HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3001  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2008, 3:43 PM
wrab's Avatar
wrab wrab is offline
Deerhoof Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by honte View Post
..... I am more referring to the part of Clybourn north of North Avenue, which has a smattering of old buildings - some Victorian, some rehabbed lofts - mixed in with a variety of styles of urban retail.....
I walk my dog in this area all the time. The two-block stretch of Clybourn between Willow & the Armitage/Racine peel-off is pretty darn good, with an intact streetscape & parking relegated to the rear. But the stretch between North & Willow (CVS, etc.) suffers from proximity to the blacktop hell of Best Buy/Whole Foods, IMHO. But, given the stratospheric sales figures in the area, I don't expect the blacktop to be around much longer - some chains have better sales here than they do at their Michigan Ave flagships.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3002  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2008, 3:51 PM
honte honte is offline
Registered
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago - every nook and cranny
Posts: 4,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I can think of vintage Lake Shore Drive residential buildings like this, but no commercial examples spring to mind. What examples were you thinking of, and how did the drivers get into the shops? How did the peds access the shops?

The inevitable result of parking-in-rear solutions is a hand-lettered sign on the sidewalk entrance saying USE "REAR" DOOR.
There is a large one on Milwaukee, just south of Diversey. The old Issen building (I'm probably butchering the name) at Broadway / Wilson has a portal too, which now leads to Truman College's parking lot. You might think at first that this was an alteration for Truman purposes, but if you look at it closely, you will see that it's integral to the original structure (or a very early modification). There are several others around, such as VivaL's suggestion.

I would have to return to these structures to see exactly how the access to the interiors was arranged (and also to see if they have been altered to address some of your other points). However, to my recollection, you simply walk on a sidewalk back through the portal and use the entrances on the street.
__________________
"Every building is a landmark until proven otherwise." - Harry Mohr Weese

"I often say, 'Look, see, enjoy, and love.' It's a long way from looking to loving, but it's worth the effort." - Walter Andrew Netsch Jr.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3003  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2008, 7:17 PM
Abner Abner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
The inevitable result of parking-in-rear solutions is a hand-lettered sign on the sidewalk entrance saying USE "REAR" DOOR.
This is true, and extra point for pointing out that these signs always seem to feature incorrect quotation marks. One half-way counterexample is the north side of Cermak through Cicero and Berwyn. Some sections have diagonal parking off the street, but the whole stretch has parking in the former right of way of the Douglas branch in the alley. People park in back but still go around to the front entrance. Probably this is because the buildings predate this arrangement, so the rear doors are only set up as service doors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3004  
Old Posted Mar 22, 2008, 9:51 PM
Chicago3rd Chicago3rd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Cranston, Rhode Island
Posts: 8,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Problem is that retailers want customer parking that actually attracts customers, and they only want to staff one door. If you're leasing space for your laundromat, UPS Store, or dry cleaners, you won't voluntarily choose a place with parking in the back. The person driving down Milwaukee won't think of it as convenient if he can't see a parking space, and the person walking down Milwaukee won't mind walking across 30 feet of parking lot.

Clybourn taught some sobering lessons in the early 90s to those of us who thought it would work to "just put the parking in the back." Those shopping centers didn't lease nearly as well, and one failed completely.
What???? Clybourn has always been busy as hell with very very poor pedestrian environment.....we weren't even given the privilage of having one side walk connect all the stores through all those parking lots inbetween. What store failed...because of the parking situation?

Michigan Avenue, Armitage, Broadway, Clark, Belmont, Lincoln all fantastic areas that do wonderfully without parking strips.
__________________
All the photos "I" post are photos taken by me and can be found on my photo pages @ http://wilbsnodgrassiii.smugmug.com// UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED and CREDITED.

Last edited by Chicago3rd; Mar 23, 2008 at 12:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3005  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2008, 12:08 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ Thank you.

