CHICAGO | General Developments

[Abner]

It bothers me that the papers have been portraying the downfall of the Hyde Park Co-op as a result of an "outdated" coop structure. Never mind that what actually put it into the red was an idiotic expansion policy of the same sort that has caused many other businesses to fail in much less time. Too bad. Hyde Park needs a better grocery store than a Jewel or Dominick's.

[Jaroslaw]

-That strip mall is begging for redevelopment, as do the parking lots immediately N... perfect location for everything, TOD, LSD, lake views, good schools (if your kids can hack it)...

One of the new managers at the co-op said recently that growth has been flat for many years... but that if more shoppers came, they would have nowhere to park. Another reason for massive redevelopment here.

I remember that when the 47th street store opened, there was an enthusiastic article about it in the NYT, it was even posted on a wall in the 55th street store. The date was 20 October 1999:

A Suburbiascape Grows In Inner-City Chicago

By DIRK JOHNSON

"It is the familiar mallscape of suburbia, a big supermarket and a strip of gleaming shops behind a parking lot the size of a football field. But it is a stone's throw from a public housing tower.

This is 47th Street in the pockmarked North Kenwood section of Chicago, where the population has dwindled by two-thirds in the last 30 years, with whole blocks sitting vacant, rejected as untouchable by investors who saw more danger than hope.

Now investors see an urban Lazarus, a long-moribund neighborhood coming back to life, a striking example of how economic prosperity is changing the face of America. It is also a vivid illustration of how a City Hall, which in Chicago is the landlord for much of the cleared land, can transform a neighborhood by knocking down eyesores, readying parcels and recruiting developers..."

The rest is here:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A96F958260

It's worth reading the whole thing; eight years ago seems quite far away now.

1. The article notes that the cost of the 47th street store was only $9.1 million. Couldn't the co-op get a loan and be its own developer? No, they go and sign a 25 year lease with no escape clause. How did this happen? I can't help thinking there was some kind of underhand dealing here, it'd be nice to see a scrappy SunTimes reporter sniff things out.

2. As the NYT article suggests, the 47th street store was as much a "mission," combined with urban renewal euphoria, as it was expansionism (as per the 53rd street store). Plus, as many people I know, I have always been put off by the union-security bred indifference to good service at the store. In short, a left-wing tendency to urban optimism and indulgence to unions contributed to the demise of the co-op.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Abner

It bothers me that the papers have been portraying the downfall of the Hyde Park Co-op as a result of an "outdated" coop structure. Never mind that what actually put it into the red was an idiotic expansion policy of the same sort that has caused many other businesses to fail in much less time. Too bad. Hyde Park needs a better grocery store than a Jewel or Dominick's.

What's wrong with a Jewel or Dominick's? I'm impressed with how nice the new stores are from either of these brands.

That said, you're right that the Co-op's failure is much more easily traceable to awful decades-long mismanagement: mismanagement not only of investment priorities (e.g. the expansions) but also of the basic day-to-day administrative needs (membership relations, modernizing cashier equipment, etc.). So no, the co-op structure alone is not what's responsible for this demise.

But, to some extent, the co-op structure is self-evidently outdated: it was created so that the neighborhood could pool purchasing power and thus reduce the prices paid for goods by buying in larger quantities. In an age of national and even global food trade, if anything the co-op structure has disadvantageously small purchasing power. The Co-Op, of course, teamed up with Certified Grocers to provide some goods, and thus had access to Certified's collective purchasing power for those goods. However, the Co-Ops already high prices all these years were further artificially lowered by general benevolence on the part of the University of Chicago and Certified, who repeatedly agreed to forgive debt, not enforce collection, etc; to recoup all costs the Co-op's prices would have had to be even higher. Partly due to mismanagement, but partly structural as well.

All in all, it's a positive step forward if the neighborhood can get a competent, market-priced supermarket (I'd prefer Dominick's to Treasure Island, but either would be fine), so retail dollars are no longer hemorrhaged to the South Loop as they have been the last several years.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by honte

^ Nah, you can't call it that. We have real architecture that already goes under that moniker. Let's call is Post Architecture.

pretty ironic post.

I do think that your term "post architecture" isn't all that bad (it can be assailed as a form of anti-architecture). Hegel touches upon these things in some of his writings (the death of art). The only problem with tagging the suburban structure with such a "style" would be that it's waaay too stupid to be considered in such an avant-guarde theory.

without making any value judgments, I think it's fair to say that this is architecture many or most of us on these forums do not like. Whatever style it might be.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

What's wrong with a Jewel or Dominick's? I'm impressed with how nice the new stores are from either of these brands.

there's nothing inherently "wrong" with these stores. But what is nice about a co-op is that more $ stays within the community. Co-ops tend to have stronger ties with local distributors which tends to help local farmers. Not large factory farms.

also, co-ops don't necessarily have to be more expensive. The one I frequent here in New Haven tends to have better deals on many of the products I buy. The produce is also better.

