor?

[wierdaaron]

Based on the machinery and signage, it looks like work might be starting on the riverwalk at Clark. Can anyone confirm?

[PerryPendleton]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Based on the machinery and signage, it looks like work might be starting on the riverwalk at Clark. Can anyone confirm?

I saw this and I got very excited!

Let's get this riverwalk construction underway!

[Rizzo]

Noticed walking down Michigan AVe yesterday that Eddie Bauer is now closed. Wouldn't be surprised if that space gets filled fast. It's within that critical linear zone from Pearson to Illinois that is prime, always in demand space.

200 N. Michigan has started some light demolition on the exterior, mostly removing store canopies and such.