Someone on our Facebook page submitted this link regarding a proposed development for the site where the empty Edgewater Medical Building sits: www.theresidencesatedgewaterpark.com/the-vision.This aggressive plan consists of a large condo building, single family homes, retail space, and a park. We are not sure if this is an old or new plan, but found it interesting.
34 comments:
The site plans on the website list an 01-07-2011 date on them, so it would seem to me that the proposal is quite new.
I think this proposal makes a lot more sense than to turn the entire Edgewater Medical Center property into a park.
Off the bat though, I can see a few issues that will probably upset the site's residential neighbors: the significantly smaller footprint of the proposed park, the height of the condo building, and retail delivery truck & customer traffic on W. Edgewater Avenue and W. Hollywood.
If this development is lucky enough to get off the ground, I predict there will be 1 floor shaved off the top of the condo building and 1-2 houses axed to increase the size of the park to appease the residential neighbors.
This seems promising, as the debate over the site has sometimes been between whether to use it as a park or to develop it. Looks like a decent compromise. Public park space there will be a big help, as the area is dense and with lots of traffic.
I like it. It would be good for the community to have something that high-profile being built. Big empty buildings are dangerous and an eye-sour. Two big thumbs up!!!
Wow! Four comments so far & not one of them mentioned Whole Foods or Trader Joe's! Sorry, I realize that does not add to the discussion, but I simply could not resist pointing it out.
The density of this project in terms of potential residents is truly disturbing particularly in light of the fact that this is an area zoned SINGLE FAMILY HOME. Therefore it would require significant zoning easements to achieve this. It may broaden the tax base but it will most certainly send home values down.
I strongly support a park on the site, but am not 100% against a development so long as it's done responsibly.
In my opinion, this proposal is not responsible, given how out of scale it is with the neighborhood it will be built in. 295 units is just too many for this quiet residential area, and I worry that the grocery store will only add to the traffic nightmare for the folks who live on Edgewater and Hollywood.
I would consider supporting this plan if the mixed use building were smaller and the park larger, but in its current form I don't think this is a good plan for the neighborhood.
Right on, Robert. We didn't move here for skyscraper condo buildings and huge traffic congestion. Our little houses will be over run :(
I don't think that the space needs to be 100% park space but that condo building is way too large. We don't need a condo building that big in the neighborhood nor the congestion that would come with it. I like the idea of some retail there but how likely is that to succeed? There's retail space on Bryn Mawr between Clark and Ashland and most of that is empty. And I doubt the Subway is attracting new people to the neighborhood. Some more single family homes and a much larger park than the developer's plan now designates would be a good compromise. Maybe the developer would donate part of the land back to the city to be used for a park and keep part of it for single family homes. Then the TIF dollars could be used to develop the park. As it is now, the land isn't zoned for a building that big and I hope the alderman doesn't try to push that through.
Welcome to Edgewater "Where good ideas go to die."
Oh the angst over density. Oh the perils of being out of scale. Why even bother?
How many good developments get watered down to nothing because the neighbors fear losing what they have?
Case in point, the old Piser funeral home at Foster and Broadway. Neighbors fought against it because OMG it was going to be a six story "tower". Caused the entire west side of Broadway to be downzoned. As a result, the project died and we have... nothing but a boarded up funeral home six years later.
I hope this development goes through, provided it doesn't require TIF money.
Given the glut of unsold "luxury" condos in more desirable locations, I don't see how they figure these are going to sell. I can't imagine any bank backing this in given the current state of the economy. I also see they're busking for TIF money for part of the project.
This option may dazzle some but for home owners it has many disadvantages, from financial to quality of life. I say be very careful before you back something that may look good on the surface but will potentially create a major transformation to our fairly serene neighborhood. If you really want the kind of action this project promises, you might be better of in Lakeview.
This makes all the sense in the world. Neighbors by there should be THRILLED anyone is wanting to fix their problem. Neighbors complaining about a big building with retail and homes in it should remember it was either a big vacant building or a hospital when they moved in... A condo building and stores is 1000's of times better than that. Its like people who complain about Wrigley Field in Wrigleyville.
Just what the area needs, high density housing built with TIF funds, which means some subsidized housing component. We don't need any more affordable housing units, I'm tired of seeing my tax money spent to give someone a free ride. Let the building rot and collapse on itself before this is constructed.
What about this proposal is better than a neighborhood park on the entire site?