Chicago's most successful neighborhoods have the least parking. The notion put forth that lack of parking will doom a retailer has no merit
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3006  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2008, 1:48 AM
Abner Abner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 577
I've always been kind of curious about the evidence that minor parking inconveniences actually deter people from shopping in certain areas. Obviously it depends on the type of shopping; I can imagine dry cleaners suffering for lack of parking, but most of the stores at North and Clybourn are destination-type places. And I mean, what do you think is actually more of a hassle--parking behind a store and walking around to the front, or driving a car in the treacherous traffic hell that is North and Clybourn? I think businesses use parking as an excuse when they don't do well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3007  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2008, 3:06 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
There are lots of different kinds of neighborhoods and lots of different kinds of retail. Restaurants in dense areas do fine without parking; pet stores not so much. It's also dangerous to generalize from East Lakeview or Streeterville, areas with densities three times that of other Chicago neighborhoods. A dry cleaner in a highrise needs no parking. But in Bucktown or St. Ben's, some nontrivial number of the potential customers might commute by car to suburban jobs or drive the kids to Montessori school. The dry cleaner with a couple of parking spots will do better than the one without.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3008  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2008, 3:56 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
There are lots of different kinds of neighborhoods and lots of different kinds of retail. Restaurants in dense areas do fine without parking; pet stores not so much. It's also dangerous to generalize from East Lakeview or Streeterville, areas with densities three times that of other Chicago neighborhoods. A dry cleaner in a highrise needs no parking. But in Bucktown or St. Ben's, some nontrivial number of the potential customers might commute by car to suburban jobs or drive the kids to Montessori school. The dry cleaner with a couple of parking spots will do better than the one without.
Agreed; I do agree that many retailers in many neighborhoods will in fact need some off-street parking to survive. My only beef is in providing that parking in a format that's hostile to pedestrians and transit users. Parking in the rear (with requirements for front and rear doors) generally solves this problem with negligible added cost to the overall development.

I think the new zoning code should have defined different Business/Commercial classifications appropriate for neighborhoods of different density, with the primary distinction being in provision of off-street parking. The off-street parking requirement for commercial developments in LP, Lakeview, Edgewater etc is ludicrous.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3009  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2008, 4:07 PM
Taft Taft is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
The off-street parking requirement for commercial developments in LP, Lakeview, Edgewater etc is ludicrous.
To anyone who might know:

How are these requirements drawn up? Are parking requirements and design requirements (no strip malls, etc.) city-wide? Or are they done per ward?

Taft
__________________
We are building a religion, we are making it bigger.
We are widening the corridor and adding more lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3010  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2008, 4:24 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Agreed; I do agree that many retailers in many neighborhoods will in fact need some off-street parking to survive. My only beef is in providing that parking in a format that's hostile to pedestrians and transit users. Parking in the rear (with requirements for front and rear doors) generally solves this problem with negligible added cost to the overall development.
^ I totally agree. I don't know why the argument against strip malls in their worst format (parking up front) is somehow viewed as a threat to retailing in urban neighborhoods. Nobody is getting rid of space for cars, we just want to see parking put in a place that 1) respects the neighborhood and 2) respects people who are on their two feet.

If it's being done with residential (garages facing a rear alley/private drive) I'm sure it can easily be adapted to commercial.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3011  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2008, 4:46 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Zoning requirements must legally be the same citywide. The differentiation is done by having different districts based on intensity. So, for instance, inland areas might have all the commercial areas classified C-4, in which offstreet parking is required and allowed to be visible. In dense lakefront neighborhoods, there might be no C-4 districts, but all the streetcar strips might be zoned C-2, which would not require offstreet parking and would forbid it along the sidewalk frontage. (Hypothetical examples).

