The proposed redevelopment of the former Pizza Hut site at Division and Ashland has evoked a flurry of pleas to 1st Ward Ald. Proco Joe Moreno to bar the property owners from doing what they assert they have the right to do within the current zoning – build a two-story bank building on the site.
The locals and not-so-locals who have weighed in include the Center for Neighborhood Technology. I single out CNT only because of its blindness to the delicious irony of the acronym formed by its motto: Sustainable Communities Attainable Results. You got it – SCAR.
You can see more appeals to the Alderman to disregard what may be the developer’s rights at the East Village Association’s Web site. The site is at the far northeast corner of the East Village neighborhood.
You can see the site in these YoChicago videos:
Joe — I’m not sure “NIMBY” is the right term in this case. This “coven” is not arguing for a park or worried about too many people coming to the area — they want something bigger and more urban, which is not a typical NIMBY request. I’m normally not aligned with “NIMBY” concerns — the anti-bar, anti-restaurant, anti-condo crowd — but in this case, I think they’re justified. When the “coven” includes such a wide array of groups, I think their voices should be taken seriously.
Your videos are out of date, the site and surrounding area have undergone substantial change.Second, the NIMBY label might not be so accurate. The neighborhood groups are actually asking for a bigger project. Third Aldermen Moreno introduced and passed a pedestrian designation ordinance for the site. The developer wants to put in a bank drive through. This use actually requires city approval.
If the residents of East Village and Wicker Park truly believed that mixed use development of this plot of land were key to economic revitalization of the neighborhood, why didn’t they band together to purchase it when it was for sale?
Neal, Michael,
Isn’t it fair to apply the NIMBY label to any anti-development effort when that effort may (and I emphasize MAY) interfere with what an owner can do as of right? And when the effort asks an owner to do something the owner has determined is not his preferred use for the property he owns?
I realize the videos are out of date – posted them for the view of the surrounding area. The block in question is almost entirely single-story uses and includes a used-car lot!
So are Zoning and Preservation both NIMBY?
“That world. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Nimby’s usually want to block development. All of these groups–and I support them as a neighborhood resident–are asking for more *intense* development.
In the course of asking for more intense development, they are saying “Not In My Back Yard” to the proposed development.
They’re asking for transit-oriented development on a B3 site zoned for auto-oriented development.
There are 3 bank branches within a block of the site (down from 4 if you include the now vacant WM bank across the street). This block does not require yet another bank especially one with a drive through across the street from the Blue Line stop.
The city and aldermen should be weighing in on uses close to high traffic mass transit instead of letting whatever low density crap a developer wants to throw up be constructed. A 4-5 story or more building would not be out of place on the corner since several of the other corners nearby are held by similar height structures.
I don’t disagree with the proposition that the use the EVA and other community groups envision for the site is appropriate, and in many ways preferable to a bank branch. I don’t view that as the main issue here.
My view is simply that the city has no future if businesses can’t purchase and develop property in reliance on and in accordance with existing zoning.
The days when Chicago had the luxury of indulging arbitrariness and unpredictability are in its past.
Regardless of the zoning every developer ALWAYS has to court the favor of the alderman for a new project. This is certainly nothing new here nor is it likely to change, He doesn’t want it, the neighborhood doesn’t want it, city special use approval would be required for the drive through with will not be obtained without both of their supports thus the whole thing is a non-starter.
Joe,
I think you are missing something. The developer has the right to build site within the existing regulations. However, the developer appears to want a change in the applicable regulation that applied to the site when it was purchased. Namely they want a drive through. Don’t forget that the site was subject to the pedestrian designation before it was purchased. Whether the existing regs are appropriate is a different question. Glad to see the rational discourse back and forth. By the way check out the Triangle on a Thursday there is a new farmer’s market. Have dinner at the Bedford and catch a play at the Chopin theater and leave your car at home because you can bike, take the bus, the Blue line or catch a cab at the cab stand.
