Originally Posted by tjp (Post 6103144)

Even if a bunch of chains do go up in the development, they'd probably be more useful to the neighborhood's residents than the bars they're replacing. What I don't like, though, is the amount of parking included...400 stalls, and only 120 apartments!

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 6103157)

given the choice, I'd take the 7-11 and the parking lots... all is better, left alone.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 6103134)

...I'm in Wrigleyville nearly every weekend... and yeah, I'm not concerned about losing the buildings; my issue is with losing the feel of the street. this development will sterilize this stretch of Clark. It could be design by Rem Koolhaas and be amazing; I don't care. It's the uniform, massive development that I have issue with... Mullen's shitty green and yellow awning, the IO, the EAT sign, Goose Island, the cozy stretch of one/two story brick facades... that's what this development destroys.

You guys all seem blinded by the fact that this is a huge development. But fuck development at the cost of urban character. Don't forget, also, that the grey stone three flat with the Starbucks will be destroyed too! It just enrages me that, in a city with a long history of senseless destruction of our urban fabric, that you guys are all welcoming more of the same pattern.

I feel like this development could be done better, with attention paid to what is already there. Here's a crazy idea: why not leave all the pre-existing buildings the fuck alone and build up in the vacant lots, instead... but I guess such logic is an foreign concept to these simply profit minded developers...

Originally Posted by joeg1985 (Post 6103194)

Do you think that is would be better if they simply put a 19 storey building on the empty lots and left the rest alone? Or would that be unreasonable and also destroy the nature of the street? I'm honestly curious.

Originally Posted by joeg1985 (Post 6103194)

Well this is a much better explanation for what you don't like. And I agree with you that the loss of individual building fronts is a shame. That doesn't mean however that all that signage can't be returned to the new development. The architect could definitely do better breaking up the frontage to make it appear as if it were multiple buildings.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 6103324)

Yep. That's exactly what I think. Take the sq footage of this development and reprogram it onto the 7-11 lot. That's my opinion. Clearly, however, I'm outnumbered on this forum as others seem to value bigger buildings over urban character.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo (Post 6103324)

Yep. That's exactly what I think. Take the sq footage of this development and reprogram it onto the 7-11 lot. That's my opinion. Clearly, however, I'm outnumbered on this forum as others seem to value bigger buildings over urban character.

Originally Posted by alex1 (Post 6104425)

I'm with ya'. One thing living on the East Coast for the past 6 years has made me aware of is that I don't miss some of the more myopic development trends in Chicago. Manhattan, Brooklyn and surrounding places do a fairly great job of taking the old (and ugly) and infusing these places with character while also adding a very exciting mix of fresh and contemporary architecture to the urban fabric.

Also, scale matters. It's the primary reason why I avoid midtown Manhattan like the plague (unless I'm teaching) but absolutely adore most of the human-scaled neighborhoods at the tip of the island.

I'm at a loss as to why Chicago keeps on missing on these great opportunities. At least the lakefront hasn't been tapped for development (for the sake of more $$$).

Originally Posted by alex1 (Post 6104425)

I'm with ya'. One thing living on the East Coast for the past 6 years has made me aware of is that I don't miss some of the more myopic development trends in Chicago. Manhattan, Brooklyn and surrounding places do a fairly great job of taking the old (and ugly) and infusing these places with character while also adding a very exciting mix of fresh and contemporary architecture to the urban fabric.

Originally Posted by Via Chicago (Post 6103356)

I think the problem though (and I agree with Tom) is that when you're trying to mimic multiple facades, its easy to see through that for what it is: something dishonest and fake. Chicago is great because it is a collection of designs from different periods and each reflects a certain history from its time. You enter one shop or restaurant and its a completely different experience from the one next door to it; not just in appearance but even the little things like how hard you have to pull on the door to enter, the feel of the hardware, the scent of the room, the way the floor creaks. When you slap up a bland massive development like this, those experiences are lost. Everything becomes uniform, and uniform is boring and bland. Im much more in favor of thoughtfully done small projects than these "all or nothing" blocklong demolitions.

And yea, if the design were better it might be easier to swallow, but its not.

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop (Post 6104930)

Apologies if discussed already (haven't been following as the ballpark itself doesn't interest me - although adjacent new developments certainly do), but is that Addison Park on Clark proposal completely dead?

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 6104673)

^ What you observed has nothing to do with how 'enlightened' certain cities are and how 'myopic' Chicago is. It has to do with lot sizes, land values, and zoning.

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G (Post 6105274)

I'm curious which places outside of New York and which developments specifically within New York you're referring to. Having recently returned to Chicago after living on the East Coast for five years, I didn't notice any such trends.