There's a storm brewing over ownership of our most precious resource.
Mr. and Ms. Rogers Park you are hereby on notice, and also all those who helped found the Rogers Park Community Council decades ago while getting da mayor to keep our beaches and lakefront open, free, and clear.
Hot winds are blowing from people with deep pockets and expendable income who have their covetous eyes on the Rogers Park lakefront, from north to south.
Last week Joe Moore hosted an infomercial (yeah, yeah, he calls them community meetings) about a plan to demolish the North Shore School at Chase and the lake in order to pour concrete for a private condo building's parking lot.
Then this weekend a cold front blew in. It's soon-to-be Hurricane Mary Bao. She is trying to cool down a hot deal in the making on the lakefront. The "Lakefront Protection" petition she is circulating hopes to block the private acquisition of a tidy piece of prime lakefront land at the end of Farwell Avenue.
It seems the 1125 Farwell Condominium group wants a private parking too. In a nutshell, two buyers plan to pave over paradise and put in a parking lot (thanks Joni Mitchell).
And to hell with you, me, or what community residents think.
BLOGNOTES: Hint's of Possible Influence.
Swanette Triem plans to demolish the former North Shore School building at 1217 W. Chase and construct a landscaped parking lot for use of the residents who live in her apartment building immediately to the west of the property. And she need's Joe's help.
Citizens for Joe Moore
Triem, Swanette
1201 W. Chase
Chicago, IL 60626
$250.00 - 3/2/2006 - Individual Contribution
Citizens for Joe Moore
Triem, Swanette
1201 W. Chase
Chicago, IL 60626
$250.00 - 11/30/2006 - Individual Contribution
Citizens for Joe Moore
Triem, Swanette
1201 W. Chase
Chicago, IL 60626
$250.00 - 11/30/2006 - Individual Contribution
32 comments:
North Shore School Website.
Notice in the advertising sign, Parking available.
where do I sign?
Preservation Chicago has already been alerted about the North Shore School. I just emailed them about this project also. Using valuable lakefront property for condo parking is a sin.
I would like to sign as well,
This is total bullcrap,
a parking lot at the lakefront,
pure stupidity,
I would understand if they were trying to build something there,
but jeez that is really stupid.
if you cant condosize that building on farwell without making a parking lot, well then it probably shouldve never been attempted.
it shouldve been kept as apartments then.
I agree about the pure retardness of tearing down chase school for a parking lot,
are these condos the new churches,
Church parking lots i can understand, i hate them, but i understand them, but this is just stupid.
Talk about most selfish use of land ever.
Yeah I want to uh just make this area here a concrete slab so I can park uh duh car, and otherwise you could maybe play street hockey on it, but I doubt it.
Yeah thats better use of the land than as something that can breathe and grow things or house people,
screw that, I want that building torn right now, so I can park my lexus, goddammit.
Also that park over there, I want it concreted over permanently, yessirre that dirt will never see the sun again, I am a liberal minded hippy who lovers Rogers Park and will live by the lake, but hey screw it, give my goddam car a concrete slabe to sit on.
Nevermind that public transportation is literally
surrounding me, nope,
i have no use for buses, cta el, or metra,
I have moved to one of the most well connected parts of the city to live a suburban type lifestyle,
hurrah....
I think their PR campaign sounds something similar to the above,
correct me if Im wrong.
*loves
not lovers
jeez :(
as an addendum,
uh duh i guess it makes no sense for someone to build a superparking structure
that could serve more than one condos needs,
uh duh, cuz i have to work within the nimby guidelines,
which sometimes cuts their nose off to spite their face,
uh duh, it could be that uh duh
a large parking structure could be made so that surface lots, which is the absolutely worst and least efficient use of land doesnt have to happen,
holy crap, i cant believe this is 2007
and we are still fighting the old fashion surface parking lot.
in chicago.
yes in the city proper.
holy crap.
i guess our fair city
isnt in great shape.
I'd also like to know: where do I sign and protest?
How short sighted can this be? Of course the school should be saved as a resource for the community!
It could be a great site to house arts and cultural programming. For example, the Berger Mansion on Sheridan at Granville was saved from demolition, and is now operated by the park district.
