Southport’s Rise Sushi and Galleria Liquors could be replaced by a TOD

From Tom Tunney’s office, there has been a proposal for the Rise Sushi and Galleria Liquors location to build a new mixed-used Transit Oriented Development (TOD).  The proposal would include 30 apartments with ground-level retail next to the Southport “L” line.

Per the developer, “It is important to note that NONE of our residents will have the ability to secure a 383 Parking permit. Therefore, since this is a transit-oriented development, residents except for the 7 units that will have access to parking spaces will not own a car. This development will not cause residents to park within the neighborhood since they will not be able to secure the required parking permit.”

The Lakeview Chamber of Commerce agrees with building this development as it would help local businesses and the local economy (more people in a dense urban area = more local dollars being spent). You can read more about the benefits of TODs here.

A meeting with the developers will take place at Mystic Celt during the West Lakeview Neighbors meeting on Monday, May 11, 2015 at 7pm. Detailed information can be found here.

20 thoughts on “Southport’s Rise Sushi and Galleria Liquors could be replaced by a TOD”

  3. Neighborhood is nothing like it used to be. Was a community before and now it's just another corporate street in Chicago. Nothing charming about it anymore. Someone needs to stop this madness. Anyone noticing that there are actual real crimes since all thai development??

    Like

    Reply

  6. Horrible, horrible, horrible. Who is going to want to live at that corner butting up to the Brown line stop? These greedy corporate investors are KILLING our neighborhood! STOP!

    Like

    Reply

  7. Hey Tunney, why don't you start worrying about the crime rate in this neighborhood rather than selling off everything that's made the area unique to corporate greed?!

    Like

    Reply

  8. In the USA, property owners have the freedom to sell their properties. And property purchasers have the right to develop property they purchase. If posters feel passionately about keeping that space the way it is, they should put their money where their mouth is and buy the property themselves. Otherwise, bemoaning the shame that is corporate greed is all just hot air. How passionately do you all REALLY feel about it? Do you care just enough to talk about it? Or do you care enough to back it up with real money?Plus, it's not the developers who are causing this; it's the residents and businesses who will rent the spaces in the new building. Curse those who will be paying the rent and providing the developers' return on investment. That's the whole reason the developers are doing it. They are only responding to people's demand for apartments and storefronts.

    Like

    Reply

  9. So you think it's acceptable to build ugly buildings, ruin the character of the neighborhood, and outprice everyone already in it and it's OUR fault?!? Screw you and your money!

    Like

    Reply

  10. \”Ruin\” is a matter of perspective. People who live there now have no right to decree who the undesirables are, either businesses or people. This isn't the 1960's. And no one is getting outpriced. On the contrary, more apartment units available will make rent more affordable throughout the whole neighborhood.If Southport corridor residents cared strongly enough about the character of their neighborhood, they'd pool their money and buy the land. The neighborhood has the power to band together and fair-and-squarely beat the real estate investors at their own game, but does it have the will? Probably not. There's only enough will to fill a message board with populist BS. What very likely happened here is that property taxes are too high now to be covered by the rents paid by only two businesses. Betcha the neighborhood, which will apparently be just incurably wrecked by this new building, supports all those businesses that set up shop in the new storefronts. Hopefully Rise will be one of them.

    Like

    Reply

  13. Property owners have rights to develop their property…but that doesn't mean we have to give them a zoning change…We changed the ENTIRE street of Southport years ago to consistent zones so the piecemeal zoning of properties and speculation based on change was stopped. The only changes that have been granted so far have been been exceptions due to odd property lines, and specific uses of property. Southport is completely the wrong place to increase density with 33 units here, 50 there, 25 more there… where does it stop? Ever try driving Southport on on the weekend?

    Like

    Reply

  16. Keep \”thinking\”… it's the city as a whole, through it's collective leadership, who instituted the TOD zoning. Nearly everything within 600/1200ft of that brown line stop is fair game. You live in a city, and as such, density is or should be, sought after. If you don't like it, head for the burbs.

    Like

    Reply

  17. So the alderman has the ability to sell off private property? You sound like the mopes threatening to \”force\” tunney to make the mercury theater owner lease the Cullen's bar back to it's poor ownership. None of this is the alderman's job. And all of this is private property. This particular lot, along with most within 1200' of it, are fair game under the city's TOD program… that's the city's program, not the alderman's.

    Like

    Reply

  18. It doesn't matter what you changed years ago… the city has since instituted the TOD program to encourage density, use of public trans, etc. Whether it works or not, the intention is that most people living at this building will not have cars, hence the lower required parking spaces.

    Like

    Reply

  20. 33 more cars in the hood. If you can afford to live here, you probably have a car. I am thankful my place has parking.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment