CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News

[Busy Bee]

Are you shitting me?

Ditto to the idea above, why not place the jumboboard across Waveland above the buildings?

[Busy Bee]

Does anyone else look at that jumboboard and see Maxine?

[ardecila]

Guys, that is the Fenway jumbotron photoshopped onto Wrigley. Neither the scale nor the placement reflect the Cubs' plans.

The "John Hancock" sign is a dead giveaway, and so are the Red Sox fans on the screen.

Honestly, if the jumbotron has to go inside the park, that's the best place to put it. Doesn't block views to the lake or the historic (and crazy urban) Sheffield streetwall, impacts a minimal amount of rooftop clubs and only obscures an awful shitty woodframe building. I'd prefer a smaller scale, though. 2/3 of that size would be great.

One thing I've never heard anybody address is the microclimate effects of the jumbotron itself. Could it alter airflow and turn Wrigley into a more consistent hitter's park?

[Busy Bee]

Ahhh, i thought the john hancock was a little weird, but i was honestly so distracted by Maxine i didn't even notice the red sox outfits.

[Tom Servo]

what is this crap!?!?! disgusting, sterile, suburban invasion of wrigley!


and can we organize a mass protest? NO JUMBO TRON IN WRIGLEY!!!

[joeg1985]

^ I don't think this project is that bad. The massing is pretty good for the height of the structure and the size and awkward shape of the lot. I think it will bring some much needed density to that section of Clark. The open space that they have on the roof may provide for some more fun bars and restaurants in the neighborhood. Get some of those Wrigleyville drunks off the streets and onto the roof. Ha.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Also, I don't see how this is "neutering Clark street". Most of the buildings that would come down are shit buildings and, well, let's just say I'm not all that impressed with the majority of the businesses operating in this area. In fact, most of these shitty bars are the kind of place that would have no qualms about moving into an enormous new storefront where they can cram in as many bros as possible.

The buildings being shit buildings is the point. There is a level of grit on Clark street that heightens the sense of place, the smaller storefronts, the layers of alterations and the unevenness of it all is what makes it appealing. Toss in rents that vary every 30 feet from dog piss cheap to new construction and the variety of options provides something for everyone.

By scraping that and replacing it with a homogeneous retail strip (aesthetically, age, square footage, street frontage and most importantly RENT) will squeeze out the quirks. The developer will seek chains for acquiring financing and new construction rent rates will prevent smaller establishments from ever getting their foot in the door. Maybe it would push further North and South along Clark, but who knows.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

The buildings being shit buildings is the point. There is a level of grit on Clark street that heightens the sense of place, the smaller storefronts, the layers of alterations and the unevenness of it all is what makes it appealing. Toss in rents that vary every 30 feet from dog piss cheap to new construction and the variety of options provides something for everyone.

By scraping that and replacing it with a homogeneous retail strip (aesthetically, age, square footage, street frontage and most importantly RENT) will squeeze out the quirks. The developer will seek chains for acquiring financing and new construction rent rates will prevent smaller establishments from ever getting their foot in the door. Maybe it would push further North and South along Clark, but who knows.

^ Exactly why this strip needs this development. There will still be plenty of grit, but now this strip will get a new breath of life, instead of being a block of endless watering holes. Some diversity of retail instead of sports bar after sports bar may actually make this place more interesting and, frankly, useful, for more types of people.

Don't get me wrong--I love bars. Hell, whenever I visit any city the first place I go is to the bar for 2 pints and a shot of Jameson. But that doesn't mean everybody else sees things that way.

[J_M_Tungsten]

I don't think that looks suburban at all. It blends in well with the neighborhood without overtaking anything. It will still add nice density and interesting new businesses that may decide to move in. It will really bring Wrigleyville into the 21st century, IMO.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Some diversity of retail instead of sports bar after sports bar may actually make this place more interesting and, frankly, useful, for more types of people.