The idea, of course, is that the districting is done to comply with, and in furtherance of, a comprehensive plan. Since Chicago doesn't have a comprehensive plan, the districting is done at aldermanic whim.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3012  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2008, 4:33 AM
Nowhereman1280 Nowhereman1280 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pungent Onion, Illinois
Posts: 8,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
There are lots of different kinds of neighborhoods and lots of different kinds of retail. Restaurants in dense areas do fine without parking; pet stores not so much. It's also dangerous to generalize from East Lakeview or Streeterville, areas with densities three times that of other Chicago neighborhoods. A dry cleaner in a highrise needs no parking. But in Bucktown or St. Ben's, some nontrivial number of the potential customers might commute by car to suburban jobs or drive the kids to Montessori school. The dry cleaner with a couple of parking spots will do better than the one without.
You see I would disagree with that, most of Chicago's neighborhoods have at least one healthy retail district and most of those districts consist of old buildings with next to no parking. For example, I work on Clark Street in Andersonville, not the densist area, and nearly all of the quality retail tenants there have no parking at all. For example, Athletico and Anderson Pet Hospital share 4 spaces out back with our loading dock.

Its only when you get the big chains that you see parking dragged in. For example, Jewel has a massive parking lot, 7-11 has a parking lot, McDonalds has a parking lot. The music store, the pet hospital, the Jewish Deli, and the gay Dentist have no parking except for what is found on the street. I see a corellation here between culture diluting chains and parking, where there is one there is the other. Neighborhood retail does not need parking to survive, but big chain stores do.

The same goes for Rogers Park, where there is parking there is a Dunkin' Donuts, McDonalds, and a Popeyes. Where there is no parking there is a mile long stretch of ethnic restaurants and markets and stores. Another example, who is the anchor tennant of the Granville? Staples (or was it Office Max). Does the Granville have a lot of parking? Yes...

Other examples can be found in Wicker Park, Hyde Park, Logan Square, and even, to some extent, Greektown and the West Loop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3013  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2008, 1:14 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,127
Preparing for 2.8 million more people by 2040
Agency looking into Chicago area's future
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=159207

The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning launches its GO TO 2040 campaign today. The agency aims to create a comprehensive plan that guides growth and development in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Kendall, Lake, McHenry and Will counties for the next three decades.
It could be the region's last chance to get a handle on a population boom of more than 2.8 million people expected by 2040, and planners want the public to participate.
"We're asking people to take a moment and think about what they want for their children and themselves over the next 20 to 30 years," CMAP Executive Director Randy Blankenhorn said.
"We're starting with a blank sheet of paper."

For information about the GO TO 2040 regional plan and to participate in surveys, visit the CMAP site at www.goto2040.org.



The article is comparing this to Burnham's plan. I wouldn't hold my breath, but they are doing surveys, so I think everyone should put their 2 cents in.

But it sounds like the first thing this agency needs to do is get a handle on the NIMBY population. If the metro population is going to increase by 30%, we're going to need the high density TOD that keeps getting shot down. And we're going to need lots of buildings that are "out of scale with the neighborhood".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3014  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2008, 2:50 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
If the metro population is going to increase by 30%, we're going to need the high density TOD that keeps getting shot down. And we're going to need lots of buildings that are "out of scale with the neighborhood".
Serious TOD in the burbs may actually lead to a short-term decline for Chicago (untl it's able to adjust). If Chicago ever loses its urban setting monopoly in the region, it will no longer be able to maintain its relatively high tax structure, schools that are viewed as "bad", and government with serious special-interest capture issues. Most people work in the burbs already, and I'm sure we all know quite a few people that live in Chicago and reverse commute just to be able to live in an urban setting. They, as most Chicagoans, constantly comment on the high taxes, bad schools, etc (whether justified or not). Once we start to see some serious TOD in the burbs beyond a stretch of condos behind a strip mall as we're seeing now, many people from urbanized north side neighborhoods will make the move. We've already seen how successful urbanized suburbs like Evanston have become partially selling themselves as an alternative to Chicago.

Imagine if people have the option of living in some random city in Will County that resembles an urbanized Chicago neighborhood like Lakeview but is also lower taxed, has cheaper housing, better schools, less percieved corruption, and is closer to the office park.

