HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #10061  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 4:59 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88th floor View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10062  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 5:56 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
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
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10063  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 5:59 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by 88th floor View Post
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?
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10064  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:00 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10065  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:04 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
You're right....I obviously forgot to mention the hideous billboards.
Way to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10066  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:05 PM
schwerve schwerve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Way to throw the baby out with the bath water.
there's no baby in that bathwater, none whatsoever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10067  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:15 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerve View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10068  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:29 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
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...
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10069  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:30 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10070  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:36 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
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....
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10071  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:45 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ 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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10072  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:48 PM
schwerve schwerve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10073  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 6:57 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerve View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10074  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 7:05 PM
schwerve schwerve is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10075  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 7:19 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerve View Post
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.

Last edited by Via Chicago; May 17, 2010 at 7:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10076  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 9:07 PM
BWChicago's Avatar
BWChicago BWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 486
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10077  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 9:21 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWChicago View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10078  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 9:25 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 299
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10079  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 10:20 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,795
Are there other renders of the Wrigleyville development besides the one in the SunTimes article? I couldn't find any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10080  
Old Posted May 17, 2010, 11:35 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 299
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 12:39 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.