Realtors and developers love to tout their projects’ proximity to the restaurants, bars and boutique stores lining Southport Avenue in Lake View. Mark and I took the Brown Line up to Southport yesterday, not to look at any development in particular, but to simply take in the sights of the corridor from the train station up to the Blaine School.
Watch more neighborhood and development videos on the YoChicago YouTube channel.
Thanks for the tour, Joseph.
Southport corridor would be even nicer if stores like Jewel learned not to treat the sidewalk like an undesirable alley, and did something more creative with parking than having huge, ugly surface parking lots which totally kill the pedestrian experience.
It also wouldn’t hurt to see fewer SINGLE story commercial buildings right next to a Brown Line stop just as the CTA struggles to make ends meet. Perhaps some of those vacant storefronts would be filled if there were more people living above them.
I’m not sure if it’s a leadership issue or just the market, and I’m not going to try to debate that here. But the city of Chicago still needs to create a better strategy than “Aldermanic Privilege” if it wants to generate more traffic for its retail strips, more ridership for its rail lines, and hence more tax revenues for its perpetual “make no small plans” philosophy.
That Jewel is slated to be torn down and replaced with a two story Jewel. I don’t recall the timeframe involved.
Personally, I would prefer a two story Jewel with housing above. That is a great area for additional density.
The problem is trying to get the neighborhood to agree. The cries of anguish would be overwhelming. People don’t seem to understand that more people means more and better retail.
The nimbys would be complaining about the additional traffic any new housing would bring while simultaneously bemoaning the vacant retail spaces.
You’re dead on, Irish Pirate. That is why I long ago came to the conclusion that the development of land in heavily transit-served neighborhoods of the city is so vital that the ignorant, self-serving input of neighborhood groups should be cast aside.
Not that I see this ever happening, but I advocate for the city to pass a sweeping Transit Zoning Ordinance that automatically upzones land within a certain radius around every heavy rail stop within the city. This zoning, call it T Zoning, could be immutable and cannot be downzoned by any Aldermanic nor community action. Only landmarked structures are exempt.
Democracy will not get us there. Bolder, sweeping action is necessary.
^ Just to add to my last point, I view development of land immediately around transit stops akin in importance to the development of downtown.
Downtown assumes an importance much, much larger than that jurisdiction of its Aldermanic representatives or community groups. The city clearly has treated downtown this way for decades. This “special treatment”, if you will, should psychologically be extended along the nodes of Chicago’s rail lines. Chicago’s L, after all, is a public asset and is maintained by State of Illinois taxpayer dollars. In the same way that a vibrant downtown benefits the State of Illinois, a financially more sufficient CTA would accomplish the same.
Every time downstate and suburban representatives balk at “bailing out” the CTA every 2 or 3 years, they should consider pressuring the city to make better use of its infrastructure so that such fixes are less likely to be needed.
Real action is needed on this front, not just an umpteenth opinion piece by person X from sundry Chicago-area planning agency Y posted in Crain’s weekend edition.
tup,
Your proposal makes far too much sense to have any chance of adoption in Chicago.
I expect to be dodging low-flying pigs long before I see the aldermen surrender their power over zoning changes.
^ While I agree, I don’t think there is a better time than now to try.
The last time Chicago had a mayor who exerted so much power was 35 years ago.
tup,
Changing aldermanic power over zoning would be a major strike against the corruption that’s both the core competency and the core value system of our pols.
Our mayor serves as a role model for that culture of corruption. I will definitely be swatting away low-flying pigs before Daley exerts any of his power to lessen corruption in this city. His record speaks for itself.
Perhaps, but there’s a difference. In my eyes, there are 2 competing forces at work here:
Daley uses his cronyism to 1) keep himself in power and 2) do whatever he can to promote Chicago’s economic & political might.
Alderman, in so far as I have seen, couldn’t give two schmucks about the city’s well being–they care about winning the support of the small community organizations that they serve, but these community organizations’ goals are often at odds with the greater goals of the city.
So if I were to choose one force of corruption, sort of like choosing the lesser of two evils, I would gladly take the Mayor’s brand. At least then the city of Chicago gets something out of it.
These two forces most recently collided on the Children’s Museum move to Grant Park issue. Daley steamrolled Reilly. They also collided on the Big Box issue–another one where Daley prevailed (two issues which I have little passion about, to be honest). Point is, Daley can win battles with City Council without there being a complete unraveling of the corrupt machine that runs the entire place.
^ Just to add to my post above, a T Zoning Ordinance can be painted in such a way that minimizes any impact on precious “Aldermanic prerogative”. T Zoning only applies to land within X feet radius of a rail stop.
Aldermanic prerogative still presides everywhere else. And Daley could even throw in a bone or two to make it more appealing–ie TIF districts around these T zoning sights whose revenue is exclusively to be used at the discretion of the Alderman of that neighborhood.
tup,
Discussions of Chicago politics make me profoundly sad, so I tend to avoid them entirely.
I don’t think it’s possible to look at this city’s potential, on the one hand, and Daley’s overall record, on the other, and conclude that Daley’s reign has been a net positive for the city.
You say Daley does everything he can to “promote Chicago’s economic and political might.” I view his record as having done as little as possible to keep from dissipating it entirely. Allowing the aldermen to do their thing is just one small part of that sorry record.
This city is great despite Daley, not in the least bit because of him. I firmly believe any clear-eyed look at his legacy will echo Mark Anthony’s take on Caesar’s: “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”
With that, I’ll resume my unshakably upbeat view on Chicago and eschew any further discussion of Chicago politics.
^ I’m not quite where you are, even though I agree that the city certainly would have hummed along just fine without Daley.
World Business Chicago, Millennium Park, TIFs, were all Daley. Does that mean he deserves awards? Probably not–for example, in 20 years he has done almost nothing for mass transit and even less about revitalizing large swaths of the city.
But if Chicago is awarded the Olympics, then I will probably say Daley deserves some credit.