I envy those that get to live in the shadow of what many a sports fan would consider a national monument.

I came across this 3 Bed / 3 Bath for sale right outside the bleachers - 3715 N Sheffield Ave. You can literally see the Bleachers sign from right out front.

Here is the best part! Two parking spots to rent out for every home game. Last I checked parking was between $25 - $50 per game. Renting out the two spots would be enough for a single bleacher seat and a couple of cold ones.

Now that is living!

Unfortunately it looks like short-sighted, parochially minded NIMBYS will be able to stop the construction of the proposed medium-rise condo next to Wrigley Field. It would give a significant number of hard-core Cub fans the opportuinity to live within easy walking distance of Wrigley Field, and the proposed companion hotel would make it possible for visitors to Chicago who want to attend Cubs games to stay within easy walking distance of the Cubs games.

How is it short-sighted if the underlying zoning allows for four and five-story buildings and the developer comes in looking for nine-story buildings? It just sounds like someone trying to make extreme profits. Also, is a building of mainly one-bedroom units helping the long-term viability of the neighborhood or does it just encourage a transient, short-term residents?

The proposed hotel component would be a useful addition to the neighborhood. The 500+ parking spaces for the development is an encouragement to drive and add to congestion.

Quote: "Also, is a building of mainly one-bedroom units helping the long-term viability of the neighborhood or does it just encourage a transient, short-term residents?"

What it would provide is more people to pay taxes and shop and dine in the neighborhood. Wow, what a concept. That close to an EL stop is an excellent location for a taller building.

I only glanced at the proposal months ago, but what the developer is requesting doesn't seem outlandish to me. Now if you were to put that on Reta, Kenmore or any of the other neighboring sidestreets I would agree it was out of place.

The importance of "density" is a concept that few people appreciate. Luckily, the Almighty has placed me in front of a computer screen to enlighten the masses.

Now if only the Almighty would furnish me with the winning lotto numbers……….

"How is it short-sighted if the underlying zoning allows for four and five-story buildings and the developer comes in looking for nine-story buildings?"

The zoning is clearly inappropriate for this location and therefore should be changed. These kinds of location should be zoned for medium rise. Permitting more people to live withing easy walking distance of a popular location like Wrigley field is a major plus. In addition, this site is in easy walking distance of an elevated line stop. Areas close to rapid transit or railroad stations should be zoned for high density. This promotes the increased use of public transportation.

"Also, is a building of mainly one-bedroom units helping the long-term viability of the neighborhood or does it just encourage a transient, short-term residents?"

This bias against single people and young marrieds is totally unfair and unjustified. Having young professionals live in such an area, before they have children and therefore move to a one family house with a yard, leads to a vitality of a neighborhood which stody older people will not give it. When these young professionals move to their single family houses they are replaced by new single professionals doing the same thing. Therefore while the individual residents may be short-term, the class of residents is ongoing, providing for long-term viablility.

"The importance of "density" is a concept that few people appreciate."

Density is good and viable when it is close to public transportation, such as this location. The problem is the additional congestion generated by the one parking space per living unit that the city still mandates and the number of parking spaces demanded by the retailers. The city should look at more progressive parking practices that would make denser developments more palatable to those nearby.

"This bias against single people and young marrieds is totally unfair and unjustified." It is not a bias against single people and newly married couples. A wider range of units from one to three or four bedroom units would encourage a more diverse group of purchasers. Some would look at the purchase as a five-year commitment, some would be a fifteen-year commitment. This helps to create some greater long-term interest by the residents in the neighborhood.

Lake View Resident

You really believe there's a market for family-size units in this location?

This area functions well as a transient area. Whynot reinforce something that works rather than try to change it?

I think there is a perception that all of Lake View is a transient area. However, there are plenty of people that are willing and interested in settling in for longer terms, especially if there are more options than one or two-bedroom condos and rentals. The desirability of schools in the area - Inter-American, Nettelhorst, Blaine, and Hawthorne has made Lake View a draw for families who want to stay for more than a few years.

That proposal is ridiculously inappropriate and even worse unimaginative. Can you picture a 4 story parking structure wall on that corner that is topped by the most boring one-bedroom apartments ever? Medium-rise might be okay, but what they are proposing will just be an eyesore. I like the hotel idea, but in another form or without the associated apartment building. The developer kept talking about green space, but all there was is a small strip 4 stories up. Otherwise it is just a massive wall right up against the sidewalk with no landscaping at all. And proposing a best buy there, come on.

I agree with Lake View Resident that there are a lot of people willing to move to the area b/c I am one of them. All that apartment building is going to be is one giant fraternity/sorority house which isn't good for the neighborhood.

I'd agree that parts of Lake View are great for families - but we're talking about this part, and it strikes me as not so great for families. Not even tolerable.

