Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Community Meeting

Alderman Vi Daley
Lincoln-Central Neighborhood Association &
Mid-North Association
will host a community meeting
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
6:30P.M.
Lincoln Park High School Auditorium
The new owners of the hospital property will present their modified proposal for the re-use and redevelopment of the buildings and property. They are proposing using and up-grading the existing buildings for a mixed-use development to include residential, senior living and retail.

37 comments:

  1. I have read the developers' flyer and am responding to you as they suggest. As I understand it, the Lincoln Park Hospital property is currently zoned only for a hospital. For some reason the developers feel that a hospital is a BAD thing to have in a neighborhood. A prison or a nuclear reactor might be a bad neighbor but most people feel that a decent hospital is GOOD to have around -- as our population ages we will need those extra beds and facilities (what will all those proposed seniors do for health care in the area?).
    What we do NOT need is more congestion in an area that is already overly congested.
    What we do NOT need is more retail space, more cars, another large pharmacy. or another large supermarket.
    What we do NOT need is the terrible precedent of a high-rise residential building west of Clark Street, in the midst of a Chicago Historic Preservation
    District. All you have to do is look at the developers' planned footprint: their mini-village of commercial and residential space is located on an
    parcel that would normally be used for 20-30 single family homes.
    The short-term re-use benefits that the developers claim (the benefits mostly theirs) would be incredibly offset by the long-term addition of more pollution, dangerouse intersections, gasoline wasting as you wait in traffic, noise and general lifestyle reduction that the developers will leave in their wake as they pursue their next plan (Children's Memorial Hospital??)

    Please lead your constituency. Please send a clear message to the developers (as was done in the precedent of the Augustana Hospital site) that ours is a low-rise, residential, historic neighborhood that is and should remain a Chicago landmark.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I strongly oppose the commercial development plans for the hospital. it should be zoned residential only and no retail or office space should be included.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the developer's plans for the hospital. I like that he is providing plenty of parking for new residents. I think his designs look nice and fit in well with the neighborhood. I like that he is adding more residential space. (My children attend Lincoln Elementary, so we will want to watch enrollment and work toward more space for the school if needed.) I like the idea of a grocery store going in there, especially a Trader Joe's or other quality food store. I know many of my friends are worried about increased traffic, but I will get in my car less if I have more shopping options nearby.

    ReplyDelete
  4. H & A K, 2100 bl ClevelandJanuary 9, 2010 at 5:33 AM

    My family and I live on the 2100 block of N. Cleveland Avenue, and our family business has owned numerous properties in your district for over 30 years.

    We we vigorously oppose the proposed development for hospital facility and garage at the corner of Webster and Lincoln. We support the reasons stated by the 450+ families of the Mid North Historical District, this development does not honor the integrity of our historical district, and will negatively impact our neighborhood. Additionally, it does not respect the hard won restrictions in the various lawsuits against the prior developers of the hospital facility.

    Relative to our specific property, we see the parking garage from our home. When we bought our property, a specific and significant selling point was that there would be no further development to the west of our property. On lovely spring, summer and fall evenings we can open our windows and enjoy relative quiet and a park like setting. It is fantastic.

    The proposal, which allows rooftop parking on the current garage structure with lighting (essentially 24 hours a day for the retail businesses) would be an abhorrent blight. The noise, traffic, radios, screeching tires, doors slamming, rooftop lights, car lights would significantly and negatively impact the enjoyment of our property, and certainly the property values of all the houses located on the west side of Cleveland.

    More disturbing, is that such a facility would allow unwanted invasions of my family's privacy and offer a survellance ground for individuals with criminal agendas: child abductions, robberies, break ins. I will never support a rooftop parking facility, it should not be allowed and will be a visual blight on our entire neighborhood.

    Such a development will only make the already terrible parking situation untenable. Competition for parking along Cleveland is nightmarish already, the addition of over 350 new residences and retail facilities, and the loss of a parking garage for residence and visitors, without any consideration of the impact to the neighborhood is shameful. In the summer it is impossible for workers or friends to visit as it is, the line to get into the parking garage runs from Webster to Sedgwick some days with all the people coming to the zoo and lakefront.

    There is no way the feedback for this development could be viewed as "mixed." Impossible. What percentage do the 450 families represent of those that will be so immediately impacted by this development?