I know some will have an automatic response that the park district has no money to acquire property, and heck they can't spend money on simple, everyday needs to serve their current facilities. However, that overlooks the potential for leadership by our community and elected officials to DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
Leaders have taken the initiative to marshal private and business community support to build a Millennium Park or underwrite costs for the Olympics. Why can't we do something like buy this property for "Arts In Rogers Park?" It could be of lasting value to families and children here.
I can certainly understand the needs of adjacent residents who see it as a convenient location for a parking lot, but the greater interests of the community should be considered first. Prime lakefront property should serve us all, not a few.
Joe Moore, selling out the community for a mire 750 bucks. Now that's a ho.
When I broke the story yesterday, source Mary Bao asked to remain anonymous, even though her name is on the petition. God bless her efforts, though. But we need to organize this. Mary needs our help. Look at Craig's photo for the phone number to call to speak with Mary Bao.
Well, let's see. Let's add all this up, and for the sake of being fair, I am going to keep my numbers on the low end of the spectrum.
30 parking spaces at a minimum of $100/mo. is $36,000/yr in rent. I would subtract maybe $6,000 annually for the initial construction and upkeep, which means the Park District better be getting a minimum of $30,000 per year from these condo owners.
Regarding the Farwell lot: Not that I am a Moore fan, but it should be noted that the Park District is really a law unto its own...Joe may not even know about this parking lot, it is most likely just a deal between the developer and the Park District not involving the Alderman's office. We could, however, potentially use Joe's clout to try to help out with this. The fences currently blocking off the Pratt/Farwell alley from the park will be torn down as part of the parking lot project. I doubt Moore has any interest in the rampant crime that was present before the fences went up returning the alley, as it will result in lots of angry new (and mostly affluent) residents and campaign contributors...
PS: I have a direct interest in this one, as I live right above where the new lot will go, across the alley. Not to pleased about this, since I have an infant daughter.
"Joe Moore, selling out the community for a mire 750 bucks."
Yeah, I agree -- $750 is a paltry sum. Can such insignificant amounts of cash really influence him (i.e., are we correctly reading him as selling out because of small campaign contributions), or is he just really that desperate?
If $250 here and there really works with this guy, why don't we try to buy him out ourselves? Surely "we" also have people with disposable incomes ...
There are copies of the petition at Ennui Cafe for those who wish to sign.
Well, to write as someone who has lived next to the hollowed-out, crime and bum infested building on the end of Farwell, I'm very glad that they're actually doing something with it finally. Many nights there were suspicious lights on inside, and the cops had to come and drag out the filth that had settled there. So, if the price that we have to pay for having a safer neighborhood by not having empty buildings standing just begging for crime, is to lose a tiny chunk of land, it's a price that I'm quite willing to pay. The bushes that were around the perimeter were always filled with garbage that the park district never felt the need to clean up, it was obvious that bums were using the bushes as their bathrooms and sleeping holes, and it was always dark in the back towards the alley. Not exactly appealing or safe.
Farwell parking, just like anywhere else in Rogers Park, is extremely tight, and to add 2 cars for each unit owner for 1125, will be basically impossible. And we all know how safe it is to walk a far distance in the dark streets to get from your car to your house.
Changes are going to be made, and that's just part of the way things go. If nothing ever moves forward, then the community stagnates. I seriously doubt anyone here is going to complain about the fact that the building is being redeveloped to provide something worthwhile, or that development and improvements are happening all around RP. As to making the building into apartments, that wouldn't solve the parking problem in the least, b/c people who live in apts have cars too. They just might not be as auspicious of cars.
Perhaps if the Crap Transit Authority got it's act together, people would be more willing to use it, but as someone who does not have a car, I must say, having had to stand in the freezing cold many a times for 10 times as long as I should have had to, I wished dearly for a car many a times. I just can't afford one.
I just spoke to two different people in the Planning and Development Department at the Park District. They are aware of the situation and assured me that there are no plans to put a parking lot on the strip of land between 1125 Farwell and the Tennis Courts, the parking lot story is a RUMOR. In fact, their lawyers are preparing what sounds like a cease and desist order to command the developer not to use the land as a staging area for his construction work. The people I spoke to also said that as far as they know, that land will remain green space in perpetuity. One exact quote was, "We are is the business of preserving parks, not giving them away." I am going to try to get a copy of the letter being sent to the developer. It is heartening to know that the Park District is not only preserving the land, but is in fact taking steps to ensure that the construction from the rehab does not continue to spill out onto that land, which has affected the quality of life of nearby residents, who are bothered by the noise. As someone who overlooks this piece of land I am very pleased with this outcome and hope that it will come to pass.
