CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 77

LaSalle.St.Station · #**1521** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 1:00 PM**

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6251250.story

^ looks like they are delaying for another month announcment of their plans for the potential hotel expansion parcel.

I wonder if this could be tied to the State budget deal that has Chicago gettting a casino as part of an overall gambling expansion in the State.

It would make sense that it would be linked up with the convention complex.

spyguy · #**1522** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 4:36 PM**

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/booster2...807-s1.article

For this corner, bigger is better

August 8, 2007
By MARK LAWTON

The East Village Association, however, suggests that sometimes bigger is better, at least when it comes to the Southwest corner of Division and Ashland. A Pizza Hut located there for about 20 years closed several months ago. Word has it that Walgreen's aims to buy the property and build single-story drug store.

VivaLFuego · #**1523** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 4:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyguy

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/booster2...807-s1.article

For this corner, bigger is better

August 8, 2007
By MARK LAWTON

The East Village Association, however, suggests that sometimes bigger is better, at least when it comes to the Southwest corner of Division and Ashland. A Pizza Hut located there for about 20 years closed several months ago. Word has it that Walgreen's aims to buy the property and build single-story drug store.

A 1-story Walgreens at the Division/Ashland/Milwaukee intersection would be a disgrace to humanity (like the closed Pizza Hut thats currently there). Best case this should be a high-rise, but I'd settle for a mid-rise mixed use development. And further, since its within 600 ft of a rapid transit station, the parking requirement is much reduced....

Busy Bee · #**1524** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 6:38 PM**

Yeah, the idea that Walgreens would consider squandering such a high-potential site is infuriating, but comes as no big surprise. I've always wondered why it is that super-chain stores, especially typically stand-alone chain stores, don't have internal real estate divisions that look for opportunities like this to develop mixed-use projects(maybe joint developments with other interests) instead of throwing up single story under-scaled throwaway architecture on highly valuable urban land. You would think corporate execs would see that there's a lot of money to be made, and since that is their main motivation for everything, would jump at the chance of maximizing their profits in a high density urban location.

I'd like to see something in the 15-25 story range here.

forumly_chgoman · #**1525** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 7:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

A 1-story Walgreens at the Division/Ashland/Milwaukee intersection would be a disgrace to humanity (like the closed Pizza Hut thats currently there). Best case this should be a high-rise, but I'd settle for a mid-rise mixed use development. And further, since its within 600 ft of a rapid transit station, the parking requirement is much reduced....

I agree wholeheartdly here with you. This site would scream for at least a mid-rise of 6-10 stories....preferably a bit higher maybe 15-20.

Walgreens is the bane of urban development...I can't beleive thy can get away with putting up such schloky 1 story development....particuliarly say east of California or kedzie which amount to the 2nd densest urban environment in the US.

It is too bad they cannot be charged an underutilization tax......ie say a sight could reasonble hold 6-10 stories....& they build a 1 story shit box....well they pay property tax as if there was that 6-10 storey building

never would fly & probably would lead to a lot of inequity, but at least it might stop these urban raiders from literally tearing apart urban fabric

honte · #**1526** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 10:03 PM**

^ You know what's even more of a disgrace? Maybe you heard this story...

Prior to trying to get the Pizza Hut site, Walgreens was trying to get the classical limestone MB Bank they mention in the article (it's across the street from Pizza Hut). That building was nearly a goner for a damn Walgreens. Thankfully, preservation groups stepped in, and the city had the sense to Landmark it not long ago.

Preservation and civic groups have had discussions with Walgreens and other chain stores (CVS comes to mind) about anchoring bigger projects, or just renovating old space for their uses. They want Absolutely nothing to do with this, alas. It just doesn't fit their "we open a new store every 18 hours" idea of corporate growth and image.

The most obnoxious part of the whole thing is that Walgreens routinely DOES renovate older buildings (Belmont and Sheffield, in the Loop, etc.) or anchor new developments, but they only do this when they have no other choice. Grrr.

Untitled · #**1527** Posted **Aug 8, 2007, 10:49 PM**

Walgreens has to do what Walgreens thinks will bring in the most money. All other considerations are superfluous.

The question, then, is how does the city make it financially preferable for Walgreens to build more to our liking?

But getting angry at Walgreens or CVS is pointless.

honte · #**1528** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 12:29 AM**

^ They have a moral obligation to be good corporate citizens. I understand their thinking, but in my opinion, coming into historic neighborhoods and tearing them apart all in the name of their corporate profit is a perfectly good reason to be upset at them. Doing good urban design / development is a bit more of a reach, but I still think it's a legitimate gripe. I certainly would add the city into the "gripe list" on that last part, as you say.

"Getting mad" at them actually works some times, however. The list of important corner buildings in Chicago that averted "drugstore demolition" or "branch bank demolition" due to community activism is pretty long indeed.

Look at Starbucks for a company that's made it big time and still manages to be respectful to its communities. I realize that drugstores and coffee houses are different, but I personally would go out of my way to frequent a drug retailer with some concern for the built and natural environment.

forumly_chgoman · #**1529** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 1:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untitled

Walgreens has to do what Walgreens thinks will bring in the most money. All other considerations are superfluous.

The question, then, is how does the city make it financially preferable for Walgreens to build more to our liking?