    Finally, has anyone considered the impact such a development and increase in density have on the Lincoln School District which suffers currently from massive overcrowding? We pay near $20,000 in real estate taxes a year and our children suffer from classrooms with 30+ students, a worn out old facility that doesn't even have a green space.

    We vigorously oppose this development, it is NOT in the interests of the residents of the community.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Take a look back at some history when you were in the Mid-North Assoc. There was an April 4, 1986 meeting IN YOUR HOME, wherein the Association issued a statement that they "unanimously support the 1972 and 1980 agreements" with Grant Hospital. That was the basis for the 1986 agreement which also reaffirmed the earlier agreements.

    Let's ask the developer at this time to recognize and honor the concessions the neighbors won in those agreements, because the developer intends to keep everything the hospital won in those same agreements. The neighbors have no intention of giving away everything we won and in return let the developer keep everything Grant won, and then to heap insult on injury, proceed with a development that very few neighbors want or support.

    Thanks for organizing the meetings. However, process alone is not sufficient unless the developer recognizes the issues raised and that neighbors are concerned about. Just shuffling around some aspects of his plan without fundamental changes won't get the job done. With the looming redevelopment of Children's Hospital which will likely involve similar proposals but on a larger scale, the neighborhood cannot support two projects like that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. J.G. 2100 bl ClevelandJanuary 9, 2010 at 5:37 AM

    I do believe Vi is working to achieve a widely accepted hospital redevelopment. I want everyone to share this opinion.

    Vi has been asked to host repeated meetings in which the developer has tried to resell/repackage the initial proposal. In each meeting, it's primary elements have been roundly rejected, especially the intensive retail use of the parking garage.

    As these meetings continue, neighbors may increasingly believe that Vi is condoning or accepting the developer's intransigence. I hope that such is not the case, and do not believe that such is the case. However, by asking Vi to host repeated meetings without respecting the most fervent community input, the developer is creating that impression.

    This can be avoided if you review their revised plans/elevations etc. before the next meeting. If they include a variation of the same old theme, you can table the meeting until a proposal is presented which reflects at least the most basic of the community's concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  7. In talking to my neighbors concerning the re-development of Lincoln Park Hospital, I have perceived no "mixed" reviews -- it has been unanimous in my experience against any high rise in our neighborhood. A hospital has to be a highrise -- residential housing does not. If the developers want to keep it a highrise, then keep it a hospital; otherwise keep it consistent with all the housing in the neighborhood -- that's what they did with Augustana, and that is the precedent. A highrise residential or commercial structure at that spot would be a terrible new precedent, whose effects would go beyond traffic and congestion. I ask you to maintain the historic integrity of our neighborhood. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. D. G-H. 2200 bl GenevaJanuary 9, 2010 at 5:39 AM

    (1) This is not what is planned. There will be a five story, forty unit
    building. Certainly not consistent with the immediate neighborhood.
    (2) Not at all clear. No mention of the nearly 300 units planned, nor
    the clarification of retail on Webster and Geneva Terrace.
    (3) This, too, is vague. Speak honestly about grocery and pharmacy and
    the impact.
    (4) What third and fourth floors on the garage???
    (5) There seems to be a consensus among over 400 residents (currently
    aware of the plan) that is not mixed but totally opposed to the
    development proposal.
    (6) Not true. ONLY one issue.

    Your notice is vague and a total glossing over of all issues regarding
    the development of the site.

    ReplyDelete
  9. J.G. 2100 bl ClevelandJanuary 9, 2010 at 5:41 AM

    Thank you for saying in your newsletter (1) that further refinement of the proposal is required and (2) that the project will not move forward without consensus from the community. I appreciate your advocacy on our neighborhood's part.

    I was not at the conclusions of our last meeting, but heard that you stated that the project's retail component was a problem and had to be revisited. (I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but that is how it was related to me.) Thank you again for voicing concern regarding the project's most serious threat to our community. I do not know of anyone within our community who wants to see a grocer and/or pharmacy in the garage, etc.

    With your help, our neighborhood is becoming increasingly energized to assure that the project stabilizes, rather than compromises, the character of our area.

    I do feel, however, that the term "mixed reviews" may be a bit generous. I base this on the feedback presented at our meetings, the conversations that I had with many of the 450 persons who have signed the petitions, and further conversations that I've had with neighbors who did not have the opportunity to sign the petition. I do not believe that it was your intention to create any bias in favor of the project. But, in using such words in the context of such overwhelming dissent, it may appear that way. I do not wish to be critical, but instead just to provide feedback.