I think many people here are painting a black and white picture: either we have the eyesore of the EMC or we accept this proposal. But I ask these people: Should we not shape this into something more viable to our needs as a community? Is it really complaining to have a role in this process? I think not. There are many shades of grey between black and white. Our voice is needed in this process. The TIF funds that we have paid into also entitle us to have a voice. That's one of the benefits of living in a democracy. To characterize this as complaining is misguided.
Andrew Strand, said "What about this proposal is better than a neighborhood park on the entire site?"
Not only does the local TIF district not have enough money to cover the costs of acquisition & demolition of the property and construction of the park, but there's really no tax $$$ available to pay for its maintenace.
With some modifications, I really do think this is a much better proposal.
A major condo development is just not going to happen right now in this economy.]
here are too many housing bubble dinosaurs sitting empty now (Granville and Broadway, Berwyn and Broadway), no competent investor is going to sink money into building another one.
A park would be much better choice.
All the protests against the condo & retail proposal for this site have constantly made me ask myself, "Do these folks realize that they're living in what is basically a former 'live-work' district?"
A ton more people used to live in the ar...ea, and the houses and two-flats used to house people who walked to jobs at the hospital and the many small manufacturers and light industries along Ravenswood Blvd.
Just something to consider when you or someone you know says the condos and retail are "out of character/proportion" for the neighborhood.
At the present time it's important to realize that this proposal doesn't represent any actual developer. Rather, the primary creditor of the bankrupt hospital, Dexia Credit Local, a French bank, is attempting to maximize their return on what was a very bad investment on their part. They have hired Waveland Partners to create and market a development plan that, upon City approval (which would necessitate a zoning change from the current R3), they HOPE to sell to investors who would finance the project. I agree with Clarence that at the present time no one is going to line up to finance this project; regardless, we should not approve this in its present form.
Eventually something will be done with the site but we should start with a more palatable plan. I realize that there are those who think that any development of EMC is good but I find this to be short-sighted and rather offensive to those of us who have been active in the community and who have made our lives and homes here. Collaboration is essential - with all relevant parties represented. The idea that Waveland partners blanketed the neighborhood with a PR piece and a website before any meeting with local organizations does not reflect well on their stated intention to involve all stakeholders.
A little background on Edgewater Medical Center for those who might not know: Dexia underwrote $55 million in bonds back in the 1990's apparently without understanding just how EMC was making money. As a result the operators of EMC, led by fugitive Peter Rogan, perpetuated the Medicare and Medicaid fraud that eventually led to EMC's bankruptcy in 2001. Now the taxpayers will once again stand to pick up the tab when the TIF funds are used to raze and prepare the site for development. It's also relevant that the site presently has a NEGATIVE real estate value of about -$1,000,000. per an appraisal obtained by the City last year. This reflects the present value of the site minus the cost of tearing down the buildings, none of which are deemed salvageable.
While the proposed development may look better than a collection of derelict buildings, as taxpayers and local residents we can and must demand better. We must not subsidize the investment of a foreign bank so that they can put up high-rises in what is primarily a single-family and small multi-unit residential neighborhood. I agree with Robert Grillo - what we need is a reasonable development that addresses the community's needs yet is sensitive to its character. What I see so far is an exploitative plan designed chiefly to mitigate loss to Dexia on the backs of the taxpayers and local residents.
All right park lovers. The Alderman is organizing too. He's lined up a developer and a plan, threw you a bone of "small park" and got the Park Superintendent to tell you it will cost $25 mil to get a park. The thing he doesn't have is real investors. The development company is only going to take the TIF funds and tear down the Hospital and sell it to Who? Get for the Alderman's famous gun to your head take it or leave it speech. And don't forget about all those gangsters who'll be playing basketball across the street if you get a park. Tell us this why do the TIF funds belong to the developer? OK lets just take the TIF funds and build a park on the site of the parking structure and let the developer find the funds to tear down the rest.
Thanks Jeff Pavia, Robert Grillo, and Andrew Strand, and the rest of you it is a pleasure to meet you.
Those of you calling for a development or to paraphrase, anything is better than an old decrepit hospital, please identify who you are and where you live. I am Chris Swan and I live in the green house on Hollywood (been here for 15 years). It would be good to know who is actually in the same boat with us and who isn’t.
