CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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.

^ This is a particular issue that I would hope to see more neigborhood groups vocal about. I would hope that pressure from organized locals would encourage storeowners into keeping sidewalk entrances open; especially in more pedestrian-heavy ares. If NIMBY's are going to be so vocal, perhaps it can go to some use besides blocking development on every corner

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

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.

Once again, I noticed several forumers have completely missed my point. Please reread my post

[VivaLFuego]

^If that's the finished product, that Aldi's is an absolute disgrace.

[the urban politician]

^ Right, but my point is the exclusive use of rear parking entrances (and closing sidewalk entrances) that often occurs in the situation where rear parking behind a retail center is created.

We're all sort of trying to figure out if this will be a problem in Chicago. My particular concern is not only newer developments in Bronzeville/Kenwood, which are particularly desperate for retail activity, but with The Emerald development along Halsted. With the creation of that retail complex along Halsted (with rear parking as well as a drive thru bank), I"m giving it a few weeks/months before the store-owners post signs along the sidewalk that say "use rear entrance".

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Right, but my point is the exclusive use of rear parking entrances (and closing sidewalk entrances) that often occurs in the situation where rear parking behind a retail center is created.

We're all sort of trying to figure out if this will be a problem in Chicago. My particular concern is not only newer developments in Bronzeville/Kenwood, which are particularly desperate for retail activity, but with The Emerald development along Halsted. With the creation of that retail complex along Halsted (with rear parking as well as a drive thru bank), I"m giving it a few weeks/months before the store-owners post signs along the sidewalk that say "use rear entrance".

No way. Halsted gets way too much pedestrian traffic already for them to close the sidewalk entrance (unless it's on Green?) what with all the Greektown restaurants and shops. Also, WLCO and the Greektown Merchants' Associations are in play there.

As for the Uptown Aldi issue.. that IS a disgrace, I agree. Once the Target is completed, and the construction activity has died down, Aldi may refit for a pedestrian entrance.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

.....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.....

The Trader Joe's is on the 2nd floor w/parking on that floor (accessed from the rear) and a separate sidewalk pedestrian entrance to the stairwell. First floor is miscellaneous retail with sidewalk entrances and basement parking accessible from the rear (elevator/stairs to first floor). So, yeah, two doors.

Border's/SurLa Table/etc funnels drivers from the garage to the sidewalk. Same with the Bannana Republic/California Pizza/Etc. complex on North.

CompUSA had separate garage/sidewalk entrances.

[Mr Downtown]

Hmmm. My memory is that there is only one door into the Trader Joe's. If you're on the sidewalk, you have to take the elevator or stairs up into the parking garage, and then enter the single doorway of the store.

So this is a variation of the "side parking" scheme, in which one door is located to serve both peds and parkers.

[VivaLFuego]

Do we count the Circuit City at North/Kingsbury? There is a sidewalk entrance, and an entrance from the parking garage in back.

[honte]

The list is pretty endless. Why don't we start counting times we've actually come across a locked entrance, with a sign that reads, "Please use back door off the parking lot." I'm not the world's power shopper, but I've never seen such a thing.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by honte

The list is pretty endless. Why don't we start counting times we've actually come across a locked entrance, with a sign that reads, "Please use back door off the parking lot." I'm not the world's power shopper, but I've never seen such a thing.

^ For what it's worth, I've seen it twice in Chicagoland:

1) A video store on the northwest side. I want to say Armitage but the exact location eludes my memory

2) In Oak Park, near the L station.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Hmmm. My memory is that there is only one door into the Trader Joe's. If you're on the sidewalk, you have to take the elevator or stairs up into the parking garage, and then enter the single doorway of the store.....

And what I said: "The Trader Joe's is on the 2nd floor w/parking on that floor (accessed from the rear) and a separate sidewalk pedestrian entrance to the stairwell"

So, we are in agreement as to Trader Joe's.

[Mr Downtown]

Except for the part where you said

Yeah, two doors.

Pointe 1900, Archer at State:

[the urban politician]

^ And it begins. This is a mistake in urban planning, plain and simple. The rear parking entrances have GOTTA go--shopowners will clearly always choose them, so why give them a choice?

Mr D, you're a somewhat prominent south looper. How about bringing this issue up with the community? I can understand this being moderately tolerable in the neighborhoods, but downtown? Unacceptable.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Except for the part where you said
Quote:
Yeah, two doors.

