According to Commercial Property News:Mid-America Closes Sale with Target at Wilson Yard Redevelopment in Chicago
Oct 28, 2008
Oct 28, 2008
Mid-America Asset Management Inc. announced that Target closed on the sale of 132,000 square feet at the Wilson Yard mixed-use redevelopment that is under construction in Uptown Chicago. The retailer plans to open in fall 2010 along with 20,000 square feet ofspecialty retail. Mid-America represented the seller, Chicago-based Holsten Real Estate Development Corp., which is the lead developer of the five-acre project. Gershman Brown Crowley Inc. represented Target, which purchased the site for an undisclosed amount. The $150 million Wilson Yard development is situated on the site of a former Chicago Transit Authority Rail Yard that was an operation and maintenance facility for the railroad system.
Real estate sales are a matter of public record. If it actually did occur the information would be available from the Cook County Recorder of Deeds at some point in the near future.
ReplyDeleteI for one welcome our new Minneapolis based overlords and would like to welcome them to Uptown.
Sit back guys and watch the litigation fly.
David Roeder, of the Sun Times, comments on the most recent development in the development.........so to speak.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the Target that concerns me.
ReplyDeleteThe Sun-Times article says:
ReplyDelete"They will be rented at below-market rates but are not public housing, as some have described it."
I thought we heard last week that there would be a purchase option for renters? No mention of that in this article.
Now is the time for local residents to receive written documentation of the plan for WY. It sounds to me that these reporters are just getting 'off the record' comments that they are incorporating into their articles and they are not verifying the statements with the written documentation that exists on this project. Anyone can collect quotes and present them at face value.
None of these current reports is quoting any sources about the housing issue.
ReplyDeleteHolsten has declared in disclosure reports that there will be regulated housing, yet these article say that's true, but not 'public housing'?
What is the source for that?
The Sun Times and Commercial Real Esate News aren't quoting any authoritative source for this information.
I expect more from the Sun-Times. CREN is an industry publication that rarely second source anything.
Times like these I like to look to the Clash for inspiration...
ReplyDelete"It's always tease, tease, tease
You're happy when I'm on my knees
One day is fine, the next is black
So if you want me off your back
Well come on and let me know
Should I Stay or should I go"
I believe there's some hair splitting in play here. The housing portion isn't going to be owned by a public entity (the public's merely paying for it).
ReplyDeleteThe entrance to the Target will actually be on the second floor, not as shown in the concept drawing.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I am glad that Target is coming but I am more concerned that this lawsuit get filed quickly and the low, extremely low, and very low income housing plans get thwarted. who wants to live next to the train tracks anyhow? This neighborhood has way too much low income housing.
ReplyDeleteHeh heh. A bunch of us evil yuppie (guppie) condo owners in Fascist Alley (aka Kenmore) live RIGHT by the tracks. : )
ReplyDeleteTarget in Wilson Yard - still lipstick on a pig:)
ReplyDeleteUU should have a picture of the Target dog taking a $#^! in WY.
ReplyDeleteWell I really do hope Target is coming and I doubly hope that the lawsuit doesn't interfere with its arrival.
ReplyDeleteI would think that an image-conscious operation like TARGET would survey the neighborhood to see if the consumers are there, and not blindly sign onto an urban renewal project. Starbucks may be pioneers...TARGET ain't! The high-profile lawsuit should prove to them that the residents care about the future of the neighborhood!
ReplyDeleteHas anyone ever thought Target is getting this property given to them or for such a good deal they can't pass it up?
ReplyDeleteAnd they will say they are coming then back out sometime in the future and sell the space for a profit to a real estate speculator or trust that will cut it up into smaller stores.
Just a thought!
I don't believe anything Shiller or Holstein or people that have made millions off them say so I won't believe Target is coming until the first day I shop there.
Roeder: "They will be rented at below-market rates but are not public housing ... "
ReplyDeleteok, they are not "public housing" in the sense of owned by a public agency, CHA-style; Holsten will be owner-operator
more accurate perhaps would be publicly-subsidized housing
I just saw on Channel 7 news that the target is a done deal.
ReplyDeleteWhat impact does this news have on the Wilson Yard litigation plans? I am excited about a Target (I admit, I love Target) and the prospects of other retailers such an anchor may bring to the community. Given that this is now being widely reported--and let's just assume that Target is a done deal--is the WY litigation still a good course of action?