Maybe so, but we damn well know that there would likely be a Walgreens, Bank of America, Starbucks, Chipotle, Buffalo Wild Wings and oh, probably a Petsmart. The same things you would find at a strip mall in Lisle. Nothing interesting, nothing particularly useful.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by joeg1985

^ I don't think this project is that bad. The massing is pretty good for the height of the structure and the size and awkward shape of the lot. I think it will bring some much needed density to that section of Clark. The open space that they have on the roof may provide for some more fun bars and restaurants in the neighborhood. Get some of those Wrigleyville drunks off the streets and onto the roof. Ha.

I could give a shit about about massing or density in one of our city's densest neighborhoods. It's fucking hideous and DESTROYS the fabric of the street. It replaces a long stretch of old buildings with a really strong character and feel with sterile bullshit. Completely opposed. Build this trash on the McDonalds lot. And leave the rest alone!!!

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I don't think that looks suburban at all. It blends in well with the neighborhood without overtaking anything. It will still add nice density and interesting new businesses that may decide to move in. It will really bring Wrigleyville into the 21st century, IMO.

What the fuck?! Omg it is actually enraging to read this, no offense to you. I'm just really upset by this development, and I wish the opposition against it was stronger. When will people start to realize that this new hybrid version of the strip-mall is just a detrimental to the urban character of the street, and it's happening city-wide. I really hate this crap and wish the neighborhood alliance would have done a better job of preventing this one!

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^What are you talking about? It modernizes the old street wall to a new one. How is that a bad thing? I think some people, no offense to you, really make too much out of some of these projects. It appears, at least from the renderings, that a decent amount of detail went into the street fronts along Clark. No, they are not like the old buildings along Clark, but I see that as a very positive feature of this project. Not everyone is going to like this, but it really is pretty nice.

[Steely Dan]

the red ivy building is pretty nice, but the rest of the buildings that are to be torn down for this proposal are fairly forgettable. that old cold storage building with salt n pepper is sorta neat just because it's an old cold storage building, but it's hardly an architectural marvel. the buildings north of salt n pepper are throw away, as is mullens. and goose island is old-timey faux historic.

as for suburban businesses pushing out local shops, i find it beyond ironic that people are decrying this proposal for suburbanizing the city when it will actually replace a starbucks, a goose island, and a 7-11 with a surface parking lot!

[joeg1985]

^ Thank you Dan. Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Tom if you have actually walked down this stretch of Clark lately you would realize that it's tearing out a bunch of unremarkable buildings some of which are underutilized. Also, a lot of this stretch of Clark is just sports bar after sports bar with huge footprints. I'm sure a lot of which we will see in the new building once it's complete. I doubt that higher rents will really scare off those facilities. And compared to the crap that was being thrown up in my old neighborhood of Capitol Hill in Seattle before I left, this thing is heaven. It has some nice setbacks as it gets higher, plenty of windows and it keeps the brick feel along the street level. I think it's pretty good. And we haven't even seen the designs yet for the McDonald's site, that could be real bad.

[HomrQT]

The traditionalists will almost always lose out to the modernists on this site, and in the real world as well.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by joeg1985

^ Thank you Dan. Pretty much exactly what I was going to say.

Tom if you have actually walked down this stretch of Clark lately you would realize that it's tearing out a bunch of unremarkable buildings some of which are underutilized. Also, a lot of this stretch of Clark is just sports bar after sports bar with huge footprints.

...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...

Anyway, I'm just not a blind subscriber to all developments like so many on this forum are. I think too much in this city is lost or destroyed to poor decisions; we have MORE than enough vacant lots to put this hideously sterile, suburban looking schlock.

[tjp]

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!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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.

yes, those things would go away with this proposal, a trade-off i'm MORE than willing to make to get rid of that nasty fucking 7-11 and its parking lot and the parking lot to the west along addison.

i'll take the bad with the good in this case, absolutely!

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes, those things would go away with this proposal, a trade-off i'm MORE than willing to make to get rid of that nasty fucking 7-11 and its parking lot and the parking lot to the west along addison.

i'll take the bad with the good in this case, absolutely!

given the choice, I'd take the 7-11 and the parking lots... all is better, left alone.
lest we forget the sterility of this kind of architecture along Clark street? A bad thing imo. But then again, I care more about the feel and a sense of place than density for density's sake.


https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Wrigl...298.41,,0,1.11