Hi all!
Want to give a shout out to the new upscale pub at Jarvis and Greenview. Congrats on finally opening the doors. These folks very courageously offered a couple hours of open bar to start things off right. They took over the old Charmers space, and although that spot is gone as we knew it, they kept most of the old art deco bar. It’s nice to see new friends not cut away all remnants of our past as they join us for hopefully many good years to come.
This Tuesday is a HUGE Hurricane Benefit at Double Door. Most everyone involved is from Rogers Park, and Robbie Fulks, MWC, Sexfist, and Outlaw Family Band are going to donate the profits of a truly great show to the local Red Cross. We’ll throw up a flier here as a reminder in a day or so. (Thanks Craig!)
I attended that Adelphi Theater meeting. Everyone has an opinion, and here’s mine:
Development is good. Part of the reason its shocking is because so little has been planned well here for so long. Also, building means change, and change is stressful, and sometimes it feels like we’re losing the reliable ambiance we call home. At times that does make me feel unsettled.
That said I have some specific concerns about this proposal. First, the old theater is clearly in need of demolition. Almost no single-screen venue continues to operate very profitably, and thus no new owner could likely afford the extensive renovation coupled with the steep price of Hollywood films and sell enough tickets to make it work. We can argue about it, but that’s how it is in the age of the multiplex. As for other uses, the renovation costs are manageable only if a viable business can recoup them afterward, and without a truly ambitious and visionary business plan, along with a healthy appetite for risk, that isn’t going to happen.
So it’s torn down and replaced with yet another condo. Is that bad?
Not necessarily. I’m not going through the whole meeting, but the crux of the zoning change is this: We allow a much larger structure, and the builder will “give” us a total of 10% “affordable” housing, which would be three units. His assurance not to offer any affordable unit if he fails to receive the desired change makes his priorities clear. He’s here to maximize profits, which is good, and is not concerned about what happens after he’s gone, which is troubling.
The thing is this: I don’t like the idea of treating affordable housing as a bargaining chip for developments that radically alter streetscapes. They are separate issues, and ought not to be linked. Affordable housing is critical, but at least as important is establishing a cohesive plan for Clark Street. There is a stretch of Clark in Evanston that is built in the fashion of the proposed change. If you care about this, go and look at that. In my opinion it is a towering edifice, and thus feels like walking in a canyon alongside speeding cars.
For that reason alone, the five-story “Adelphi Plan” is fatally flawed. I would love to see a new three-story condo building in that space, storefronts and all. Twenty years from now a hometown/village look will serve us far better than the canyon that Clark Street will become if a taller precedent takes hold. We have an opportunity now to build in ways that most other communities in Chicago missed or sold off to the highest bidder. Squandering this juncture would be as tragic as trading our lakefront for a marina could have been.
The twenty-three allowable units in that building would yield roughly over eight million dollars in proceeds for the builder. Folks, believe me that would include a substantial profit. An extra two floors gives our children a towering trend setter and our builder an additional three million or so in revenue.
That’s the deal. You decide.
One other thing: The architect for this project told us they were “getting the undesirables out”. It was all I could do to remain calm and remind him that it was MY neighbors he was referring to as “undesirables”.
This was a Barbara Bush- style slip that gave us insight into the belief system of this contractor. It was also a giant red flag that says if we don’t help them factor in what we want our neighborhood to look like, we will have no one but ourselves to blame when it is not to our liking.
Until next Saturday,
James Ginderske
3 comments:
Right on, James. My complaint with that development complex at Chicago and Main in Evanston is that it goes RIGHT up to the street as well. There's no landscaping or anything. It's simply too big for the corner that it's on. Everything around it is two-story storefront/apartments with the occasional car dealership and grocery store. It's simply out of place with everything on the block.
Driving through Andersonville, I would LOVE to see that kind of development rather than a massive 4-story complex. If this building is built according to the developer's current plans, it would be very out of place on Clark Street. So, if this is allowed, with all the other buildings be 4 stories or more? I'd like to see this plan chopped down to at least a three-story building.
When will we see Craig's expose on how this new bar ("& nightclub") got its liquor license?
>I don’t like the idea of treating affordable housing as a bargaining chip for developments that radically alter streetscapes. They are separate issues, and ought not to be linked. Affordable housing is critical, but at least as important is establishing a cohesive plan...
Well said!
I don't like the idea of trading density for affordable units. The coalition of politicians and the developers who underwrite them treat density like a free, infinite resource, like air. It is not. The character of our neighborhoods belongs to all of us who already have our life savings invested here, not to those who want to come in and profiteer.
Post a Comment