CHICAGO | General Developments

[Nowhereman1280]

Hip U.K. retailer close to Mag Mile deal

By: Eddie Baeb Jan. 13, 2010

(Crain’s) — Edgy London retailer AllSaints is in advanced talks to open a big
Magnificent Mile store that would replace the entrance to the former Chicago Place mall.

AllSaints, an apparel store known for its distressed styles, printed T-shirts and British rock influence, is close to leasing a 16,000-square-foot storefront between Saks Fifth Avenue and the new Zara store at 700 N. Michigan Ave., says Alex Adjmi, an investor in the New York group that owns the property.
“I think it will enhance and help Zara and Saks and be a good draw on Michigan Avenue,” says Mr. Adjmi, who estimates AllSaints could open this fall. “They’re high-fashion priced very well.”

Should the deal be completed, which is far from certain in today’s depressed retail climate, it would rank among the avenue’s biggest leases in recent years. Zara and Best Buy, which is in the John Hancock Center, opened their stores late last year, while cheap-chic purveyor Forever 21 opened in April 2008 at 540 N. Michigan.

But AllSaints, unlike other recent entrants to the market, is a store shoppers can’t find in suburbia.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=36718


Good news. Looks like the closing of Chicago Place is one of the best things to happen to the Ave in the past decade or two. Hopefully they'll reduce how horrible the entrance to the building looks from the street in the process.

[Mr Downtown]

Seems really odd for Dominick's to close both their Edgewater stores at the same time for rebuilding.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ That's not really in Edgewater though, that's pretty clearly part of Lincoln Square. Though is Lincoln Square technically a part of the huge Edgewater UofC Statistic area?

The closing of the one at Foster and Sheridan isn't that big of a deal anyhow since there is one like .5 miles up Broadway from there at Thorndale.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I don't know about the rest of you, and I am no fan of any street front parking (urban cancer blight), but that blank concrete wall is really ominous ...it doesn't seem to bode well for a well integrated store.

Are there renders?

I'm not an expert, but for tilt-up concrete walls, don't they raise them first and THEN cut out windows and doors? If that's the case, there's hope yet.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by pip

but what worries me about this decade vs the 90's with regards to population growth is Chicago Public School's enrollment. It went up during the 90's and has gone down this decade. This decade it has gone down by about 25,000 students total. This year was the only increase of the decade and enrollment grew by 1100. Since school age children represent about 25% of the population that 25,000 student loss can be a total 100,000 person loss. If you look at the bolded part, CPS total enrollment almost follws that pattern during the dates very roughly.

I hope I'm wrong and for example Philadelphia just won a census dispute that now shows Philly growing again in population but their school enrollment has dropped faster numberwise than CPS and the city is half the size. So in conclusion who knows whats going on, only the 2010 census will be able to tell. But I would'nt put money on population growth.

The demographics of cities are constantly cycling. If, in addition to overall growth, Chicago's demographic mix from 1990 to 2000 changed to a mix of more people less likely to have large families, then school population could age out while new residents just had fewer kids. Kids aren't being replaced in school, but CPS graduates are also staying in the City with a higher frequency than int he past, that could also yield overall growth without accompanying school population growth. Then there's the recession. If a recession means fewer people can move out of the city as has been hypothesized by some, but also fewer people are having more kids, then a reduction in birth rates from the post-9/11 recession would now be reflected in a lower school population than normal.

In summary, no one knows for sure what's going on!

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by emathias

I'm not an expert, but for tilt-up concrete walls, don't they raise them first and THEN cut out windows and doors? If that's the case, there's hope yet.

I have no idea. I hope you are right. The blank walls just struck me as nearly worse than street front parking....if that is possible.

I wonder if there are renders?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Any one listen to NPR tonight, on 848 they spoke with a Mr. Rob Paral; he is predicting a 5% drop in Chicago population, which would put it at 2.75 million. Essentially claiming that Chicago lost more in this decade than it gained between 1990 and 2000.

