daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 27th, 2007, 05:22 PM   #61
mohammed wong
Registered User
 
mohammed wong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chevanston, IL
Posts: 1,853
Likes (Received): 10

where were all these nimbies before? artful dodger and cool loft bldg and h20 tower?

Condo project faces tough crowd
Residents speak out against seven-story development

By TIMOTHY INKLEBARGER
Staff Writer


Plans for what would be the largest condominium development in Wicker Park could be dead on arrival, following a heated community meeting last Saturday with 1st Ward Alderman Manny Flores.

At the meeting, Flores presented artist's renderings of a proposal to replace a Walgreens at 1372 N. Milwaukee with a glass-walled, seven-story condo development that could accommodate 81 units. The Walgreens is located on a stretch of Milwaukee Avenue between Damen and Ashland that is being considered for landmark status-part of a proposed extension of the Wicker Park Landmark District.

The proposal by the Chicago-based Preferred Development.

Many of the roughly 80 residents and business owners at the meeting opposed the density, height, and aesthetics of the project, as well as added traffic its 153 parking spaces might bring.

Pablo Montaner, 23, who said he lives part of the year in Wicker Park and the rest in Argentina, said he thought the proposal was nothing special.

"The reason I like to come to Wicker Park is because of the unique shops, the food, the clothing, and it's just so nice to come here and see all the architecture stuff and the cute stores..." he said. "If I wanted to see something like this, I would go to Tokyo and we have 100 of those."

Wicker Park lawyer Joseph Von Meier called the project "boring" adding: "It's just a giant glass box."

Flores also changed course on plans to exclude the Walgreens lot from a proposed extension of the Wicker Park Landmark District. Flores said he now will include the lot in the proposal, which is expected to go before the Landmarks Commission next month.

He urged the group to remain open-minded about the project and consider the long-term development of the community.

"We should be looking for the type of development that will have that sense of landmark status," Flores said. "And that sense of landmark status, frankly, may not necessarily call for or be a building that is meant to replicate some of the existing buildings that we have on the corridor."

Some argued that the development had no historic significance and that it would detract from the look and feel of the neighborhood. Dean Kezios, 53, an architect whose daughter owns a business on Milwaukee Ave., said the development would turn the block into a "mini-Michigan Avenue" with higher rents and chain retail.

Kezios said he believes the development would attract more high-end retailers, raising property values and pushing out mom-and-pop businesses. He also warned that allowing the development would set a precedent for similar projects in the future, despite efforts to create a landmark district.

"If you approve something like this and you set a legal precedent, what would then prevent other developers from buying up a lot of the old buildings, you have a legal precedent that this was already done, they could sue the hell out of the city and actually do more developments like this," he said.

Calling it one of the largest developments that's come through his office, Flores said the building would include 20,285-square-feet of commercial space on the ground floor, 84 parking spaces for residents and 69 spaces that could be used by the community to raise revenue.

He the Wicker Park-Bucktown Special Service area or another non-profit group could charge money for the parking spaces.

Jan Metzger, senior project manager for the Center For Neighborhood Technology, said she would be happy to see the Walgreens go but the proposed project would bring too many new cars to Milwaukee.

"If we want more traffic, if that's what we want, for the streets to be more clogged, that's what this is going to get us," she said. "I don't see that as desirable. More people is great. More cars is not great."

Flores said that under the proposed zoning change, the property would go from a B1-2, which would accommodate a 50-foot-tall building with 32 units, to a B1-5, which would allow as many as 162 units and stand as high as 80 feet. He said that although the new zoning would allow for 162 units, the developer plan to build to only half the capacity.

He noted that Preferred Development could still put in 81 units under a B1-3 zoning classification.

"The reason that's important is because people have asked, 'Why don't you, alderman, support a B1-3?'" Flores said. "[Because] you still end up with 81 units."

Wicker Park Committee member Teddy Varndell, however, said it would likely not be in the developer's interest to build smaller units.

"Under B1-3 it would be 81 600-square-foot units because it's half the amount they would get under B1-5," Varndell said. "They wouldn't build them. They couldn't sell them."

Flores said he plans to review comments submitted by neighbors at the meeting and then turn them over to the Wicker Park Committee for public review.
mohammed wong no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 27th, 2007, 05:28 PM   #62
mohammed wong
Registered User
 
mohammed wong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chevanston, IL
Posts: 1,853
Likes (Received): 10

its so stupid to be kevetching about what is replacing a walgreens,
these nimbies are so inconsistent.
pick your battles nimbies, if you just fight everything you then lack
credibility and then are seen as just sticks in the mud,

much better buildings have been razed, what happened to you guys?
mohammed wong no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 27th, 2007, 06:54 PM   #63
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Quote:
"The reason I like to come to Wicker Park is because of the unique shops, the food, the clothing, and it's just so nice to come here and see all the architecture stuff and the cute stores..." he said. "If I wanted to see something like this, I would go to Tokyo and we have 100 of those."
Yes, and Walgreens is so "unique."

