CHICAGO | General Developments

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by 88th floor

I'm all for getting rid of the parking lots and the 7-11, as well as adding a hotel and almost 150 apartments.

What I dislike is the design aesthetic of the structure that will face Clark St.

What I dislike is the 400 space parking lot---next to an El stop.

What I dislike is suburban strip mall design in the city.

What I dislike is the use of the term, "increased density," as a pretext to accept such things.

To a large extent it's the community's own fault for being so freakishly opposed to any height whatsoever. A Planned Development process on this large, contiguous site easily could have accomodated transfering the buildable density of the zoning along Clark to provide for a taller building at Addison/Sheffield, preserving the unique Clark retail streetscape while still getting rid of the blight-y parking lots and crumbling sidewalk along Addison.

But, this is the end result; a major improvement along Addison for a probably downgrade along Clark. It won't be the end of the world; you call this a "suburban strip mall design" but we should be so lucky that suburban strip malls had 12-foot sidewalks, a continuous streetwall, minimal curbcuts, all parking underground, etc.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Look, if you truly dont see the merits of a streetscape design as such, i cant help you


http://www.bartourguide.com/Wrigleyville.jpg

Cities clamor over themselves to to try and re-create something like that. And we have it. But apparently this developer knows better. Because hey, they've ruined any of our neighborhoods before, have they? Nah, thats never happened in this city...

^ Uhh.....what part about this streetscape is so precious that it absolutely needs preservation? Heck, you don't even need to hire an architect to build a bunch of brick facades. In fact, brick facades are exactly what this project will have along Clark anyhow

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 88th floor

What I dislike is suburban strip mall design in the city.

^ Lets get one thing straight: this is not a "strip mall design". Having a hotel, apt tower, with retail facing the sidewalk all in one development has little in common with your typical suburban strip mall.

Have you actually seen some of the real suburban strip malls built in the city? Been up and down Elston, or near North and Clybourn before? What do those and this development possibly have in common, besides the actual retailers themselves?

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Look, if you truly dont see the merits of a streetscape design as such, i cant help you


http://www.bartourguide.com/Wrigleyville.jpg

Cities clamor over themselves to to try and re-create something like that. And we have it. But apparently this developer knows better. Because hey, they've ruined any of our neighborhoods before, have they? Nah, thats never happened in this city...

You're right....I obviously forgot to mention the hideous billboards.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by k1052

You're right....I obviously forgot to mention the hideous billboards.

Way to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Way to throw the baby out with the bath water.

there's no baby in that bathwater, none whatsoever.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by schwerve

there's no baby in that bathwater, none whatsoever.

Its obvious you prefer the aesthetics of a Schaumburg strip mall than to that of a diverse city neighborhood. Why not just move there?

Seriously, Im just having a very difficult time understanding the vehement issue people have with this block.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Its obvious you prefer the aesthetics of a Schaumburg strip mall than to that of a diverse city neighborhood. Why not just move there?

Seriously, Im just having a very difficult time understanding the vehement issue people have with this block.

^ And I'm having a difficult time understanding your argument.

This forum is full of some of the most pro-urban, density-obsessed city-loving, architectural-crazed fanatics on the planet. Do you think anyone here likes Schaumburg strip malls?

Have you seen a Schaumburg strip mall? Seriously, have you gone out there and looked at a strip mall? What in flying hell are you talking about?

I see nothing in common between this and a strip mall. Zero. Zilch.

Most of us here love that there will be a huge increase in density--not only from the apartment and hotel, but even from the retail.

Yes, the retail. Instead of just having a lot of traffic on Friday and Saturday nights, which most of these bars cater to, there is the prospect of generating traffic throughout the day and week. A Best Buy and Apple Store will be bringing people to the area on Monday and Tuesday afternoon, while the bars will continue to draw the night crowd. It's a far better balance and ultimately a better use for land adjacent to a mass transit stop.

Last I checked, this strip of Clark is pretty much dead on weekdays up until dinner time. This kind of development can change that.

And you're opposed to it because of a bunch of nondescript, unornamented brick buildings of zero historical significance whatsoever other than the fact that they just happen to be old?

Not feeling you here...

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Uhh.....what part about this streetscape is so precious that it absolutely needs preservation?

What makes any streetscape special? Most blocks dont contain landmark buildings; does that by default mean that taken as a whole they dont present an interesting and lively urban fabric, or serve useful purposes?

While we're at it, and since this style of devleopment is obviously so superior, lets just demolish all of our old stock and implement it in every neighborhood on every block. Then everything will be perfect.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

While we're at it, and since this style of devleopment is obviously so superior, lets just demolish all of our old stock and implement it in every neighborhood on every block. Then everything will be perfect.

^ If that meant a significant upgrade in density along Chicago's commercial streets to 8-10 story buildings, I would be totally fine with that as long as Landmarked and Orange rated buildings were mostly preserved.

How much awesomer would Chicago be if its neighborhood commercial corridors were that dense? How much would that boost mass transit ridership? Ahh, but I can still dream....

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ If that meant a significant upgrade in density along Chicago's neighborhoods to 8-10 story buildings, I would be totally fine with that as long as Landmarked and Orange rated buildings were preserved.