    (Also, as a factual matter, cars do not currently park on the fourth floor of the structure.)

    Many have noted the use of the corner for the sale of Christmas trees, etc. While this use may not comply with "hospital" zoning, it is small and contained, and is unobtrusive enough not to detract from the overall feel of the area. (It would be nice if one could transform some of the stores on Lincoln to be as quaint.) The Christmas tree sales area contains 1,000 - 1,200 square feet. The developer has proposed that 25 - 30+ times this much retail space be located in the garage alone. I do not know anyone who feels that this would be appropriate or desirable.

    Thank you again. I'm looking forward to working with you on this and other issues that effect our community. It has been a pleasure to do so thus far. Please feel free to contact me if I can assist you in any way with this project or other community matters.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alderman Daley: Given the 450 signatures on the petition and the audience views at the Mid North meeting, I'm surprised to read in your newsletter that the proposal for the hospital has been met with "mixed reviews". The only people that I have encountered that are in favor of the proposal seem to be the developers and their friends. The neighborhood seems firmly opposed to having any retail in the garage and in the hospital building, and is in favor of tearing down the 12 story tower and starting over with low rise residential and far less density than 330 residential units. I am hopeful that you will pursuade the developers to abandon the retail aspect and to retain the residential character of the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Re your newsletter, to say that the developers proposal for the hospital has met with "mixed reviews" could be called accurate if you say that probably 95+% of neighbors being against and maybe 5% (but probably less) in favor is indeed "mixed." Besides the retail, the height of the tower continues to be of major concern to lots of people. It is more than double the height of any building on Webster between Clark and Clybourn. Garage roof top parking is another an important item to many people. There are a number of other items which you are aware of which have generated strong negative feeling within the area--traffic, congestion, noise, green space, etc. Bottom line: the developer has produced a proposal which has met with very heavy opposition from the entire neighborhood on a variety of issues. From the 450 people who signed the petition to the loud opposition you heard in each and every meeting, I do not think there is much question about how neighbors feel on this matter. In other words, the developer produced a proposal which was a dud and which met with strong opposition from a broad cross-section of the neighborhood--not just from a limited group of near by residents.

    The newsletter does not do an adequate job of detailing what the neighbors object to. Your meetings are useful and I hope that you and the various associations are listening to what a many area residents are saying about something which has a very major impact on the neighborhood and on many individual neighbors and their property value and enjoyment.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I was not able to get to the meeting regarding developer plans for the former Lincoln Park Hospital, but I did read the information sent out by your office and Mid-North, I believe.

    At a friends suggestion, I wanted to let you know that -- from the sketchy information given out by the developers on paper, at any rate
    -- there was a lot to like about their proposal.

    First, there would be little torn down, which might mean no huge quanitities of asbestos released in the outside air (Augustana did not
    follow laws mandating that buildings with asbestos must be encased in a specific type of heavy plastic. (I wrote about it once for a magazine but don't remember all of it.)

    At any rate, I really like the senior rentals component, especially if it would include affordable rentals and not just Lincoln park prices. Indeed, this building reuse could actually emulate the terrific mixed income project - rentals and condos - on Irving Park in Shulter's ward, which I also wrote about.

    I gather from an architect friend that the commercial component was a major "no" with people at the meeting, but there was already a
    suspicious restaurant and a very noisy emergency room driveway, etc.

    The only thing with the commercial component to my mind would be the grocery, thus driving Art Paris at Carnival out of business. I don't think the drug store idea would hurt Braun's, but am not sure, of course. But also, why would the neighborhood need yet another drug store since we have Braun's, Walgreen's and CVS within close proximately to the Webster and Lincoln location.

    And a interesting point -- to be zoned R-5 would not preclude the rehab of the residential units proposed. Unless I misunderstood.

    ReplyDelete
  13. E.S. 2000 bl ClevelandJanuary 9, 2010 at 5:50 AM

    I was not able to make it to the meeting at St. Paul's Church this evening, but I wanted to give you my feedback on the proposal for the Lincoln Park Hospital site.

    I have three young children who currently attend, or will soon attend, Abraham Lincoln Elementary School. I live on the 2000 N. block of Cleveland. Like many, many families in the Lincoln School district (five families on our block alone), we walk up Lincoln and then Geneva and back home at least twice a day. Even on the coldest Chicago winter days I rarely drive - - mostly due to the traffic congestion in and around the Webster / Lincoln / Geneva and Belden / Geneva intersections.