Quote:
Wicker Park lawyer Joseph Von Meier called the project "boring" adding: "It's just a giant glass box."
I haven't seen the design, but I'm hard-pressed to imagine how a seven story glass box could be less interesting than a Walgreens fronted by a surface parking lot.

Quote:
"If we want more traffic, if that's what we want, for the streets to be more clogged, that's what this is going to get us," she said. "I don't see that as desirable. More people is great. More cars is not great."
If she owns a car, she's a hypocrite. (And she probably does because the people who complain about traffic tend to be the motorists who have to deal with it on a regular basis.) First, I don't see how you can complain about a problem to which you're an active contributer. And second, the traffic argument, at least when based on a neighborhood-wide level, resolves itself to the fact that existing residents believe they aren't a part of the problem. It's the people who come later that muck up their god-given, inalienable right to drive around their neighborhood hassle-free. I guess you have more of a right to drive in a neighborhood if you moved there first.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2007, 03:42 PM   #64
globill
Registered User
 
globill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: I'm going to Washington to serve the people of this country.
Posts: 1,739
Likes (Received): 8

I really don't understand why the CNT would also be opposed to a project of this scale at this location. My guess is the vast majority of those choosing to buy a condo on Milwaukee Ave between Damen and Ashland would choose to do so in order to AVOID using their cars as much as possible.

And a 23 year-old part-time Argentinian resident of Chicago is opposed to it? Gimme a break.
__________________
"in my little opinion it does matter what fairy tales some small time senator says to get elected, how fast he drops his associates that may harm him, and what is really behind it." nygirl

"I told you what I thought about that when I said I do not trust Obama and I probably never will. He hasnn't proven anything to me or you yet but he has flapped his lips plenty. And that I guess, is enough for some of you smarties in here." nygirl
globill no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2007, 05:45 PM   #65
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

^Here's the rendering from the article
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2007, 02:21 PM   #66
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2762

Looks real damn good to me. A hell of a lot less "boring" then 90% of what is going on in the neighborhoods these days. How do they want to make it less boring? Make it a glass circle? A glass triangle? If so adamant against a glass box then raise the height by about fifty stories and I am sure they could put a nice crown or spire for them.

If you are brick and one or two stories high and have parking you can join the club otherwise just get lost I guess.

Last edited by nomarandlee; April 30th, 2007 at 02:26 PM.
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2007, 06:57 AM   #67
creil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 343
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen View Post
people who complain about traffic tend to be the motorists who have to deal with it on a regular basis.
I would have to disagree with this. Yes, I have a car and yes, I do complain about traffic, but I complain about it more as a pedestrian then I do a driver. My car sits parked most of the time. When I do have to drive in the city, I accept the fact that there may be some congestion problems. What is more aggrevating to me is trying to play "dodge the speeding cars" when I want to walk to the park across the street. You risk your life just by stepping into a cross-walk in this city. I also dislike the fact that on the weekends, I have to catch a bus about a half-hour earlier then normal because traffic is so bad.

Milwaukee Ave is a great area to walk around. The heavy traffic takes away from that enjoyment. The building looks great but I see their point.
creil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2007, 10:45 AM   #68
paytonc
Pragmatist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 433
Likes (Received): 0

@hydrogen: Jan Metzger does not own a car, has lived around here for 30+ years, and has done more to improve transportation in this region than, well, the entire readership of this board. I agree with Jan (not the first time) that there's way too much parking in this project (and with the Tower proposal). We don't need more cars anywhere near the center of the neighborhood; put parking garages at the edges to intercept approaching drivers.

I've taken to playing "crossing guard" a few times to help pedestrians get across at the various marked but non-stoplighted crosswalks. Drivers here will scream at me, despite clearly not having the right of way.
__________________
http://westnorth.com

Last edited by paytonc; May 2nd, 2007 at 10:58 AM.
paytonc no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 2nd, 2007, 06:07 PM   #69
prelude91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago...Soon to be Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by creil View Post
I would have to disagree with this. Yes, I have a car and yes, I do complain about traffic, but I complain about it more as a pedestrian then I do a driver. My car sits parked most of the time. When I do have to drive in the city, I accept the fact that there may be some congestion problems. What is more aggrevating to me is trying to play "dodge the speeding cars" when I want to walk to the park across the street. You risk your life just by stepping into a cross-walk in this city. I also dislike the fact that on the weekends, I have to catch a bus about a half-hour earlier then normal because traffic is so bad.