And what I said: The Trader Joe's is on the 2nd floor w/parking on that floor (accessed from the rear) and a separate sidewalk pedestrian entrance to the stairwell. First floor is miscellaneous retail with sidewalk entrances and basement parking accessible from the rear (elevator/stairs to first floor). So, yeah, two doors.

First floor retail. Crate & Barrel outlet etal. Not 2nd-floor TJ's. First Floor. Street-level stuff.

I assume you know the appropriate way to attribute a quote when it is part of a larger sentence - you know, those little parens you surround an upper-case letter with, the ones that indicate that it was not originally the first word in a sentence? Or that the word So indicates dependence on the full clause precedent?

You like trees. I like forests. So be it. But you are cutting down trees in my forest!

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

How about bringing this issue up with the community? I can understand this being moderately tolerable in the neighborhoods, but downtown? Unacceptable.

Sure. I'll go down Tuesday to the Bureau of Things That Annoy Urban Designers and fill out a form 5122. Sorry I can't get it done sooner.

Seriously: where is the leverage? Pointe 1900 is an as-of-right project that's "downtown" only to suburbanites. How does anyone demand that the developer--who probably put in the retail grudgingly to begin with--now put a rider in the leases that all tenants have to maintain two entrances? The "convenient customer parking" is probably the main reason the tenants chose Pointe 1900 to begin with.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

.....The rear parking entrances have GOTTA go--shopowners will clearly always choose them, so why give them a choice?.....

Agreed 100%. Well, 90%

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by wrabbit

[Y]ou are cutting down trees in my forest!

Oh, I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK. . . But I don't know what your point is. My point is that none of the stores in that Clybourn development has two entrances. The parking has two entrances, but none of the stores do.

For the pedestrian, walking through the garage to get to the Trader Joe's is not much different from walking through the parking lot to get to the one on Lincoln at Grace. Neither entrance is directly from sidewalk into store, the way the one on Ontario at Wabash is.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Except for the part where you said


Pointe 1900, Archer at State:

Well, that sucks. I didn't notice this. To be fair, I do know with certainty that the two restaurants and coffee house admit patrons from the street side (not sure if they use both entrances - I know the coffee house does). But I am still annoyed.

In any case, I'd rather have a locked door than a parking lot screwing up the street wall and pedestrian experience altogether.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Sure. I'll go down Tuesday to the Bureau of Things That Annoy Urban Designers and fill out a form 5122. Sorry I can't get it done sooner.

Seriously: where is the leverage? Pointe 1900 is an as-of-right project that's "downtown" only to suburbanites. How does anyone demand that the developer--who probably put in the retail grudgingly to begin with--now put a rider in the leases that all tenants have to maintain two entrances? The "convenient customer parking" is probably the main reason the tenants chose Pointe 1900 to begin with.

^ I would actually walk right into the store and say "why have you closed the sidewalk entrance? That's pretty inconvenient for us who live here and choose to walk here, to have to walk all the way around back just to get inside."

I didn't say you should call Fioretti and get an ordinance passed. But if you were to bring it up with neighbors (bring it to their attention), they would actually acknowledge this as a 'bad' thing. You see, right now, most Americans (often including even city dwellers, unfortunately) are used to a culture that inconveniences and endangers a pedestrian for the sake of a driver--and they likely would not think anything unusual of it. What's wrong with members of a community asking shopowners who are supposed to serve them, to actually do so in a respectful, safe, and convenient manner? Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't really cost them anything to open up their sidewalk entrances.

In my opinion, not having to walk around to backs of buildings & compete with cars to get to stores is just as much a quality of life issue in the creation of a desirable neighborhood as shadows, and building heights, etc etc, and it's worth tackling.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by honte

In any case, I'd rather have a locked door than a parking lot screwing up the street wall and pedestrian experience altogether.

^ I would argue that a locked door scews up the pedestrian experience even more than a conventional front parking strip mall.

Front parking strip mall:
Pedestrian has to walk through a parking lot to get to a single entrance that is shared between him and people who arrive by car. The strip mall at least FACES the street, and doesn't turn its back on it.

Inverted strip mall with closed-sidewalk entrances:
The development turns its back on the street and insults the pedestrian in 2 ways: 1) You see a locked door, so you can't even walk in through the front--what a loser you are! 2) You have to walk all the way AROUND the building, as well as through the parking lot, just to get to the entrance. Therefore, you are walking even more than you would to get into the entrance in a traditional front-parking stip mall. Whew!
Finally, you preserve the aesthetics of a streetwall but you lose all functionality, convenience, pedestrian safety, etc etc all of the things that make cities DESIRABLE places to live.