“Not In My Back Yard” and saying “No” are not synonyms. That is your unstated premise and if you concede that, you concede to your point.
Me: “I’d like some cake, please.”
JZ: “Oh! So you’re anti-desert!”
Me: “Not at all. in fact, I just ordered cake.”
JZ: “But by saying ‘yes’ to cake, you implicitly said ‘no’ to pie. Pie is desert. You’re anti-desert!”
The NIMBYs SAY all they want is a bigger, mixed use building, but no one believes for a second that they’ll go away if the owner says ok because it’s obvious they won’t want HIS bigger mixed use building. Bring us twenty detailed designs and models and we’ll tell you when you’re getting warm.
Neal,
Did Pizza Hut not have a special use for a drive-through? I don’t know the answer to my question.
I hadn’t been past the Pizza Hut site since it was torn down, so stopped by earlier today. Spent many a happy Saturday morning at that corner doing pro bono legal work back in the late 70s.
Leave my car at home? No one else has, judging by the mid-day traffic at this location. If they had, they could walk across the street and buy one. There’s existing transit-oriented development just south of Division on Ashland –
La Pasadia Taqueria, 1132 N Ashland –
The Pizza Hut corner of Division and Ashland –
And here’s the thriving retail scene on the Polish Triangle –
The gateway to East Village …
Having the right to do something, and it being the right thing to do are not the same thing!!!
The Pizza Hut did not have a drive through so no special use was conferred with the property.
Pictures you posted are a bit skewed don’t you think? You missed the bulk of the retail on the Triangle and conspicuously left out the renovated and repurposed bank building that you so prominently displayed before. As for the traffic at mid day you make the point for us. Doesn’t sound like a good place for a drive through.
Neal,
Yeah, you’re right. You should put drive-throughs where there are no cars! Sarcasm intended.
If you build it even more will come. Try getting down Division at rush hour. Are you really advocating for the development of branch bank drive through? When the developer bought the property he knew about the regulations, the pedestrian designation and that drive throughs are a permitted special use. What about those photos? Check out some of mine at http://www.eastvillagechicago.org
Neal,
Here’s what I said above: “I don’t disagree with the proposition that the use the EVA and other community groups envision for the site is appropriate, and in many ways preferable to a bank branch.”
Does that sound like someone who’s advocating for a bank branch?
Your link wasn’t responding when I clicked on it.
Joe ALWAYS has to have the last word and will never admit to being wrong. He also tends to challenge those he doesn’t agree with in an antagonistic manner and will put words in your mouth.
Eric: “I’d like some cake, please.”
JZ: “Oh! So you’re anti-desert!”
Eric: “Not at all. in fact, I just ordered cake.”
JZ: “But by saying ‘yes’ to cake, you implicitly said ‘no’ to pie. Pie is desert. You’re anti-desert!”
All areas within 1/4 mile of Rapid Transit and Metra Stations should be zoned for transit-oriented development. On through streets this should require multi-story buildings with residences and with businesses on the street level.
Captain Video
And if no one wants to build or finance or buy or rent in those buildings, what then?
mk,
Since none of what you refer to has happened yet, I am left wondering how you know it all with such certainty-perhaps you can see the future?
In fact, those of us who have met with the developer specifically requested that he NOT spend money on an elaborate presentation, or architectural design at this point. We asked that he use a pro-forma to evaluate the potential benefit of a larger, more dense building that premeates the pedestrian over the automobile. This was a request, not a demand, and the developer agreed to do so.
Saharan or Mojave?
this corner is way too nice for just a dull single story bank
drive through. Bank drive through? Anybody would grab a condo unit on that corner in that neighborhood fast. What a waste for anything else other than a beautiful building that says wow!
tg
A dull single-story bank seems highly appropriate for this otherwise dull corner.
Condos failed immediately adjacent to and west of the bank building at 1624 W Division. Failed utterly. The camera’s focused on the building for most of the first 3 minutes of the second video in the post.