Milwaukee Ave is a great area to walk around. The heavy traffic takes away from that enjoyment. The building looks great but I see their point.
saying your life is at risk crossing the street is a bit dramatic, dont you think?
you live in the third largest city in the U.S; TRAFFIC IS GOING TO EXIST!
even in Manhatten where more than 75% the residents dont own cars, traffic still sucks. its just the nature of the beast.
Just look both ways before you cross the street.
prelude91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 06:16 AM   #70
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
saying your life is at risk crossing the street is a bit dramatic, dont you think?
you live in the third largest city in the U.S; TRAFFIC IS GOING TO EXIST!
even in Manhatten where more than 75% the residents dont own cars, traffic still sucks. its just the nature of the beast.
Just look both ways before you cross the street.
^ That's outright stupid. Thousands of pedestrians get killed by cars every year. And in American cities, where drivers are the majority, get pandered to, and think they own the road, it's even more hazardous to a pedestrian. Of course traffic is going to exist, but the original argument is that traffic can be troublesome to pedestrians as well as drivers, and it's a totally reasonable point.
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 03:47 PM   #71
prelude91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago...Soon to be Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Urban Politician View Post
^ That's outright stupid. Thousands of pedestrians get killed by cars every year. And in American cities, where drivers are the majority, get pandered to, and think they own the road, it's even more hazardous to a pedestrian. Of course traffic is going to exist, but the original argument is that traffic can be troublesome to pedestrians as well as drivers, and it's a totally reasonable point.
im sure thousands of pedestrians are killed swimming, horseback riding, shoveling the snow, and just eating...i wouldnt say they are putting their lives at risk.
prelude91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 05:15 PM   #72
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
im sure thousands of pedestrians are killed swimming, horseback riding, shoveling the snow, and just eating...i wouldnt say they are putting their lives at risk.
^ None of that addresses anything we've discussed. The original argument being that traffic is a problem to people who drive only, I am simply stating that traffic can be troublesome to pedestrians and to drivers. You can't refute that so don't bother trying
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 05:17 PM   #73
i_am_hydrogen
muted
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 7,080
Likes (Received): 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by paytonc View Post
@hydrogen: Jan Metzger does not own a car, has lived around here for 30+ years, and has done more to improve transportation in this region than, well, the entire readership of this board. I agree with Jan (not the first time) that there's way too much parking in this project (and with the Tower proposal). We don't need more cars anywhere near the center of the neighborhood; put parking garages at the edges to intercept approaching drivers.
Then I stand corrected. I was in a bad mood when I wrote that post and was feeling presumptuous. Either way, I think my argument with respect to traffic still carries some weight even if inapplicable to Jan.
i_am_hydrogen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 05:32 PM   #74
creil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 343
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
im sure thousands of pedestrians are killed swimming, horseback riding, shoveling the snow, and just eating...i wouldnt say they are putting their lives at risk.
I think you're missing the point of the whole argument. Adding that many more parking spaces caters to the traffic issue and it makes it more difficult for people to move around the neighborhood whether they are driving, taking the bus, biking or walking. Milwaukee Ave can get backed up from North to almost all the way down to Division at certain times of the day. What do you think will happen when you put an additional 153 parking spaces right in the middle of that mess?

Go down to the Mil/North/Damen intersection during rush hour or a Friday/Saturday night and tell me that it's ridiculous to talk about the danger for pedestrians. Watch as drivers try to make that left turn from Damen to North and see how they practically mow down people who have the walk sign. Better yet, try biking from this intersection to Chicago or Grand during these same times and then come tell me that it's just a fact of life in the city and we should deal with it.

It's a great looking project and I'd love to see the Walgreens replaced, but the people in the neighborhood have a valid point. They're the ones that have to deal with it everyday. Dangerous traffic to this degree does not have to be a fact of life for city dwellers. We just have to make the right choices. Providing one or in this case, two parking spaces for every new condo that goes up is not the right choice. But these people will get the NIMBY label because they've chosen to argue against an aesthetically pleasing building even though it does not function well for the neighborhood.
creil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 05:38 PM   #75
creil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 343
Likes (Received): 1

SInce we're talking about tearing down gaudy chain stores, I've noticed the Pizza Hut on Division and Ashland is out of business. Is the Wendy's next door gonna follow? That's a huge chunk of land on the corner of a prime intersection with a Blue line stop right in the middle.