Also one of our fellow forumers was interviewed in a segment re: big developments in Chicago that have stalled recently

http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/Program_848.aspx

^ I'd be quite surprised if Milwaukee, Philly, and St Louis all gained population while Chicago didn't. Just plain doesn't make sense...

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I don't know about the rest of you, and I am no fan of any street front parking (urban cancer blight), but that blank concrete wall is really ominous ...it doesn't seem to bode well for a well integrated store.

Are there renders?

Well, Dominick's is using tilt-up so that they can erect the store quickly, but it's certainly possible for them to cover the concrete with all sorts of nice finishes - tile, stone, brick, clapboard, etc...

The new Dominick's at Foster/Sheridan is using some kind of living wall, so they may do that here as well.

And NO, tilt-up walls have the windows cast into them.... Dominick's may mount fake spandrel-glass windows onto the concrete, though. Really, when was the last time you saw a big-box store with windows? They usually put storage spaces and auxiliary rooms (offices, customer service, pharmacy) along the edges. If you're lucky, they have skylights.

[spyguy]

According to Hyde Park Progress, after selecting VDTA to design an expansion for the Lab Schools in its current location, U of C is considering building a new school for grades N-2 on the old Doctors Hospital site, which would still be demolished.

Conceptual rendering

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I believe today is the meeting to discuss the Lincoln Park Hospital redevelopment.

Let me make my prediction:

NIMBY fucktards show up, arms crossed, already ready to reject any and everything that is proposed. They've already made up their minds and won't budge (kind of like union members).

They of course convince the Alderman, and the project doesn't get approval.

Later on, the developer, as his way of saying 'fuck you' to them, goes ahead and, without requiring any zoning changes, redevelops the facility into medical office space. Thus, the stubborn NIMBY's, instead of bargaining for a better project, get something far worse which generates more traffic than a residential development would.

They still don't get their quaint historic community, they still don't get peace and quiet, they lose their opportunity to enhance their property values, and they still have to live next to a commercial building and parking garage.

Well, that's what my crystal ball says. Anybody agree?

^ HA! Was I right or was I right? So far it's all playing out the way I predicted. The NIMBY's will get stuck with something even more out of character and more traffic generating than what the developer was willing to propose, all because of stubborn meat-headedness:


Jan 13, 2010 1:36 pm US/Central
Lincoln Park Neighbors Fight Development Plan
Shuttered Lincoln Park Hospital Would Become Condos

A crowd turned out Tuesday night for public hearing on a controversial planned development in the Lincoln Park neighborhood, which residents fear will cause congestion and change the character of the community.

The redevelopment plan is for the shuttered Lincoln Park Hospital, formerly Grant Hospital, at 550 W. Webster Ave. The hospital closed in October 2008 when its owners couldn't find a buyer, and now, there are plans to redevelop it as a retail and residential complex.

The plan calls 35,000 combined square-feet of retail on Webster Avenue. It also calls for condominiums and senior housing, according to published reports.

At the public hearing at Lincoln Park High School, 2001 N. Orchard St., some neighborhood residents held signs reading, "No highrise, no retail."

At the meeting, some neighbors said the traffic congestion could be disastrous.

"From what I understand, the new plans show that all of the trucks and things that go into retail will be on Webster. It will be a travesty. There's already too much traffic on Lincoln, and the traffic it would cause, I think, is unbelievable, and I don't think it's good for the neighborhood," said Barbara Schaffer.

Forty-third Ward Democratic Committeeman Michelle Smith, who ran unsuccessfully in 2007 against Ald. Vi Daley (43rd), said on her blog that the plan would damage the quiet residential character of the area around the hospital.

"Our community has fought long and hard to save its historic residential character and not let it be overrun with high rises, retail malls and traffic," Smith wrote on her blog last month. "We have invested in our historic homes because we value the look and feel of this community."

But developer Richard Zisook said the project would make the former hospital buildings fit in far better with their surrounding architecture.

"The architecture of what's there is completely opposite of Lincoln Park," Zisook told CBS 2 Wednesday. "We're not building anything on the buildings that we're keeping, and we're putting new facades on them so they appear like they belong there."