I personally use both chain and co-op. Sometimes the co-op doesn't provide certain products my girlfriend and I need.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by honte

Ah, thank you Linda... someone who actually cares about trying to get good design.

My reaction at first also. This will be one of those projects with a totally "design by committee" look to it - usually nothing ever good comes out of this approach - almost always nothing with lasting vision. However, upon thinking about Searl's vote further, would we really want Plan Commission members to vote 'no' on projects because they do not care for the design? I'm not sure that would be such a good thing. I'd venture to say the majority of the commission (and this will probably always be the case) don't know jack about architecture and design, and if such voting were to become routine (I actually doubt it will), it could come back to bite us in the butt, as you could get a collection of rubes who would vote no because they find certain designs are not conservative or traditional enough or do not "blend in enough with the building next door" or whatever...remember, the mob is fickle....

[honte]

^ Sam, I carried the conversation over to the State of Chicago Architecture thread. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...140434&page=14

[Abner]

Originally Posted by alex1

there's nothing inherently "wrong" with these stores. But what is nice about a co-op is that more $ stays within the community. Co-ops tend to have stronger ties with local distributors which tends to help local farmers. Not large factory farms.

also, co-ops don't necessarily have to be more expensive. The one I frequent here in New Haven tends to have better deals on many of the products I buy. The produce is also better.

I personally use both chain and co-op. Sometimes the co-op doesn't provide certain products my girlfriend and I need.

This is right. I haven't been to any coop supermarkets besides Hyde Park and I could imagine that coops in that setting are at a disadvantage. But for natural foods stores and greengrocers, a coop structure can be very beneficial even on a large scale (see Rainbow Grocery in San Francisco).

[BVictor1]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder19.article

Desolate strips to get a boost
REAL ESTATE | Coalition vows to spend $2 million to promote three areas

December 19, 2007

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com


A coalition of heavy hitters in Chicago business and civic life has agreed to spend more than $2 million by 2009 to promote commercial investment along three desolate business strips in Chicago.

[tintinex]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

http://www.suntimes.com/business/roe...eder19.article

Desolate strips to get a boost
REAL ESTATE | Coalition vows to spend $2 million to promote three areas

December 19, 2007

DAVID ROEDER droeder@suntimes.com


A coalition of heavy hitters in Chicago business and civic life has agreed to spend more than $2 million by 2009 to promote commercial investment along three desolate business strips in Chicago.

this article sums up the news we've been hearing in tidbits so far. Pretty good for the south side.

Last but not least ... "Chicago Spire Breaks Ground."

Of course he had to stick it to the spire again

[SolarWind]

December 19, 2007





^ Jewel across the street from Allure at K Station on the southwest corner of Desplaines & Kinzie

[spyguy]

http://www.chicagojournal.com/main.a...93&TM=3960.384

City buys Sachs building for $4 mil
Planning department considers artist lofts, affordable units proposals

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER

The Department of Planning and Development will reveal in January its plans to develop the Morris B. Sachs Building, at 2800 N. Milwaukee, into mixed-use affordable housing.

The city purchased the art deco building for $4 million earlier this year and the department is currently reviewing two proposals. It's still uncertain whether the ground-level Payless Shoe Source outlet will be part of the new development

[BWChicago]

I certainly hope Payless isn't. It would be a lot of foot-dragging to get them to fix up the facade, and the building is quite clearly designed for retail on the first two floors. It would be difficult to make that second floor look right with Payless remaining there.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

I certainly hope Payless isn't. It would be a lot of foot-dragging to get them to fix up the facade, and the building is quite clearly designed for retail on the first two floors. It would be difficult to make that second floor look right with Payless remaining there.

well yeah, Payless looks like shit the way they've inserted themselves into the environment but I find it interesting.

what exactly would make it "look right" in your opinion?

Anything but sterilized and cutesy design please.

[honte]

Payless is a notorious abuser of historic buildings. They love to rip off historic facades without any concern for the community, replacing them with their ugly-as-sin corporate image of brown seamed metal panels. This kind of corporate greed is usually the first step toward a historic building becoming a teardown candidate, as they have mutilated some of its nicer features. It takes a certain kind of vision to see / recall what it once was.

Nothing would make me happier than to see them kicked out of this historic building and for the storefronts to be accurately restored.

[alex1]

sure, they tore up that building to shreds. But then again, I have no desire for that layer of Chicago history to be erased completely. There's something to be said about environments that make us think as this one does. even if it might be negative.

and i wonder if Payless Shoes had such a negative impact on the environment Honte. could it have saved a structure from demolition from the simple idea that it kept revenue streams open for landlords? or do you really believe the opposite to be true? I also believe that we need to know what the perception of these buildings were in the 70's compared to now?

if i could point a finger on anything that destroyed perceptions of the city (and its older structures), it would be the steel bar locks that used to inflict almost every business in the city when I was a kid. local businesses were also just as likely to destroy a building's charm through a certain type of design vernacular that was just tasteless and cheap.