ReplyDeleteAs someone who lived here when the biggest retail anchor was once Goldblatt's in its heyday, and then in it's slump, I am concerned that fighting this plan because of the low income housing component may be a bit short-sighted and driven more by fear and speculation than facts concerning the impact of 178 units on the overall community.
So I am very curious to know if the potential WY litigants have given any thought to this and the larger ramifications of going forward with a lawsuit to prevent any development as currently planned. Assume Target is coming, will the litigation do the neighborhood a disservice? What would be the goals of the litigation? I ask this as someone very familiar with litigation and knowing that risks and benefits must be taken into consideration when considering these often long and costly battles. Litigation to further principles is fine, but what do you think will be the tangible improvement to Uptown if you proceed with the litigation?
When urban planners say this present plan is a disaster in the making, I get nervous. When I also consider what was promised in a drawing with a new Aldi's and what was delivered, I'm convinced that it's stupid to trust an habitual liar. I will be celebrating when a lawsuit is filed.
ReplyDeleteJust because the new Aldi didn't look exactly like the drawings doesn't make someone a liar, IMO. I like the new store. No, it does not look exactly the way it was pictured, but it's a positive development, a good store and it's not unusual for plans to change.
ReplyDeleteBut reading up on the debate, I am still a bit skeptical as to how 2 ten-story buildings, part dedicated to giving seniors housing, will ghettoize Uptown. Look, I have said before that some middle of the road housing might have been better (not high priced condo or low income, but reasonably priced market rate), but to what extent is some compromise a necessary component of an undertaking like this?
I guess I just am not seeing how in the big picture, 178 units harms Uptown if we (taking the Target development as true), obtain an anchor store that can not only bring in jobs in itself, but perhaps spark an interest in even greater retail development. I guarantee, people will find a Target and come to it. With condo development, retail and restaurant development has slowly trickled in--I think a Target will open the gates that much wider. I tell you, having been here all my life, this is a very hopeful and positive development, and I need to see something concrete that going to convince me that the cons outweigh the pros other than fearful speculation about low-income housing and exaggerated comparison of 178 units to Cabrini Green. I mean, if the proof is there that the 178 units spells disaster, then I really want to see it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNeighborlady, this has been hashed about many times before. If you think it's a good idea, don't contribute to Fix Wilson Yard. If you can find an independent urban planner who agrees with your thinking, then I'm all ears. I would love to hear from an urban planner who thinks it was a good idea to place the main entrance of Aldi's in the back of the store.
ReplyDeleteI have no idea what other trick Helen has up her sleeves, but she has pulled some doozies recently (Can you say Labor Ready?) I'm not going to let her get by with screwing up Uptown more if I can stop it. That's why I've already given very generously to Fix Wilson Yard. Experts in urban planning have said this plan is a disaster in the making.
HM, how does 178 units "screw up" Uptown given the potential benefits of an anchor major retailer that will bring jobs as well as foot and car retail traffic? That is what I am asking--do the cons outweigh the pros making it still reasonable to sue to stop the development over 178 units.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the new Aldi entrance location actually discourages some of the loitering and panhandling/bartering (carry your bags, etc.), that used to occur all the time when the entrance was on the front. So from a neighborhood resident standpoint, I see the logic of that re-location. I thought the entrance was odd at first, but I don't feel it detracts from the appeal of the store.
Since you are not a strategist behind the WY litigation (though clearly a supporter), it would be interesting to hear from someone who is, to the extent they feel comfortable talking about it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGosh, maybe all the stores should follow neighborlady's suggestion and close up the front of their store and have shoppers go around to the back. I never realized that would stop all the loitering and panhandling.
ReplyDeletePeople, final developments NEVER look like the conceptual drawings they begin as. These 'plans' are usually an artist's impression (i.e. not drawn by the project Architect). They are used to convey concept alone and usually as a promotional posted board or during initial planning meetings. I understand that people are upset with the new Aldi but did anybody stop to consider the logistics of placing the main entrance in front? People would have to walk from the parking lot, around the store, often with carts which may require a larger sidewalk and therefore less store sq. footage. There could be a train of grocery carts wrapping around the building (which is silly when you picture it). Also, Aldi was intended to be a portion of a bigger development. The new traffic light at Broadway and Sunnyside is a sign that the entrance to Aldi will become the major entrance/exit to WY therefore flipping the 'front' of Aldi from Broadway to an almost courtyard style development between the CTA and Broadway. I bet you Target won't have its main entrance on Broadway either. The glass front that everyone so hopes to see may not line Broadway but for a small portion of the property. With two major retailers the only space left for traditional storefronts is below the apartments. THAT is the Chi standard and if we don't get residential above retail, we're getting screwed...