Jeff did a very nice job of expressing the history of the site and generally why the type of proposal described by the flyer and website from Waveland Partners does not fit with our community. Further anything like this would set a bad precedent of retail on the west side of Ashland Avenue, not to mention ever increasing height and density developments. The way our neighborhood has been set up, “Andersonville” along Clark Street is where commercial stores belong and residences are for the west side of Ashland.
As far as the proposal being “New,” anyone with a few bucks can create a glossy flyer and website. They were talking about 13 or 14 stories just a few months ago, every floor they go up adds a $1 million to their value of the property, but every story brings more people and increasing demands for schools, police, fire, water, park district services, waste disposal. It should be noted that we already have 35 children per class at Pierce elementary, and I don’t think anyone can be satisfied with the education we are giving our local kids.
Such a proposal will also create a new TIF fund that will last for 23 years and drain money away from these public services, put money into the pockets of the developer and creditors, and reduce or limit the value of all the other properties in the community. Remember, the current true value of the property is less than zero. In a real free market with R3 zoning, the owners should walk away from the property for the current value plus the potential future value of the property minus site preparation costs, minus carrying costs, so maybe a few million dollars. Except that now we have a TIF that will subsidize the development.
The only interest the bankruptcy judge and the creditors have is to maximize the value of the property and to recover as much of their loss as possible. Any interest in our community beyond that is coincidental or Machiavellian. In other words with regards to the Waveland proposal, "Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts."
Some of the contributors to this blog fail to appreciate the value of public parks or the incredible park deficit our community currently faces. If we lived on the south side where there were some good parks but a lack of developments I would not be making the following argument. However, we have more than enough over development and not enough park space.
First, tax revenues to the city - there is $250,000,000 in property value within 500 feet of this site. A well run and maintained park will increase the value of the properties around this site by 5% as a minimum conservative estimate (Trust for Public Lands Study). Property values within 2,000 feet will also be positively affected, but are not factored into my calculations. This will mean the city will increase its annual tax revenues from the area by at least $125,000 and probably more. This is with no increase in expenses for schools, police, fire, water, park districts services or wasted disposal. Given the collapse of the housing market in Chicago this would provide a stabilizing force for home values.
Quality of life is the best argument for a park. Parks create places for people to congregate and commune. A community without space is a suburb, and in our case it is a suburb without yards. According to the City of Chicago's park plan, we are supposed to have 2 acres per 1,000 residents. We currently have .35 acres per 1,000 residents. Also the spaces that we do have, like Senn (B-Ball Courts), are both difficult to reach and inappropriate for the multicultural, diverse community that is the community from Peterson to Foster, Ravenswood to Glenwood.
Chicago is a city of neighborhoods. Neighborhoods without distinct features like hospitals, event locations like “Wrigley Field” and community parks (Portage Park, Lincoln Park, etc.), which give the neighborhoods unique character. The hospital, for better and worse, gave our neighborhood some character, but now that it is gone for good we need a park that will create distinct value for the next 100 years.
Some people think that parks are for children or dogs. But quite the opposite is true. Parks create a place where citizens of all ages can gather and learn about each other. They provide propinquity for people to build common knowledge that actually leads to friendships, social cohesion, and purpose. In very practical terms, I rarely see my neighbors except by accident walking down a sidewalk. We are all in such a hurry that most of us just say “hi” and “bye.” A really great park space is needed to create a destination for local residents to congregate and be nice to each other. Personally, I think this is something worth fighting for.
It should be noted that a hospital was created on this site 80 years ago to serve the needs of the Edgewater community. They tore down single family homes and gave a special dispensation to build a hospital that would serve the public good. They did not give a special dispensation for a condo or apartment complex. In 1929 there was no Lake Shore Drive and healthcare was not consolidated as it is today. A hospital is a place for economic activity and employment, but also for health, welfare and life saving. Our little neighborhood has sacrificed for 80 years to the betterment of the entire Edgewater Community.
You could certainly replace the hospital with single family homes, but this does not create the sort of return the creditors are hoping for. They don’t want just $3,000,000 for a piece of property that is worth less than zero, they want to net $10,000,000 by building a $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 development, a development that will destroy any hope of creating distinct value, and will erode the quality of life for the residents in our community. Single family homes while acceptable to the community would miss this historic opportunity to create distinct value for our community.
So when I ask, who are you folks? What I really mean is have you thought about the implications of increasing the density of our community by 20% (with this proposal), or the quality of our community that will remain here in 10 years, 20 years, or more when the newness of the buildings fade and condos become rentals.