From what I have seen and experienced, Lake View west of Southport is generally the best part for families in Lake View. Further west, I think Roscoe Village is ideal. It is safe, good restaurants, good schools close by, decent pedestrian life and extremely family friendly.

I think you guys are picturing just clark street and then generalizing that to the rest of the wrigley area. There are plenty of families and young professionals that are more than 3 years out of college that live in the area. If you go less than a block from the area in question you would find lots of these people. And if you think that area isn't tolerable for these people, why make it even worse by putting in what would become basically a dorm for recent graduates who still want to drink like they are on campus. And if anybody thinks for a second this developer really cares of high density as it relates to good urban planning and transit is kidding themselves. They just want to build the biggest, cheapest building that they can make the most profit on and then high tail it out of the neighborhood with their bundles of cash.

There are plenty of families east of Southport, too. Desirable schools are driving the trend. I am east of Halsted and south of Belmont. On our street, there are strollers in probably a third of the foyers. It isn't the same number of kids west of Southport but we are all here and want to stay in the area. Even after having kids, people still want the same access to public transportation, restaurants, and entertainment. Add-in schools and lakefront access and this is very viable for families.

"The problem is the additional congestion generated by the one parking space per living unit that the city still mandates"

I don't remember the exact "rule" from the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, but if a new building is built within 600ft of an EL stop, they can apply to have the mandated parking cut by 50%.

"And if anybody thinks for a second this developer really cares of high density as it relates to good urban planning and transit is kidding themselves. They just want to build the biggest, cheapest building that they can make the most profit on and then high tail it out of the neighborhood with their bundles of cash."

The motives of the seller are irrelevant to the fact that this develoment would be an asset for the City of Chicago. It will generate tax revenues both from itself and from the extra business it will create. It will provide high density housing within walking distance of a rapid transit stop. And will create high density housing within easy walking distance of Wrigley field. The developer is clearly the good guy here regardless of his motives, while the NIMBYS, in puttuing their narrow, parochial interests above the common good of the city are the bad guys.

The developer as the good guy? That is a good one. You don't seem to care that he is going to take prime real estate next to a historic landmark and make it look like some shopping area along I-88 with a best buy and boring hotel, just as long as you get your high density.

Why is it that the neighbor's don't have a right to an opinions on this issue Captain? Did you attend the community meeting, have you talked to anyone about the community's concerns? You seem able to pass judgment on this without knowing much of anything about it. The developer initially wanted something like 20 stories, should that have been allowed since higher density is always good according to you? Why not take the time to actually listen to the concerns rather than just dismissing them and blindly claiming NIMBYism. Did you stop to think that through the community input process the development might be made better for the City of Chicago? You seem to want to give the developer carte blanche on building this just to get win for high density. Seems very short sighted to me.

Why is it such a travesty that the community wants to strive for something a little better for that land. I agree that some community members would be against any development, but I think a large majority are just concerned with the details of this specific development proposal, not any higher density proposal for that site. In particular, why in all of the arguments for this development do we keep hearing that it will be great b/c it promotes public transportation, yet they are building a huge parking structure along with it. Four of the nine stories in the apartment building will be devoted to parking!

I think I mentioned this once before. Whatever ends up in the vacant lot that used to be a car wash by Wrigley, I would like to see its design echo the famous "silos" that you see in 1930s photos of the Clark St. entrance to Cubville.

"I don't remember the exact "rule" from the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, but if a new building is built within 600ft of an EL stop, they can apply to have the mandated parking cut by 50%."

I don't think this developer has an interest in reducing parking spaces for this project. At the community presentation, it was explained that the # of parking spaces was dictated by code. Unfortunately, developers are also being pushed by big box chains to put in parking spaces according to the chains' standards, usually not respecting local and urban shopping patterns. Also, most big box retailers don't want their parking lots to look too full, so as not to scare away customers. I believe the developer estimated only 30% of the hotel guests would come by personal car but they were still putting in the code required parking spaces.

Yes, the developer is obviously pro parking; besides the circus he wants to include in the development, there is a 40,000 seat stadium across the street with NO parking.

I wouldn't mind seeing a hotel, an apartment building and maybe a Dominick's similar to the one on Fullerton and Sheffield with other pedestrian friendly retail. Anything more, would be too much. There plan (as I read it) to have a Best Buy, Dominick's, and a major gym would add way too much congestion to this area.

So are they not going to rebuild the Dominick's on Broadway? Is that what this means, or is it just a preliminary proposal?

Dominick's on Broadway is moving forward. The developers received approval for their loans about a month ago. They expect to break ground in the next couple of months. The Dominick's should be opening in the late 3rd or 4th quarters next year. Deliveries of the condos above the Dominick's should begin at the end of 2009 and into 2010.

Oh, good, I'm glad to hear that.