ReplyDeleteUptownunity-
ReplyDeletePlease present even a single reputable planner to back up your very aplogetic rationalization. Both figuratively and literally you seem to think it's a good idea for developments to "turn their backs" to the community.
RE the spelling errors...
ReplyDeleteI never claimed to be a typist.
And by-the-bye have you never been to a store with more than one entrance? I think the real reason was that ALDI realized that by putting the entrance in back they could reduced shoplifting. I don't know the reasons but I recongnize lipstick on a pig which is what your post was.
I realize this is a planned development and therefore exempt from zoning guidelines that require the main entrance to face the sidewalk and large windows facing the street.
ReplyDeleteHow does this current plan promote foot traffic? What's the reason again for no windows in the front? I'm just wondering because I don't see this in Lakeview, Edgewater, or Lincoln Square. Maybe it's because this is Uptown where standards are suppose to be kept low. Afterall, poor people don't deserve good standards, right Helen?
Bradley, please don't put words in my mouth (post). I never commended Aldi on a 'job well done.'
ReplyDeletePeople most often comment on what they see and fail to think critically before passing judgment. I have read numerous threads about Aldi being backwards and the simple fact is: WY ISN'T BUILT YET and therefore it's difficult to accurately evaluate the setup when the development isn't finished. It's similar to grading an incomplete paper, failing the student and then arguing your position thereafter.
How many grocery stores have you been in which offer entrances on opposite facades? Yes, they have more than one DOOR, duh, but the doors are always on one elevation because who would pay for to sets of check-out lanes, or allow paid shoppers to stroll back thru the store to leave out the 'back door?' Even Walgreens, don't they all appear similar? That's because of: marketing, security, standardization, profitability; it's called a corporate proforma.
Now just because I understand it don't automatically lump me into some group which you know a clever descriptive title or label me as careless towards the community. I would never call your intentions out based on a posting regarding the orientation of a grocery store, sheesh...
just wondering:
ReplyDeleteI would argue that Aldi, irregardless of its orientation, isn't the type of business for the intent of increasing foot traffic. I feel smaller retailers, boutiques, restaurants, coffee shops, entertainment venues are what really promote foot traffic.
As for the windows, who knows. I can think of several potential reasons for eliminating them: cost reduction, security, energy efficiency (or code); hell even maintenance, someone would have to clean the windows and if a development venture is cheap enough, it will cut costs wherever possible.
Home Depot on Halsted: inviting steetscape, parking and access above and behind the building. Walgreens (I think, maybe CVS) Broadway/Ridge: Prominant entrance in front with easy access from the sidewalk, alternate entrance in the rear where the parking is. Jewel on Broadway near Addison: Main entrance easy access from sidewalk parking/access above and behind (granted this isn't the best lay-out).
ReplyDeleteI'm not an expert but even I could have done better than the Holsten/Shiller attrocity.
And of course there are "reasons" for the final design being what it is. There are reasons prisons don't have a lot of windows and doors to the street.
ReplyDeleteuh, what?
ReplyDeleteUptownunity, waltz on over to Lincoln Square, Lakeview, Edgewater, and Southport Corridor and jot down a few notes about what you see with the stores. Look at these sites closely.
ReplyDeleteAfterwards, stand in front of Aldi's and see if you can come up with why the foot traffic is nil except for some panhandlers here and there. If you don't get it, ask a school-age kid to help you out.
Ask yourself, how many retail developments with safe, welcoming, pedestrian friendly streets are anchored by a massive subsidized housing project that covers the prime real estate corner?
ReplyDeleteTarget is not the archor, the housing is the dominant tenant.
so let me get this right (without belittling anyone-holy moley) if Aldi had an entrance in front, everything would be GREAT, pedestrian traffic would be rampant, panhandling would disappear and (to really bring home my sarcasm) WY would be a phenom!? I'm sorry but a few of you are looking at this WAY too simply. What some fail to accept is developments such as WY begin as one thing and become a slightly different reality, at best. Few if any developments hold dear to their beginnings (I should know I've been personally involved with some impressive ones). This IS HOW IT WORKS, take it or leave it. A push/pull system, an evolution who's major players are money, politics and (a distant third) municipal building code.