Moreover, given the interest in this story, hopefully we can capitalize on the enthusiasm of the people who have spoken out against this parking lot. It is also important to remember that rumors come from somewhere: my guess would be that the developer is telling this to prospective buyers (although why they would want to live next to a parking lot, I have no idea). In any case, we will count on bloggers to stay on top of this, thanks to all!
It's on the advertising sign I posted, don't you guys ever read the whole story. Or in this case, don't you look at the pictures? It says Parking Available.
I am guessing that the "Parking Available" sign refers to the parking accessable on the ground level of the building from the alley. It is a small garage, but there is technically "Parking Available." It will not doubt end up like our building, which has 34 units but ten parking spaces that all sold out....to the first ten buyers. Thus, there will end up being lots of residents with no parking. But the point is, the sign isn't lying even if they do not pave the strip.
Gottcha. Thanks for the extra information.
excuse me v&j...but I beg to differ. You said: "I seriously doubt anyone here is going to complain about the fact that the building is being redeveloped to provide something worthwhile..."
There were apartments there before that I don't believe caused any trouble. We are not so desperate that we have to sell off our community resources to get people to live here.
I am glad to hear this is a rumour!
Craig: No problem. It should be noted that the high-end developers have been having a severe problem in selling many of their units because, as can be imagined, people paying that kind of cash want parking. Often the last question prospective buys ask is "What about parking" and then the showing promptly ends when they get the answer: there simply is none; what few spaces were available sold out long ago. This is why I suspect that the 1125 Farwell developer spread this rumor by telling it to prospective buyers. Their garage (which is across from ours) is really small. From what I can tell the few times it has been open they have two, maybe three spaces. If the developer has already sold that many units, the "available parking" is likely sold out. Which means that the developer has a very clear interest in prospective buyers (and, in turn, us) believing that he has a new source of parking. Otherwise his development will be dead in the water.
In fact, their lawyers are preparing what sounds like a cease and desist order to command the developer not to use the land as a staging area for his construction work.
Thanks for doing all that legwork Matthew. I'm very glad to hear about the cease and desist. I'm sure you already know this developer has caused major damage to trees and valuable lilac shrubs on this site due to the staging use. Large trees have been chopped down and other trees have had major branches sawed off.
Isn't this developer responsible for paying for all of this damage?
I did not mean that the people who lived at 1125 previously should have been kicked out, but I did mean that it is far better for the building to get redeveloped than to just stand there fallow. Because that's all that it was before. An empty, decrepit building that only drew filth.
V&J:
Agree with your more recent sentiments...I called the cops and the alderman several times. Alicia in Moore's office helped out tremendously with the homeless people problems we had on that strip, and shortly after the strip was cleared the developer actually started the rehab. Hopefully the days of homeless drunkards partying at 3 AM on that strip are gone and will never come back!
Rebecca: The developer should absolutely be liable to the Park District (or city, if that is the technical owner) for any damage to the strip. Of course, whether the Park Disctrict will follow through, or whether they could prove that some of the damage was caused by the developer (as opposed to, say, our former infestation of homeless people) is another story.
V&J -of course I agree with that. But whose fault is it the building was unsecured and lying fallow? The developer. I too will be glad to see it rehabbed and occupied.
It's clear that much of this damage is recent and that many of the trees were cut with a large saw. I think that rules out any squatters who may have inhabited the building before the developer started work.
I've also talked to residents next door to 1125 who say they witnessed the developer's crew doing this damage. I had these conversations months ago.
I believe the Park District will follow through on recuperating damages but we need to do our part to make sure focus stays on this issue. Chopping down park trees and doing other permanent damage to valuable old plantings is not insignificant and should not be tolerated.
R: I absolutely agree with you. If I have time today, I will try to call the Park District back and see if they will consider adding a demand to their cease and desist letter (of course, for all I know, they may have already put this in the letter).
That would be great. I already put my call in to alert them to this problem, but the more neighbors who call the better.
Post a Comment