Several buildings would be demolished as part of the redevelopment, including what stands from the middle of the side on the north side of Webster Avenue to Grant Place a street north. The demolition would include the original hospital and all the infield buildings connected to it, Zisook said.

Developers say the hospital must be rezoned and redeveloped, or else it can only ever be used as a medical facility, according to a published report.

Zisook said if that happens, "I guess we'll do it," but he doesn't think it would be as good for the neighborhood.

Zisook told the New York Times Friday that the battle against the hospital was "the biggest classic case of 'not in my backyard'" he'd ever seen. He said Wednesday that he stands by the quote.

"I think there's a couple people that have spearheaded this campaign, because they don't want it, and I just can't imagine that they'd rather have what's there operating as a medical facility rather than having residential housing for the elderly and a smaller retail component," he said.

Ald. Daley said at before the public hearing that she believes a compromise is possible.

"I like the idea of using the buildings and re-platting them, and if they could work out something where they could do the condos, and they could do the senior buildings, and they could do the townhouses, I think the retail is going to be difficult," Ald. Daley said, "although there's different types of commercial, because they could put in facilities for doctors; medical use. And I think the people would not object to that. I think it would be workable."

[the urban politician]

^ For anyone curious about the NY Times article:

Opposition to Development Near Lincoln Park Hospital

By BEN GOLDBERGER
Published: January 9, 2010
Few things anger a developer more than community opposition. Richard Zisook — who with his partner Michael Supera is trying to turn the three-acre site of the shuttered Lincoln Park Hospital into a blend of condominiums, housing for the elderly and retail — is facing it in spades.

“It’s the biggest classic case of ‘not in my backyard’ as I’ve ever seen in my lifetime,” Mr. Zisook said Friday. “I guess people don’t realize that if we aren’t able to redevelop it, then it’s going to end up being a medical use site.”

Many neighborhood residents are not swayed, Edward Burnes said. “This is not an underserved area,” Mr. Burnes said Friday.

What the development is going to do, he said, “is put local stores out of business.”

Alderman Vi Daley (43rd Ward) has not taken a public position. Both sides will be trying to convince her Tuesday at a community meeting on the project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/us...pulse-002.html

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I don't know about the rest of you, and I am no fan of any street front parking (urban cancer blight), but that blank concrete wall is really ominous ...it doesn't seem to bode well for a well integrated store.

Are there renders?

I got to see a rendering quickly at the store they demolished right before they closed it down demolition. I think the entrances will be on lincoln at the northwest and southwest corners. It looked pretty nice and when I saw it I thought...yeah right...they aren't going to plow under the parking lot to make that pedestrian friendly store.

But like you...we shall see.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by pip

unfortunetly that figure included charter schools, i'll double check when I get home.

The city is changing demographically - indeed blacks continue their exodus, which definitely impacts school enrollment, and middle- and lower-income white families are generally still leaving too. There is an influx of yuppies, but they often leave once they have a family, or otherwise send their kids to private school.

I wouldn't be surprised if overall, the city lost a bit of population. It's not even necessarily a bad thing, at least in the short run (though in the long run it becomes burdensome to maintain underutilized infrastructure). It will represent a dramatically different demographic profile compared to 1990, and a shift in population density. From 1990 and 2000, the denser parts of the city have gotten denser, while the depopulating west and south sides have gotten ever sparser.

[VivaLFuego]

I went to the meeting - it was incredibly well-attended, I'd guess somewhere north of 200 people in the Lincoln Park High Auditorium. Indeed, as Ald. Daley points out, the opposition to anything was generally in the minority, but many, many people objected to the retail. As always, there was a notable generation gap, with old people showing up to speak truth to power and stick it to the man as though nothing had changed since they moved in 1969, while younger people mentioned that they moved to the city because they like being able to walk to stuff and leave the car at home (though some of the younger still opposed for reasons they couldn't clearly express). One of the older gentlemen even pointed out the mutually-exclusive options, between the environmentally-responsible development (reusing the existing 300,000+ lbs of concrete) and "protecting the neighborhood" - he determined it was more important to "protect the neighborhood," of course. Ah, the joys of letting people who will be dead in 15 years determine long term public policy! Hope he enjoys the Social Security and Medicare he paid a total of $7.83 for before retiring.