Last edited by Marcu; Mar 24, 2008 at 3:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3015  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2008, 3:25 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
Serious TOD in the burbs may actually lead to a short-term decline for Chicago (untl it's able to adjust). If Chicago ever loses its urban setting monopoly in the region, it will no longer be able to maintain its relatively high tax structure, schools that are viewed as "bad", and government with serious special-interest capture issues. Most people work in the burbs already, and I'm sure we all know quite a few people that live in Chicago and reverse commute just to be able to live in an urban setting. They, as most Chicagoans, constantly comment on the high taxes, bad schools, etc (whether justified or not). Once we start to see some serious TOD in the burbs beyond a stretch of condos behind a strip mall as we're seeing now, many people from urbanized north side neighborhoods will make the move. We've already seen how successful urbanized suburbs like Evanston have become partially selling themselves as an alternative to Chicago.

Imagine if people have the option of living in some random city in Will County that resembles an urbanized Chicago neighborhood like Lakeview but is also lower taxed, has cheaper housing, better schools, less percieved corruption, and is closer to the office park.
^ You're forgetting one key fundamental, though: urbanization leads to higher taxes. As long as suburbs have remained low density communities in which everybody drives everywhere, they have needed relatively few services and have mostly been heavily subsidized.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3016  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2008, 4:13 PM
Marcu Marcu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,649
^ I'm not sure I follow. There is absolutely no reason that high density areas areas need to be taxed higer than lower density areas in the US. Low density requires more city services (roads, sewers, etc.). High density should lead to higher product due to lower transaction costs and therefore, a lower overall tax burden as % of income. This should more than off-set any kind of subsidy you may be speaking of.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3017  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2008, 4:48 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Blue Island
Posts: 6,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcu View Post
Imagine if people have the option of living in some random city in Will County that resembles an urbanized Chicago neighborhood like Lakeview but is also lower taxed, has cheaper housing, better schools, less percieved corruption, and is closer to the office park.
And this is a bad thing? I dream of the day when Chicagoland's 300 municipalities are competing with eachother to be the most urban and dense!

Quote:
^ I'm not sure I follow. There is absolutely no reason that high density areas areas need to be taxed higer than lower density areas in the US. Low density requires more city services (roads, sewers, etc.). High density should lead to higher product due to lower transaction costs and therefore, a lower overall tax burden as % of income. This should more than off-set any kind of subsidy you may be speaking of.
In regards to basic city infrastructure services, you're right. There are other issues at play of course. In the suburbs, usually 75-90% of property tax goes to education, in contrast to about 50% of our property tax bills in Chicago. Additionally, we pay higher overall higher county tax, largely on account of Cook County having the second largest public health system in the country (hospitals/health are well over a third of the county budget I believe).

Where I disagree with you is that I believe suburban taxes are artificially low because they are free riders on the services that we Cook/Chicago residents pay for. These include, for example:
1. Our property taxes to support the parks/museums that help maintain Chicago as a tourist destination
2. Our public health system that generally improves regional public health by treating infectious disease etc.
3. Transit system subsidy, reducing congestion and air pollution

These are all public goods that suburbanites benefit from via property values, quality of life, etc. but don't pay taxes for. If people did flee Chicago to get their urban fix in the suburbs, they would gradually increase their tax burden to support those amenities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3018  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2008, 12:40 AM
cbotnyse cbotnyse is offline
Chicago Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: River North, Chicago
Posts: 1,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrabbit View Post
Luxury hotel planned for portion of former IBM Building
By Robert Manor | Tribune reporter
March 19, 2008
-----
Designed as an office tower by acclaimed architect Mies van der Rohe, the former IBM Building is about to get a major update, complete with bellhops and bathtubs.....


http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel...,6877950.story
looks like they are starting to clear some floor space for the proposed hotel.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3019  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2008, 3:35 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,471
March 24, 2008



Barneys


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3020  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2008, 5:14 AM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,949
Nice photos. Anyone know what's going into the old Gino's building and what they need an addition for? If it's all retail that would be amazing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:52 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.