[honte]

Originally Posted by alex1

and i wonder if Payless Shoes had such a negative impact on the environment Honte. could it have saved a structure from demolition from the simple idea that it kept revenue streams open for landlords? or do you really believe the opposite to be true? I also believe that we need to know what the perception of these buildings were in the 70's compared to now?

Well, yes, in 1970 things might have been different. And of course, there is a flip-side that they are one of the few tenants who will go into underserved communities and occupy urban storefronts. The question, however: Is the destruction a necessary evil?

I can't tell you what the Sachs building was like in 1970, but I can speak from personal experience. Payless continues this behavior now, even if it is unwarranted - in the name of corporate "image" and expediency. It might be possible to retrofit an existing storefront or to brand without mutilating things, but they choose not to.

Two recent examples come to mind, although there are countless others: Division / Milwaukee, and Chicago / Western. The building at Chicago / Western that they mutilated was a wonderful art deco corner building, almost entirely intact. Their behavior essentially ruined anything that was worth keeping; it was torn down this year.

You are correct that most any business has the potential and will to ruin old buildings. However, the large corporate chains tend to be the least flexible and most adamant that their corproate brand architecture be replicated. CVS, Walgreens, and Payless tend to be the worst offenders. Starbucks tends to be best corporate neighbor from an architectural preservation point of view.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by honte

Well, yes, in 1970 things might have been different. And of course, there is a flip-side that they are one of the few tenants who will go into underserved communities and occupy urban storefronts. The question, however: Is the destruction a necessary evil?

i understand what you're saying but I'm not one who's educated enough about the history of Payless shoes to say they're responsible for the "destruction" done on these properties. I agree that their branding isn't aesthetically pleasing but is the company really to blame for how these buildings currently look? Do the property owners shoulder some blame? did Payless buy these structures? Did the urban ills of the past 4-5 decades have an effect on these structures and the business practices of Payless (constant broken windows, theft that weakened the bottom line...)

It might be possible to retrofit an existing storefront or to brand without mutilating things, but they choose not to.

How do you feel about gutting out bottom floors for super-sized windows? isn't this a form of mutilating a structure? or is this type of work okay if the recontextualizing is to your liking?

The building at Chicago / Western that they mutilated was a wonderful art deco corner building, almost entirely intact. Their behavior essentially ruined anything that was worth keeping; it was torn down this year.

I'm skeptical that their branding and their branding alone destroyed the actual structure although I'm sure I might be wrong. if you have info on this, please pass along. I think from a grassroots preservation POV, this information is mighty important to pass along.

You are correct that most any business has the potential and will to ruin old buildings. However, the large corporate chains tend to be the least flexible and most adamant that their corproate brand architecture be replicated. CVS, Walgreens, and Payless tend to be the worst offenders. Starbucks tends to be best corporate neighbor from an architectural preservation point of view.

i would agree that corporate architecture is a huge problem. At least IMO. But consumers quickly discern certain iconic elements and structures. sadly, designers do not know how to control this type of architectural thinking in anything but an extremely dull and uninteresting way.

Starbucks was lucky to have lived in a time that the urban became cool and they've never lost sight of that model in their urban stores. Not to mention that their stores are smaller and that they can feasibly fit in old stand alone structure from the 1800's.

[alex1]

dp

[honte]

Don't mean to hijack this thread with Payless discussion.... but to answer your questions briefly.

Originally Posted by alex1

Do the property owners shoulder some blame? did Payless buy these structures? Did the urban ills of the past 4-5 decades have an effect on these structures and the business practices of Payless (constant broken windows, theft that weakened the bottom line...)

Yes, the owners share some of the blame. Sure, the past has had some impact on Payless's willingness to improve their properties in a respectable manner, but if the times have changed, they need to be aware of this.

Originally Posted by alex1

How do you feel about gutting out bottom floors for super-sized windows? isn't this a form of mutilating a structure? or is this type of work okay if the recontextualizing is to your liking?

It's not about my "liking", but about what is accurate for the structure and something that does not distract from its quality. In this case, the building is landmarked, so the reconstruction would be historically accurate (to the best of our ability with present-day materials). If there were big storefront windows originally, then that's what would go back in, by law. And since the City owns it, it would be done to a very high quality.

Originally Posted by alex1

I'm skeptical that their branding and their branding alone destroyed the actual structure although I'm sure I might be wrong. if you have info on this, please pass along. I think from a grassroots preservation POV, this information is mighty important to pass along.

Well, strictly speaking, they did not destroy the structural integrity of the building, if that's what you mean. But I did watch this closely, and yes, they do absolutely destroy the facade underneath the signage. If there are any projecting elements, they are broken off. When they attach the heavy signage, they break large holes in the facade to allow their structural members to anchor to the main structure of the building.

Originally Posted by alex1

sadly, designers do not know how to control this type of architectural thinking in anything but an extremely dull and uninteresting way.

I think the architects know how to do better. I think the corporate structure is unwilling to allow this, however.