Does anybody know what will be replacing the abandoned Burger King on Milwaukee and Honore?
creil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 09:29 PM   #76
prelude91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago...Soon to be Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by creil View Post
I think you're missing the point of the whole argument. Adding that many more parking spaces caters to the traffic issue and it makes it more difficult for people to move around the neighborhood whether they are driving, taking the bus, biking or walking. Milwaukee Ave can get backed up from North to almost all the way down to Division at certain times of the day. What do you think will happen when you put an additional 153 parking spaces right in the middle of that mess?

Go down to the Mil/North/Damen intersection during rush hour or a Friday/Saturday night and tell me that it's ridiculous to talk about the danger for pedestrians. Watch as drivers try to make that left turn from Damen to North and see how they practically mow down people who have the walk sign. Better yet, try biking from this intersection to Chicago or Grand during these same times and then come tell me that it's just a fact of life in the city and we should deal with it.

It's a great looking project and I'd love to see the Walgreens replaced, but the people in the neighborhood have a valid point. They're the ones that have to deal with it everyday. Dangerous traffic to this degree does not have to be a fact of life for city dwellers. We just have to make the right choices. Providing one or in this case, two parking spaces for every new condo that goes up is not the right choice. But these people will get the NIMBY label because they've chosen to argue against an aesthetically pleasing building even though it does not function well for the neighborhood.

I agree with all of this, i was not in any way supporting the traffic or the addition of parking. I guess i was kind of playing devils advocate. I would just like to see that ugly ass walgreens gone though
prelude91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 10:10 PM   #77
creil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 343
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
I agree with all of this, i was not in any way supporting the traffic or the addition of parking. I guess i was kind of playing devils advocate. I would just like to see that ugly ass walgreens gone though
Me too. I wouldn't mind seeing the Jewel and Kmart on Milwaukee and Ashland gone as well.
creil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2007, 11:25 PM   #78
prelude91
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Chicago...Soon to be Washington D.C.
Posts: 1,240
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by creil View Post
Me too. I wouldn't mind seeing the Jewel and Kmart on Milwaukee and Ashland gone as well.
that Kmart on ashland is one of the biggest eye sores in the area, the building is aweful. My beef with the Jewel is the huge parking lot more than the actual building itself though
prelude91 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2007, 12:26 AM   #79
creil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 343
Likes (Received): 1

Tear down Jewel, Kmart, Pizza Hut and Wendys. Along with the parking lot behind MB Bank (that building could be a real gem if they'd put some huge beautiful arched windows in it like it used to have), you could make three amazing pedestrian plazas around that intersection. Open air, and year round markets along with boutique retail and restaurants. Talk about transit oriented development. If they ever build the Circle Line, that area would be amazing.
creil no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2007, 03:55 AM   #80
paytonc
Pragmatist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 433
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
saying your life is at risk crossing the street is a bit dramatic, dont you think?
you live in the third largest city in the U.S; TRAFFIC IS GOING TO EXIST!
even in Manhatten where more than 75% the residents dont own cars, traffic still sucks. its just the nature of the beast.
Just look both ways before you cross the street.
Wrong. I've known far too many people who've died (or nearly died) under cars to be cavalier about this. I was even once PUNCHED by a driver while I was legally and safely crossing the street in Wicker Park. Jan Metzger's son was seriously injured by a speeding driver while walking home from Pritzker School.

It's honestly far easier to cross the street in Manhattan, Boston, Paris, almost anywhere -- including in many cities with far more aggressive drivers. Drivers in Chicago don't obey (in fact, don't seem to even know) the law regarding pedestrians: they must yield to pedestrians in any crosswalk. I walk or bike in Wicker Park every single day and always see drivers blocking crosswalks, cutting off pedestrians while making turns (the situation that got me punched), and, of course, driving right over crosswalks while honking at the pedestrians patiently waiting to cross. Heck, *cabbies* in Manhattan yield to jaywalkers!

Yet Chicago has a fatal combination of being just car-dependent enough to have road-rage inducing traffic and not having enough pedestrians and cyclists out on the streets for us (peds/cyclists) to have either drivers or politicians pay attention.

Adding hundreds of new parking spaces right in the middle of one of our most pedestrian friendly retail streets -- Milwaukee gets so backed up sometimes that it's pretty easy to cross -- is NOT going to help the situation any. Adding the parking here will put hundreds more cars every day on the street, which is the last thing we need. As Jan said, more people would be great, more cars would be awful.
__________________
http://westnorth.com
paytonc no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu