Lake Effect News has reloaded a better version of the site plan for the proposed Edgewater Branch Libary. Last month, the Chicago City Council approved an ordiance designating land for the new library building.
The new library structure will replace the existing library at 1210 W. Elmdale, with additional land purchased at 6014-16 N. Broadway. We received many comments from Edgewater readers, including Mike, who justifiably pointed out that the plan image included with the Nov. 24 story was “entirely useless.”
We hope that this is a “less useless” plan image, provided to us by Ald. Mary Ann Smith’s 48th Ward service office.
Published on Monday, November 30th, 2009, 11:48pm.
Print this article
This is the same image. I am guessing there is no actual building design at this time just a plan for a carpark.
I may not be very well informed so someone can point me to more information so I can see the justification for this scheme.
At a minimum I would expect to see a report evaluating the existing library building for reconfiguration / refurbishment and the possibility of building a new (2 story?) building on the same footprint.
I am just amazed and disappointed that the first we should hear of a new library is this costly and misguided scheme that apparently doesn’t even include a building design at this stage.
It’s so exciting to see a plan for a new library – but why must it include demolition on Broadway, especially just for a parking lot? This seems to me to be in the opposite spirit of sustainability (demolishing a building, making extra sacrifices for autos, breaking the facade of the commercial avenue, displacing tenants and businesses). I’m excited to see a new library, but firmly believe that with a little creativity we could have a much better plan. There is already so much parking available – on Elmdale, in the alley behind the library building, and there’s a huge Dominick’s parking lot right across the street. I applaud the team for the work put into this but please – a little more effort and creativity and we could have an even better project that doesn’t include so much sacrifice. Let’s do it right!
This looks like way too much parking for a neighborhood library. Surface parking is a blight in urban neighborhoods and shouldn’t be given away for free so easily. These spaces will sit mostly empty the vast majority of the time — I total waste of valuable city property and tax-payer money.
I am very excited about this plan. The previous posters should do some research before posting such negative comments.
1) The parking lot is necessary. The new footprint will cover the existing parking spaces in the alley. The new lot will only provide an additional 6 spaces. These spaces will definitely be well used. The current alley spaces are almost always full. Dominicks would not appreciate people parking in their lot to spend hours at the library! I don’t know what time of day Mark parks on Elmdale, but I never see open spaces close to the library.
2) Displacing businesses is unfortunate, but look at all of the currently unused spaces all over Broadway! The 2 businesses that will be displaced have numerous locations to choose a new site.
3) John must not have read the Nov 24 article. It shows a picture of the design of another library that the new one will be modeled after. John must not use our current library if he doesn’t think we need 2 stories. The space is a must! Our current location is always crowded.
Hi Melanie.
The Alderman’s Office has wonderful goals for our neighborhood including improving walkability and traffic calming. Locating a new parking lot on Broadway with access across the footpath won’t help the neighborhood achieve those goals, and is a net loss to the street on many levels.
1 If the adjacent building *must* be purchased and demolished so be it but why can parking not continue to be provided off the alley to the rear?
2 Every business adds to the street. The more we lose the harder it becomes to attract new ones.
3 I thought the point of a prototype design is that it can be altered to fit the available site. The reverse seems to be happening here. Either way we don’t have anything approaching a detailed design (except for the proposed parking lot).
I do use the library, enough to hear from the librarians that staffing levels have been cut. I do not intend to be negative and I am not opposed to redevelopment. It is great that there are funds available for a new library building but I am dismayed by this site plan and the unnecessarily negative impact it will have that stretch of Broadway.
As someone who use’s the parking behind the library when I visit, their often isn’t street parking. I rarely find parking on Elmdale. Parking in Dominicks can be a pain just trying to go grocery shopping it’s an extremely busy grocery store. I’m looking forward to the new 2 story library.
I don’t think it will have a negative impact on the landscape of Broadway, I think it will make the library more noticeable
and it will get more use.
It sounds like the land has already been purchased, which means it was up for sale, and the tenants (if their are any, I never see much of anything around there, the stores never look open) know that a building for sale means they might have to move. It’s the downside to renting, but it happens quite often. I’ve personally had that happen to me twice.
What an appalling waste of money!
Why tear down a 30 year old building to replace it with another building? Why not use the additional land to build an addition to the existing building & continue with parking accessed from the alley?
The city is broke & if the library needs to be bigger, then add on, not tear down.
We don’t have the money!
Becky,
Appreciate your comments, but want to respond. a) The land has yet to be purchased. b) The plan could still be altered to make for a more pedestrian-friendly facade on Broadway and saves tax payer’s money (saving purchase of land, resurfacing and landscaping, cutting curb cuts, helping to move owner and existing businesses and nonprofits). Also, c) the idea of using Dominick’s is more for the employees of the library. I’ve been observing the parking along the train tracks and it is empty almost all of the time. Why not put it to use? Could still be parking in the alley, and having these 20 or so spots along east wall of Dominick’s lot would help enormously. d) The stores in 6014 are often occupied by customers. My hope is that the Alderman’s office will give some thought to re-examining this part of the plan – it goes against a lot of what they and the ECC work for, meaning pedestrian-friendly avenues, architectural preservation, sustainability, encouraging the arts and small businesses, and the livelihoods of young people and the elderly alike. They’ve got smart planners on staff; let’s hope they’re taking these suggestions into account.