But getting angry at Walgreens or CVS is pointless.

You sir are absolutely wrong....beyond honte's metioned moral obliagtion as a memeber of a community there is more to decision making than just what makes the most sense in terms of a balance sheet / inc statement...there are plenty of costs that neither of these instruments bring to light...to ignore these is not only morally bankrupt but in the long run can yield a great loss of good will....only at this point unfortunatley do the bean counting decision makers realize the ramifications of their myopia

VivaLFuego · #**1530** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 3:05 AM**

^ honte,
Yeah, wasn't getting the rehab by CVS of the building at NE corner of State/Division like pulling teeth? I don't remember the details on that but I know it was protracted, and the building saved only because alot of clout and pressure went into preserving it. They (CVS) really didn't give a hoot about what they were trying to do to the neighborhood. I hope Flores brings Walgreens reps in for a talk.

honte · #**1531** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 3:19 AM**

^ Yep, it was a disaster. It involved a ton of petitions, meetings, etc. Major pain in the butt - and the best anyone could do was to save one out of two buildings. The one that got "saved" has vacant second and third floors with fake window treatments because CVS (and, to be fair, their local developer for that location) apparently doesn't care to gain the potential rental income. When they "restored" the corner building, they ripped off the ornament on the turret and the city had to step in with threatening letters to get them to abide by the agreement and replace it.

The real kicker: I've heard that the CVS is probably closing soon. (Or has it already? Haven't been by there in a while. Maybe if I could get my work done in a timely fashion, I could get out more - damn forum

).

Untitled · #**1532** Posted **Aug 9, 2007, 3:41 AM**

Corporations have no morals. It's like getting mad an earthquake or a tornado.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't find what Walgreens is doing to be OK. And anger is useful when it forces the corporation to fear for its profits. But it's still about money. There will always be corporations that don't give a damn about community or architecture or any of the other things we find to be important.

As far as the long run ... why yes, of course it'd help the company in the long run to be more cooperative. But the long run doesn't help the company' stock right now, and the people running the company won't be there for the long run. They need to stock to spike right this minute.

With rare exceptions (like Starbucks) publicly traded companies are reflexively short-sighted.

And I'm not really saying any of this is the way it should be. I truly wish there was such a thing as a "good corporate citizen." But I work for a company that was, until recently, considered the best citizen in its industry, and as soon as the stock price dipped everything changed. So it is in most arenas.

forumly_chgoman · #**1533** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 4:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untitled

Corporations have no morals. It's like getting mad an earthquake or a tornado.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't find what Walgreens is doing to be OK. And anger is useful when it forces the corporation to fear for its profits. But it's still about money. There will always be corporations that don't give a damn about community or architecture or any of the other things we find to be important.

As far as the long run ... why yes, of course it'd help the company in the long run to be more cooperative. But the long run doesn't help the company' stock right now, and the people running the company won't be there for the long run. They need to stock to spike right this minute.

With rare exceptions (like Starbucks) publicly traded companies are reflexively short-sighted.

And I'm not really saying any of this is the way it should be. I truly wish there was such a thing as a "good corporate citizen." But I work for a company that was, until recently, considered the best citizen in its industry, and as soon as the stock price dipped everything changed. So it is in most arenas.

This is my last post on this topic, but morality concerns itslef w/ the decisions / choices made by human beings. Now, unless all the earthquakes or tornadoes in the world are run by earthquake & or tornado board of directors, made up of human beings, then & only then is this comparison valid. But to this point I have never heard of such a thing...perhaps they exist...in Georgia?

Corporations do not make decisions, the people on their board of directors do. These are then executed in the name of the corporation. This is where any talk of morality enters.

Untitled · #**1534** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 5:42 AM**

^^ How sweetly naive of you.

Group dynamics dictate that individual morals are subsumed by the interests of the corporate beasts. It's all a function of a multinational business structure that requires amoral behavior to survive. You have to be pretty damn near brilliant (e.g.: Starbucks) to do business with morals and still make money.

But this is all rather off-topic, so I will also refrain from further comment. Let me just reiterate that I do agree that these developments suck and need to die an awful, terrible death.

VivaLFuego · #**1535** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 5:12 PM**

Did anyone get some decent photo-documentation of the Emmanuel Church in Pilsen before it was demolished?

A number of historic structures have come down lately (also thinking about those ones on Division in Wicker Park, and the stuff on the 10 E Delaware site), and it seems like I always hear about it right afterwards, without time to get over there for at least some pictoral preservation.

honte · #**1536** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 5:38 PM**

^ The loss of the Dart church is an absolute outrage! I am disgusted by the greedy developers and lackadaisical aldermen. It was the only truly excellent modernist building in that part of the city.

The people of Pilsen had better get organized, and fast, before their neighborhood is a mere vestige of its old self. There are plenty of ways to develop in that community for the benefit of all; what I see so far is definitely not how it should be done.

Loopy · #**1537** Posted **Aug 10, 2007, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Did anyone get some decent photo-documentation of the Emmanuel Church in Pilsen before it was demolished?

A number of historic structures have come down lately (also thinking about those ones on Division in Wicker Park, and the stuff on the 10 E Delaware site), and it seems like I always hear about it right afterwards, without time to get over there for at least some pictoral preservation.

http://flickr.com/photos/metroblossom/444429813/