    I am extremely concerned about the impact on both the auto and pedestrian traffic around the Lincoln Park Hospital site if the proposal moves forward. Of special concern is the proposed alley that would be created on the east side of Lincoln for truck access. Also, I already worry about the car, bus, and truck exhaust my kids are exposed to walking up and down Lincoln every day. The addition of commercial space on Webster would only exacerbate the situation.

    I have lived in Lincoln Park for over 20 years and have seen it grow, generally, in a very positive way. Much of that is due to your good work over many, many years. I do not think, however, that the addition of so much commercial space in that particular location would be a good thing for our neighborhood, our local Chicago Public School, or the children it serves.

    Thank you for your attention to this matter.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I live on the 500 bl of W. Grant Place. We are east of the hospital's receiving entrance. We are directly affected by what goes on in the receiving area.

    Keeping the hospital building intact but converting it to residential at first sounded like a good way of causing the least disruption. However, after hearing the developers' plans at last Wednesday's meeting, the comments from the audience, the thoughts of people since the meeting, and giving the matter much thought, it is clear that what is proposed is just not in keeping with what the neighborhood has been, is and should be.

    This is a purely residential neighborhood. All of the properties adjacent to the hospital and garage are residential. If the hospital and garage are to be rezoned, they should be rezoned residential. There should be no
    commercial use of these properties.

    Moreover, the existing hospital building is too large and too high for the area surrounding it. As was pointed out at the meeting, its size might have been necessary and appropriate while used as a hospital. If it is no longer
    going to be used as a hospital, it should be demolished and replaced with housing more in keeping with the neighborhood, such as townhomes, single family homes and/or low rise (3 story maximum) condominiums. A good
    precedent is the Augustana Hospital development.

    The idea they proposed of between 220 and 325 residential units (not to mention commercial) is simply not appropriate for this area. Parking and traffic congestion are already a problem, even with the hospital not operating.

    I understand that in the past both you and the Mid-North Association have worked hard to keep this area from becoming more congested and from allowing high-rise construction. Those past efforts would be undermined if the current hospital buildings were to be filled with tenants and owners, not to mention putting stores into the hospital and garage.

    (Continued)

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part 2:
    There are many other flaws with their concept.

    Their proposal calls for digging a parking level under both buildings. This is not "keeping these buildings intact". I lived in the Pierre when digging was done next door at 2120 Lincoln Park West, and despite that
    developer using a well-regarded contractor (Case), as you know the digging at 2120 caused extensive damage to the Pierre. If they are going to dig under the hospital building, they are putting the neighbors at risk of damage anyway. And, there is no need to dig under the garage, if there is no commercial use there.

    Using the hospital's receiving driveway and alley by our garage as a means to getting to the proposed indoor parking behind the hospital building is also a problem. The driveway and alley are not streets and cannot accommodate anywhere near the volume of cars contemplated. About 8 houses now use the alley and hospital receiving entrance and even now there are
    delays when two people enter or leave at the same time. Using the receiving area under their plans for entry to parking lots, delivery trucks, moving vans, and additional outside parking puts way too much activity and noise in
    this area. Also, we need access to several feet of their receiving area in order to enter and leave our garage.

    Having outside parking in the receiving driveway further burdens this area and would also cause snow removal problems in the winter in that there would be no place to pile up snow.

    No height should be added to any part of the hospital building (as discussed earlier, the entire building should be taken down). I think their "request" to add three stories to the tower was something they knew going in
    that you would never permit. At least I hope so. It was also unclear from their presentation whether they were planning to add height to the roof on the east and west sides of the hospital building on Webster. That
    roof is seven stories lower than the tower, but from their drawing, it appeared that the tower would extend over the lower roof to the east.
    Nothing was said about this at the presentation, but if it is their intent to extend the tower to the east and/or west, we need to know, as that too should be unacceptable.

    I would be happy to discuss any of these items with you further, and look forward to your thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You have seen some very upset neighbors in their reaction to the developer's plans for the redevelopment of the hospital site. I'd say 90% or more do not like what they have heard one bit. Further, they feel that aspects of the presentations have been very misleading.

    A very active movement is building against this project and a petition will most likely be submitted to you on this. I expect that a large number of signatures will be presented which oppose the whole concept that the developer is proposing because the implications for the Mid-North Historic District are much too negative.