ReplyDeleteAnd before I get a volley of personal attacks, I donate to Fix Wilson Yard, I have attended fundraisers for the same, I have made effort to help this community with my own precious time and (this may be hard to hear Bradley) I DO CARE. I don't want to see 170 whatever low income rentals and I don't want Uptown taking a step backward. But to sit here and complain about the location of a F*%#ing entrances is no longer worth my time so I'm out.
You two can bitch about it to others who have lost the forest for the trees...
Few if any developments hold dear to their beginnings (I should know I've been personally involved with some impressive ones). This IS HOW IT WORKS, take it or leave it. A push/pull system, an evolution who's major players are money, politics and (a distant third) municipal building code.
ReplyDeleteUptownUnity, for the next development in which you are personally involved, please include a fourth "major player": the community. I think that's what was missing here and why so many people are upset. Thanks.
Just wanted to say the photo manipulation of the Target dog into Wilson Yard is excellent! Your site is always a treat for the eyes.
ReplyDeleteNo photo manipulation at all! The dog was THERE. We were just lucky enough to be there with cameras. ;-)
ReplyDeleteJustwondering, your sarcasm does nothing to address a valid question, which is, whether or not the litigation is a good move at this point. Uptownunity at least seems willing to think about this stuff a bit more critically and objectively (even though he does not necessarily agree with the whole WY plan) and offer some responses that encourage conversation. I care very much about the development of this community and idiotic, simplistic responses driven purely by a knee-jerk hatred of Shiller that don't address some real strategic issues with whatever plan of action is taken in betterment of Uptown don't help anybody.
ReplyDeleteMany commenters to this blog, IMO, don't want discourse. They want you to hate Shiller too and disagree with whatever she supports. Ok, fine, but I still ask, IF in fact there will be a Target, is it beneficial to halt and possibly tank the development over 178 units based on pure speculation of the "sort" of tenants that will be there. To say that two 10-story buildings will be the anchor that will over shadow Target sounds patently ridiculous and alarmist and frankly, it just makes you appear to be what you claim you're not: folks who just don't want more poor people here. In other words, you're going to make Shiller's case for why you should not be listened to.
Frankly, the moaning and groaning about the current location of the Aldi entrance is tiresome. It does not look exactly the same. Fine. Try arguing that as a reason to stop further development. It sounds silly and petty. The real issue is, what is the whole package of WY going to be? Will litigation promise a better result than we currently have? Can someone respond intelligently to that question?
NL, if the discussion is tiresome to you, may I suggest that you stop reading it? Because it's not going to stop because you've declared it trite.
ReplyDeleteIf no lawsuit is filed, nothing will change. I'm not content with that. I'm not going to roll over and play dead and accept whatever hare-brained schemes the alderman comes up with.
It's very possible that, even with the lawsuit, Shiller and Holsten's version of Wilson Yard will materialize. I'm playing the odds that if a lawsuit is filed, the game will change.
Caring Neighbor,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your kind suggestion re the petty discussions that abound regarding the Aldi entry. I'll try hard to ignore it whenever it inevitably comes up in at least one of these comments.
And thanks, too, for almost addressing my actual question about the whether or not the litigation still makes sense. Sort of. Except, how do you know the game will change? Or even, what is the likelihood that the game will change. To me, that's the million dollar question that no seems willing to address. From what I gather, if Target were coming and there were no 178 units, or if it was 178 units of market rate housing or condos, the WY plan would not stick so tightly in your collective craws, correct? So if the real bone of contention is the housing, and if there is a Target coming, I'm asking about weighing the pros and cons at this point. The game has changed a bit which might require, IMO, another look-see at the ultimate goals of the litigation. It seems odd to go through this only to concede that the exact same plan may go forward in the end.
And just another note, CN: Frankly, I am tired of people who have just as much time, energy and emotion invested in Uptown being brushed aside by people like yourself just because they don't adhere strictly to the program. Must. Hate. Shiller. I get it, CN, you hate Shiller. You and most of the commenters here hate her and don't trust her. BUT--emotion is not always the best driving force behind litigation. I'm asking about a lawsuit,CN, the pros and cons. The benefits and deficits. Can anyone actually respond to that real concern without some sort of flippant, sarcastic remark? Or is that asking a bit too much??