The other frustrating part of this discussion is money. Money to create a positive community space is available, but it is not a simple matter of raising your hand and asking. It is a matter of priorities, vision, and focus. Money flows to the squeaky wheels and the citizens willing to organize and demand more from their political leaders. Loraine Swanson (columnist and editor) said to me at the Memorial Day parade last year, “All in all, Alderman O’Connor has been a pretty good alderman hasn’t he?” Well, I am not satisfied with “Pretty good.” I want a fighter. Someone who will take up the aspirations of our community and fight for the paltry few million dollars it would take to improve our community and create a once in a lifetime park.
As far as maintenance and operating costs, our community maintains one of the most beautiful community gardens in the city just east of the railroad tracks along Ravenswood. If we can get a park we will raise the funds and gather the manpower to maintain it, Here again, we are already paying for the parks in other communities and we should demand similar services from our political leaders.
Chicago is a city of neighborhoods. Neighborhoods without distinct features have no unique character or value. The hospital, for better and worse, gave our neighborhood some character, but it is gone forever. Without our neighborhood standing up and demanding more from our community leaders, then we will lose any hope of creating a community or neighborhood with distinct value.
FYI when a 12 story "tower" was destroyed, a Booth Allen triangular structure with condos on top and four single families on bottom, it was because of "community input" that was based on out of control personal agendas and candidates vieing for running for alderman. the people who destroyed the design and made it into a boring square box with no single families, then privately, w/o even telling their own supporters, it is told called up the alderman and a development group and said that they wanted the old design back. what a time waster that was...
According to the City of Chicago's park plan, we are supposed to have 2 acres per 1,000 residents. We currently have .35 acres per 1,000 residents.
Chicago pop. 3,000,000/1000 x 2 = 6000 acres. 6000 acres = 9.37 sq. miles. So by your reasoning we should have one giant park between here and downtown.
I don;t know if this is a solid plan or not. I believe these developments need to be financed on their merits alone and not with government subsidies like TIFs.
I do not believe my tax dollrs need to be spent increasing the values of these homeowners properties by building them a park.
Also the spaces that we do have, like Senn (B-Ball Courts), are both difficult to reach and inappropriate for the multicultural, diverse community that is the community from Peterson to Foster, Ravenswood to Glenwood.
Lastly, what inappropriate about bball courts? Sounds like someone here is a tinsy little scared that bball playing crowd is a little too diverse for their tastes.
Toto, again, who are you? Personally, I really couldn't care less about B-Ball courts one way or the other, but the park district manages such things so that if you have basketball courts at Senn you will probably not have them at another nearby park. However, the people who get the most value from B-Ball courts and a soccer field are generally not the same people who will get value from a park like 542 at Sagamon and Adams in the WEST Loop area.
See what people say about that park on Yelp.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/adams-sangamon-park---park-542-chicago
Toto, again, who are you?
I have no problem with B-Ball playing, but the park district manages such things and they would not likely put a basketball court near where the EMC is. I think your math is a bit screwy. The city is approximately 234 Square miles, so 9 square miles of park space doesn't really seem like that much does it.
This all has to do with the quality of our communities and our environment. If we have a park in West Edgewater it will serve the entire north side the way the new park at Adams and Sagamon does for the west loop. See what people on Yelp say about that park.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/adams-sangamon-park---park-542-chicago
Chris
Converting the entire Edgewater Medical Center property into a park would add almost 3 acres of park land to but is it absolutely necessary to use all 3 of those acres?
Why must it be "all or nothing"?
Who is going to pay for site acquisition, building demolition, park design, park construction, park maintenance, park programming, park liability insurance, etc.?
I'm not saying we should not build a park, but let's at least find a more realistic and practical solution.
When looking at Edgewater in its entirety, it is approximately 1.77 sq miles and contains more than 98 acres of parkland (including parks, playlots, beaches and campus parks at local schools).
"Swan's Community," as I will term it since Mr. Swan set its boundaries, is approximately 0.5 sq miles and contains slightly more than 8 acres of parkland.
(For maps and land area measurements please see: http://tinyurl.com/EdgewaterMaps)
Are those acres spread out evenly across the Swan's Community? No, but they rarely are evenly spread in mature urban areas.
Is Swan's Community the densest in Edgewater? No, Edgewater's most dense population is located east of Broadway along the lakefront.