    The problem is that the proposed project is so contrary to everything that is of interest to the neighbors and to Mid-North principles that there is little room for compromise. How can we come up with positive suggestions to something which is so bad to start with? Dave Chernoff said this very clearly and forcefully the other night. The problem is not the neighbors--the problem is a bad proposal which precludes useful discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. My husband and I moved to this neighborhood just a little over two years ago. We were previously living on Wells Street in Old Town. While we loved a lot of things about Wells, we wanted to moved to quieter neighborhood and avoid the congestion of condo complexes and retail in order to raise our family. I have a 22 month old daughter currently. I feel the current proposal is not in line with the current neighborhood and have detailed out some of my concerns:

    Traffic Congestion:
    I am concerned about the amount of traffic that will be caused by an additional 350+ cars (assuming 225 parking spaces and that over half of the residents have more than 1 car) that will be coming and going from these residences, This doesn’t even include the traffic from the proposed retail area. This past Friday evening I was traveling north on Larabee. I passed Dickens and came immediately to a long line of cars trying to get through the light at Larabee, Lincoln, and Webster. It took no less than 5 turns of the light for me to get through the light and turn right onto Webster. If it is taking me this long currently with the hospital not being in operation, I can’t even imagine what will happen with the addition of all of retail and residential cars.

    Children’s Safety:
    The item that truly concerns me most about the traffic is the safety of the children who live and go to school in the neighborhood. With Lincoln Park Elementary just down the street a large percentage of small children cross that intersection and walk down Geneva Terrace every day during the school year. Traffic congestion makes drivers do crazy things such as taking alley ways, flying down small one-way streets to avoid lights, and trying to beat yellow lights. These types of actions endanger our children. In addition to the small children at the elementary school there are also the teenagers that come over to Lincoln from the High School as well as the children playing in OZ Park. The pedestrian (mainly children) traffic must also be considered in this matter.

    Historic Aspect of the Neighborhood:
    Another thing that attracted us to this neighborhood versus others was the historic character of the area. One of the things that makes this neighborhood unique are all of the historic homes and their rich architecture. Have 3 large condo complexes in not staying within the character of the neighborhood. I know the Hospital didn’t stay within that character as well but when you have that rare opportunity to change it to something that is in character we should not let it pass us by without a fight.

    Construction Concerns:
    I am very fearful about the damage that could happen during construction to our property along with our neighbors’ properties in order to build an underground garage. I know that they are a reputable developer that will use a well regarded contractor but the amount of digging that is going to happen in order to build a 225 car garage under an existing high rise structure is going to be a huge undertaking. Given the historic nature of our homes a lot of our foundations are well over 100 years old. I foresee there will be issues with this.

    Height/Width:
    I am strongly opposed to increasing the height of any of the buildings. The buildings are only this high due to the current zoning and increasing it for residential will set a precedent for all future buildings in this area. Once that precedent is set it will be near impossible to go back and therefore eradicating what everyone has worked so diligently to avoid. The width on the tower must also not be increased. What little and I mean little sun we get is from the section on the east side of the building that is only 4 stories tall.

    Continued

    ReplyDelete
  18. Part Two:

    Building Mass:
    I was happy about the overall reduction of building mass initially but want to point out that the plans are a little misleading about the green space in the center of the 3 buildings. I asked the architect after the last meeting what the green space in the center of the 3 buildings was going to be used for and he mentioned that it is probably going to be a parking garage with a green roof. Therefore, what looked like a reduction in mass is misleading.

    Retail:
    While I’m not completely opposed to some retail it needs to be limited. I know it will start out with high standards but my concern is what happens if those retailers pull out and it opens itself up to additional bars, fast food restaurants, or low end retail. I was just reading an article in the Tribune last week that you were quoted in that talked about all of the open retail space on Halsted and Armitage. Why do we think they would choose this space when there are so many open spaces already? Furthermore, I think foot traffic retail is preferable to car oriented retail unless there is a requirement to offer validated parking on the top floor of the garage. Also, retail vehicle traffic is much higher than residential and that is again a danger to the children in the neighborhood.

    My Preference:
    My preference would be a downsized residential use perhaps with one condo building and the rest town homes or single family homes. Even in this economy, two of the newer town homes at the end of Grant have both recently sold. This leads me to think there is a market for these types of homes, especially with a great Elementary School nearby.