How much awesomer would Chicago be if its neighborhood commercial corridors were that dense? How much would that boost mass transit ridership? Ahh, but I can still dream....

Why stop at 10 stories. Clear cut all the bungalows. Just line every residential block with skyscrapers.

Honestly, the more time I spend on this board the more I realize that I have far less in common with this community than I thought I did. And it makes me sort of glad that we do have NIMBYs to balance out the other extreme, which is equally as detrimental to the city fabric as a whole.

And awesomer isnt a word.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Its obvious you prefer the aesthetics of a Schaumburg strip mall than to that of a diverse city neighborhood. Why not just move there?

Seriously, Im just having a very difficult time understanding the vehement issue people have with this block.

because its is an absolutely soulless part of the city, that particular stretch of clark is a generic wasteland geared around extracting dollars from drunk cubs spillover.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by schwerve

because its is an absolutely soulless part of the city, that particular stretch of clark is a generic wasteland geared around extracting dollars from drunk cubs spillover.

IO is generic? Goose Island is generic? A resonably priced diner is generic? And a Best Buy, Dominicks, or CVS is somehow going to inject "soul"?

I would argue that block is one of the few in that immediate area with soul actually left.

[schwerve]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

IO is generic? Goose Island is generic? A resonably priced diner is generic? And a Best Buy, Dominicks, or CVS is somehow going to inject "soul"?

I'll give you IO, and I haven't defended the replacement plans, my argument is this, there is absolutely nothing special about this spot in the city, certainly nothing worth spending time and money over. when you have to artificially expand someone's argument to defending strip malls and destroying bungalows, you're not doing very well.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by schwerve

I'll give you IO, and I haven't defended the replacement plans, my argument is this, there is absolutely nothing special about this spot in the city, certainly nothing worth spending time and money over. when you have to artificially expand someone's argument to defending strip malls and destroying bungalows, you're not doing very well.

First of all, my obviously sarcastic comment was simply following TUP's logic to its absurd conclusion. Streetscapes are overwhelmingly made up of facades and designs that in their own right are perhaps nothing special, but taken together produce a fabric which is enjoyable to spend time in. Its a quilt with lots of different patterns and squares, and they all tell different stories. A development like this tears those small squares out and replaces them with one big one. At the end of the day, it makes the story much less interesting to read.

This is actually one of my least favorite corners of the city, so you guys who actually live there can petition for whatever you like. Its the principle of this type of development (and the means to its end) that Im arguing against.

[BWChicago]

Red Ivy, Goose Island, and Starbucks are all worthy buildings. And maaaybe Salt & Pepper. Red Ivy particularly livens the street with its open front. I think the real thing to be angry at in this development is the Sports World souvenir shop. If they weren't holding out on the most visible and important parcel, it would open up quite a bit of square footage and perhaps spare Red Ivy.

VC is totally right about the importance of the streetscape, generally. Perhaps not this specific set of buildings - the Triangle Building and whatever goes in where McDonald's is will help it fit in more like real infill - but Wrigleyville can't stand to lose much more of its streetscape than this. Imagine something like this going into Boystown. It would totally change the character.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

Imagine something like this going into Boystown. It would totally change the character.

If there was a parcel of land large enough I'd be more than happy to have it. Since Halsted/Broadway (south of Addison and north of Diversey) is so hemmed in by residential and lots of it went condo it would be vastly more difficult to secure the required land.

As far as IO goes if they never wanted to leave their space they should have purchased the property. Conversely I believe most (if not all) of the bars in Boystown are owned by their operators.

[OrdoSeclorum]

I think the Addison Park development is fairly bland, inoffensive architecture. That being said, the 7-Eleven, its surface parking and the surface lot west of it is one of the most offensive locations in the city. I clicked my heels together when I saw plans for development there.

The iO building, Mullens and bar Louie are worse than what is going to be built. Chicago benefits from having some mass to buildings on our corners, especially along the diagonal streets. This is the only way we can add some relief when we look down our low, flat geography. Not a problem they have in cities that aren't on a grid or that have some geography in them, like Cincinnati or Pittsburgh. We're upgrading Addison between Clark and Sheffield and we're upgrading on some of Clark.

I like the Goose Island and Red Ivy facades. They are attractive and, like you say Via, they represent old building stock that adds some variety to the streetscape. In this case, I'm not too broken up about losing them. The rubric I use when I consider a demolition isn't just age, but whether or not the building has a unique character. There are tons of buildings that once they are torn down could never be practically recreated. We don't have the masons or Terra Cotta factories to build them any more and cost would be prohibitive at modern labor prices. The Red Ivy and Goose Island buildings are nice, but ordinary brick structures that aren't that different from new construction. I don't feel like we're losing anything too valuable or unique but we are getting something good (from an urbanist, not aesthetic perspective) and we don't have to look at the 7-11 any more! On balance, I'm happy.

[aaron38]

Are there other renders of the Wrigleyville development besides the one in the SunTimes article? I couldn't find any.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Here's some: http://www.addisonparkonclark.com/proposed.asp