If the retail space is removed and replaced with some office space (or only very small retail, rather than the Walgreen's proposed), I suspect most of the people who attended would be fine with the whole thing. Of course, I also imagine the Walgreen's is a significant financial underpinning of the entire proposal, which could collapse without a significant retail tenant.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The city is changing demographically - indeed blacks continue their exodus, which definitely impacts school enrollment, and middle- and lower-income white families are generally still leaving too. There is an influx of yuppies, but they often leave once they have a family, or otherwise send their kids to private school.

I wouldn't be surprised if overall, the city lost a bit of population. It's not even necessarily a bad thing, at least in the short run (though in the long run it becomes burdensome to maintain underutilized infrastructure). It will represent a dramatically different demographic profile compared to 1990, and a shift in population density. From 1990 and 2000, the denser parts of the city have gotten denser, while the depopulating west and south sides have gotten ever sparser.

Isn't this the case with many of the other cities that have challenged census estimates and won?

I guess I just don't understand why Chicago, a city that has seen far more developed than ANY of those cities mentioned out there that have challenged census estimates (and also gets far more immigration than probably all of them combined) would lose population while the rest of them gained.

[pip]

you really believe that all of a sudden american cities that challenged the census population estimates, especially the ones with little immigration, all started growing again? I wonder if the census thought it wasn't worth the battle. Also remember many immigrants are going straight to the suburbs now and bypass the city.

But I do agree with your premise of if these cities are really growing in population than Chicago certainly is simply because all those cities have lost a much larger percent of their total enrollment in public schools, have way less yuppies as a percent, certainly less than that 20 something after college party group, and have way less immigration - to the point where probably Chicago has more immigrants than all those cities combined, more yuppies than all those cities combined and more of the 20 something after college party group combined, that challenged the census estimates.

[ardecila]

Well, size isn't always an advantage. As of 2000, Chicago had the 2nd-largest black population of any city in the US, behind NY (yes, more than LA). If blacks are leaving the city in spades, then the size of that exodus will be large indeed.

As for the LPH proposal - is the retail really necessary? I'd like to see the Lincoln/Webster a little more active, but it wouldn't be a tragedy if the developer just built the senior housing. Unless the retail is intended to cross-subsidize the senior housing?

Obviously, senior housing will generate much less traffic than medical offices or a hospital would. If anything, senior residents will contribute to the pedestrian activity more than the traffic, since they are likely to walk to the park frequently, walk to get food or groceries, or walk to the bus if such things are convenient.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Its extremely necessary in my opinion. It fronts two busy streets, Lincoln and Fullerton. At least Lincoln MUST have retail or it will continue as just another missing tooth in the streetwall.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Really, when was the last time you saw a big-box store with windows?

The Jewel at Broadway and Berwyn has two huge ones that front Broadway. One even provides a view of the Deli which is one of the most interesting places in a Supermarket and also one of the most visually active. You actually want to pass by it at night so you can see what's going on inside. Also, the new Dominicks at Foster and Sheridan is supposed to have several as well.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by pip

you really believe that all of a sudden american cities that challenged the census population estimates, especially the ones with little immigration, all started growing again?

^ Yes. They challenged the census and won. Why would I believe otherwise?

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ Its extremely necessary in my opinion. It fronts two busy streets, Lincoln and Fullerton. At least Lincoln MUST have retail or it will continue as just another missing tooth in the streetwall.

Huh? LPH is at Webster, not Fullerton. Lincoln is 95% residential between Armitage and Webster, and mostly residential south of that to North, and there's no significant retail around there on Webster, either. LPH's site can't be more than a southern bookend for retail thanks to all those stupid townhomes. (I think the NIMBYs are way off-base, for the record)