    As a business person I know this space will be used for something. I’m just looking for a compromise that meets their needs to make a profit but takes into consideration the needs and quality of life of the neighbors, the safety of our children, and the historic character of our neighborhood.

    I want to thank you in advance for your help on this matter. Let me know if I can provide you any additional information or clarification. I look forward to seeing you this evening.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The main problems with the current plan are:

    1. Increase in height. This is a residential area and any building should never be over 5 storys. If hospital use is abandoned, a demolition and building of single family homes and low rise condos in the historic styles of architecture of the neighborhood (a historic district) seems to be the best option. We do not need any more high rises in Lincoln Park. There is no need to become the Gold Coast.

    2. The current retail in this area is already half shut down due to the weak economy adding retail to this development would not only ruin the character of the Mid-North neighborhood, but put even more small businesses out possible even the proposed retail. Augustana needs to be used as a model and not more high rises in a historic low rise neighborhood area!

    ReplyDelete
  20. We need a low-rise development of single family homes and low-rise condo buildings like the Augustana Hospital development and not a 15 story high-rise in the middle of an area with the max height of 6 storys for the other buildings. It would stick out like a sore thumb and set a terrible precedent for the area. Also the retail is unnecessary to the project. The hospital must be torn down to accommodate a suitable development that fits in with the historic character of the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  21. As a neighbor, I would like to thank my fellow residents for their thoughtful comments. Especially well stated is the two-part posting by "m.m." of Grant Pl.

    Alderman Daley, I request that you clearly state your position regarding the current proposal during the January 12th meeting. By "clearly," I request that you state that you either favor it or you oppose it - as currently proposed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The community meeting is tonight

    ReplyDelete
  23. I am NOT in favor of the development of Lincoln Park Hospital, and MidNorth Assoc. board is not speaking for me, although I am a member.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Since there is no topic for LP Hosp. I have chosen this one. I am NOT in favor of the development of Lincoln Park Hospital, and MidNorth Assoc. board is not speaking for me, although I am a member. PLEASE respond that you have received this.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As you may remember, I live on the 2100 block of N. Lincoln Avenue, just across and down the street from Lincoln Park Hospital. Due to a prior commitment I will not be able to attend the meeting on January 12, 2010, at Lincoln Park High School where the Lincoln Park Hospital redevelopment plan will be discussed. However, I want you to know that I oppose the redevelopment plan because it adds retail space/operations in blocks on Lincoln and Webster which currently have no retail. I also oppose the plan because it will increase the size/density of the hospital buildings and the height of the parking garage.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I just wanted to say thank you. I feel that you distilled the community's reaction to the project and relayed it to the developer. I'm sorry I raised my voice at the end but Ted was spoke out of turn and was starting to make a mockery of the process.

    I'm looking forward to working together with you, Chuck and the rest of your staff in the future.

    Josh

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you for organizing and hosting tonight's community meeting
    regarding the proposals for the LP Hospital site.

    I oppose the current proposals for the Lincoln Park Hosp. site
    re-development as presented tonight. I recognize the current empty
    buildings and parking
    structure are a deteriorating eyesore and that the site must be
    re-developed, but I am strongly opposed to the retail uses proposed by
    the developer which are completely inappropriate for the current
    character of the neighborhood. Additional auto traffic and delivery
    trucks associated with the retail uses will add to the congestion we
    already experience on Geneva Ter., Webster Ave., Larrabee St. and
    Lincoln Ave. Moreover, the retail frontage will add to urban/commercial
    visual
    clutter on these streets. The planters proposed by the developer will
    not create significant "green space" that will mitigate this clutter.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Thank you for sponsoring the community meeting this evening at Lincoln Park High School. I found it to be very informative & helpful. I attended the meeting to learn about the proposed project, as I had not kept up with the work till now.

    I think the proposed project is well thought-out and would be a significant enhancement to the neighborhood for the following reasons:

    1. It would put the property back on the tax rolls.
    2. Its mixed use fits the neighborhood & the character of urban life.
    3. Its retail space (drug store & grocery) is an amenity important to local residents who walk.
    4. Its use of green space & application for LEED certification fits the ecology-mindedness of the community.
    5. The design is attractive & will enhance the neighborhood.

    The objections relating to reducing the height of the existing buildings are not realistic, as there is no requirement to do so even if zoning is changed. Also, the objections to retail for the project is contrary to what most expect for an urban environment, namely, the ability to walk to stores.