It is very true that the most distant corner of Swan's Community (the southwest at Ravenswood & Foster) is over 1/2 mile from the closest park in Edgewater, the Peirce School Campus Park, which is roughly 1 acre in size.
However, that same distant corner is no more than a 3 block stroll from Bowmanville's 37 acre Winnemac Park.
The TIF district that the property is in does not contain anywhere enough funds to cover the expenses mentioned above.
Also, Mr. Swan says that "we will raise funds" to maintain the park.
Mr. Swan, since you continually prompt people to say who they are and where they live (a clear implication that you believe that people who do reside within the Peterson-Foster-Ravenswood-Glenwood rectangle you mentioned should pipe down).
I ask you, who is "we"?
Why should someone living at Granville and Clark or Sheridan and Berwyn pay higher property taxes just so you can live across the street from a 3 acre park?
Why not have the "all or nothing" people put their tax $$$ where their mouths are if they want the entire EMC site turned into a park.
Have the city create an SSA-type district that will levy a special tax assessment on only those people who live within Mr. Swan's designated area.
Does that sound ridiculous and unrealistic? Of course it does...and so does a 3 acre park.
I think a more realistic and taxpayer friendly compromise would be to downsize the Waveland Partners proposal and develop the property bounded by the Hollywood-Edgewater-Ashland-the-alley into a mixed-use site, build single family homes along the Hollywood Avenue frontage and convert the remaining Edgewater Avenue strip into a park.
Hi @QRBTST, I don't think Chris is trying to get people to "pipe down".
What I think Chris Swan was trying to say when he asks "Who are you?" is are you a developer, real estate agent for Dream Town, someone else with a financial interest in this discussion, a resident of WEAR, a resident of Edgewater etc.
Do you live in the area?
BTW, I live in the WEAR community and do not work for any real estate broker or financial institution or developer that has anything to do with the EMC property. :-)
Hi @QRBTST, I don't think Chris is trying to get people to "pipe down".
What I think Chris Swan was trying to say when he asks "Who are you?" is are you a developer, real estate agent for Dream Town, someone else with a financial interest in this discussion, a resident of WEAR, a resident of Edgewater etc.
Do you live in the area?
BTW, I live in the WEAR community and do not work for any real estate broker or financial institution or developer that has anything to do with the EMC property. :-)
Toto sez in response to Swan:
I have never been affiliated with a developer or worked in the real estate industry. But I have been involved in Edgewater community meetings over development issues. I am a taxpayer. I do occasionally pop up in community planning meetings because I am an interested neighbor.
As someone who has seen good plans in Edgewater go awry because of a "community process" that oftentimes results in less than satisfactory results, I pop up with opinions that are not always liked by others, but they are my opinion, so take it for what it’s worth.
I found your math on park acreage faulty. I found your comments about Senn Park’s bball and diverse ethnicity strange. (Inappropriate by whose standards?) I find comments against density absolutely hilarious. Some of the best areas of this city are the densest areas. They have a vibrant feel and attract vibrant people. Example: Old Town has a nice mix of old and new buildings. Shops, restaurants, clubs, etc. Single family homes and mid-rise buildings. While our current real estate woes will eventually wind down, now is the time to plan ahead.
Edgewater should be more dense. We have the public transportation to support a dense community. We should loosen up on our liquor licensing and attract clubs or maybe a “brew pub.” With all this density, how come we can’t get a movie theatre?
We’ve made Edgewater into a desert where quality developers won’t come near because of all the community process bu**sh*t so only second rate developers come in with underfinanced shoddy plans that end up going belly up.
I kind of liken people who are flat out against development are like the folks who put chairs out on the street to protect the parking space after a snowstorm. They think they’ve got dibs. Rather than plan for an exciting future in a community looking for growth, some people want to pull the covers over themselves and keep Edgewater as a sleepy little community all their own.
As a taxpayer, I don’t want to finance your three acre park. As a taxpayer I don’t see the need to spend TIF money on such a development either.
Who am I? I a me!!!!
http://persquaremile.com/2011/01/27/parkland-per-person-in-the-united-states/
Chicago wants to be the greenest city in America, yet we are at the bottom of the park space per person scale.
A park at the EMC site will benefit the entire city. A 2.84 acre site will just start to help balance the scales. The park district does not want to manage parks less than 2 acres, so there is not much land to use for development.
Investments in park infrastructure last forever. The value to the community last forever. Thank you Daniel Burnham for your vision. What is our generation going to do to make Chicago a better place?
Post a Comment