    I support the proposed development and hope you will do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I am in full support of the proposal that will be presented tonight at Lincoln Park High School. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. We are encouraging you to support the redevelopment project of Lincoln Park Hospital. We feel this will be a significant benefit to the community and the city. Thank you for looking out for us.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I have reviewed the proposal for the redevelopment of the Lincoln Park Hospital site, and in my view the proposed redevelopment would be a good addition to the community, and I support it and urge you to do so as well.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I write this email to support the re-development of the Lincoln Park Hospital, as proposed by the development team of Mr. Supera and Mr. Zisook. As you know, these gentlemen have been very integral to many successful developments in our community (I have personally lived in 2 developments in which they were a part), and they have shown the ability to tastefully improve our neighborhoods. The hospital is clearly in need of significant work and I feel it is unlikely in this economy to generate the economic support needed to revitalize in its current use. For all of these reasons, I believe that this development will signficantly improve our neighborhood, generate jobs and tax revenue and otherwise ensure the future viability and success of the northside of Chicago.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I regret that I will be unable to attend this evening's community meeting, but wish to express my wholehearted support of the brilliant proposal to renovate the site of the former LPHospital. I know they will manage the project professionally and provide a much needed improvement that we will all be proud to see.

    ReplyDelete
  34. JD and PD 2000 HoweJanuary 13, 2010 at 8:44 AM

    I can't attend the public meeting tonight at LPHS regarding redevelopment of the Lincoln Park Hospital site due to a prior commitment. However, we are opposed to adding large retail locations, such as a Dominick's and Walgreens essentially across from Oz Park. We believe that the proposed development plan would negatively affect the neighborhood environment, traffic congestion, rat population (from a grocery store!) and overall attractiveness of our community.
    If residential units are built on the site, adequate parking should be provided for residents and potential guests to those residents. Reducing the number of parking spots in the current garage makes no sense.
    The current plans have the potential to turn the corner of Lincoln, Larrabee, Geneva Terrace and Webster into Clark, Halsted and Briar - large concrete structures with no neighborhood character.
    Please protect the historical nature of the Lincoln Park neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I attended the forum on Lincoln Park hospital last night. I had no opinion prior to the meeting and I am not against development; I understand that it will have to occur. But I am against the current plan and believe any plan must be coordinated with the development that will occur with Children's Hospital. I am also not against retail, but the types of stores cited -- Walgreen's and a large supermarket -- are absurd. This is a neighborhood of small businesses and that should be respected. We need a better design.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I support the effort to redevelop the site.

    For those asking for additional parking at the site, this is a great mistake. Strong urban development requires an effort to push pedestrian interests to the front, not automobiles. If the neighborhood is indeed congested with autos, and some are suggesting, this will work to encourage alternative transportation methods, such as the CTA buses, trains, or when possible, walking.

    In fact, LEED (leadership in Environmental Education and Design) certification actually rewards projects that provide the minimum number of parking spaces that are required by code, for this very reason. If you add additional parking spaces to the site, or even although the current spots to remain, you are encouraging more cars to be on our streets, not reducing the problem.

    In additional, living urban, among other things, means living with increased density and living with diversity. This is not just diversity of people, but also diversity of functions. It is healthy to have corner stores, local restaurants, convenience stores, etc. No one is suggesting that an absurd industrial use for the site would be appropriate, but time and time again it has been proven that neighborhoods thrive when they possess a multitude of different users, extreme homogeneity should not be the goal.

    Retail and commercial interests when allowed to develop, can be a boon for the community, not a blight. Retail in this location is appropriate, especially if the retail does have it's own parking, which again, encourages alternative transportation methods.

    Reuse of the existing structure is environmentally friendly and economically viable. It is unreasonable to expect that the site will be raised and converted solely to single family homes or a similar scheme. As such, we must look forward to the conditions that actually exist, not simply stick our heads in the sand and stubbornly vote no on any form of developement that comes our way.

    Vi, please do not rubber stamp approve the entire project, perhaps changes and/or different retailers could be courted that meet the communities needs better, but please do continue to work on satisfying the various, sometimes conflicting interests involved.

    ReplyDelete
  37. If the Mid-North Association neighborhood does not want the poor plan for high rise condos, loads of retail in a residential area and halfing the parking spaces in the garage maybe the developers should consider selling the property to a developer that listens to the community. A 12 story condo building and tons of retail in an area of three and four story buildings is not a good plan for the citizens of Mid-North.

    ReplyDelete