Rogers Park: Comprehensive Retail Study

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS

NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

Rogers Park Comprehensive Retail Study University of Illinois at Chicago City Design Center Urban Business Districts, Volume 2

Project Team: August 2004 -October 2005 Principal Investigator: Brent D. Ryan, Co-Director UIC City Design Center, Assistant Professor of Urban Planning and Policy, UIC Co-Principal Investigator: Rachel N. Weber, Associate Professor of Urban Planning and Policy, UIC Writers :

Howard M. Fink, Research Assistant T. Abraham Lentner, Research Assistant

Editor: Design:

Brent D. Ryan Michael Brown

DevCorp North Staff:

Kimberly Bares Rene Camargo Dan Butt Joanna Trotter Amy Campbell

For questions regarding this report contact: City Design Center University of Illinois at Chicago 820 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 330 Chicago, Il 60607 phone: 312-996-4717 fax: 312-413-2076

2005CENTER by the| Board of Trustees the University Illinois.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY© DESIGN CITY DESIGN CENTER | of CITY DESIGN CENTER of | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | prohibited CITY DESIGN CENTER | permission.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE Use for commercial purposes without C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY All rights reserved.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Project Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Project Timeline and Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Existing Conditions Neighborhood Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Location and Demographics

Retail Market District Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Introduction to Howard and Morse

Retail Conditions

Physical Character

Transportation and Parking

Public Safety

Zoning Assets and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 First Community Meeting: Assets and Opportunities Retail: Physical Appearance and Safety Critical Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Second Community Meeting: Community Visioning Critical Issues Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Guiding Principles Third Community Meeting: Recommendations Area Recommendations Recommendation and Implementation Priorities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 Appendix A: Customer Survey Data Appendix B: Business Survey Data

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS

NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The City Design Center Rogers Park Planning Team gratefully acknowledges the contributions of institutional and community partners who participated in the Rogers Park planning process. We would especially like to thank the committee of Rogers Park residents who volunteered to advise the process, and Daniel Clark, Lee Deuben, and Larry McClellan from NIPC who provided time and technology to assist with the public meetings. Eliza Bivins also provided valuable assistance throughout the process.

We would also like to thank Curt Winkle, Roberta Feldman, Tasneem Chowdhury and Michael Brown for their assistance with the project.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

PROJECT SUMMARY Rogers Park is a Chicago neighborhood located on Lake Michigan on

was initiated to create recommendations that could be put into action

Chicago’s northern border. This dense urban community, home to

using community resources to accomplish community goals.

nearly 60,000 residents in 2000, is conveniently connected to downtown Chicago by bus, train and roadway. Despite recent growth in the neighborhood’s residential real estate market, two of the community’s primary shopping districts remain underdeveloped and suffer from a deteriorating appearance.

This study is the second in the City Design Center’s Urban Business Districts Program. The Program was created in 2003 to provide planning assistance for disinvested commercial districts in the Chicago region. The principal product of the program is a comprehensive retail revitalization plan. The Program’s retail planning process incorporates

Its lakefront property, well maintained housing stock and wealth of

participatory opportunities for the community, and develops an urban

transportation access promise to make Rogers Park one of Chicago’s

design-oriented community plan that stimulates investment, builds

premier communities. However, the community faces a number of

the job base and enhances the livability and appearance of the retail

challenges. It is located between several of the region’s largest retail

district.

destinations, making it difficult to attract new retail amenities. The community has suffered from a long-lasting stigma as an unsafe place to visit. While condominium conversions are bringing new residents to the community they are also threatening to diminish its affordability.

This study represents the outcome of a twelve-month partnership between the University of Illinois’ City Design Center (CDC) and DevCorp North. Along with a volunteer corps of community residents, the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, DevCorp North and

This study was commissioned in August of 2004 by DevCorp North, a

others, a hard-working team of UIC graduate urban planning students

community and economic development organization in Rogers Park.

researched and developed exemplary recommendations for Rogers

DevCorp North represents and serves many neighborhood businesses

Park. It is our belief that with time and continued effort the retail dis-

and administers several of the local Special Service Areas. The City

tricts in Rogers Park will emerge as vital parts of the community, and

Design Center was asked to create a study for two retail districts that

we hope that this report serves as a readable and effective blueprint

seemingly needed the most attention: those along Howard Street and

toward that goal.

Morse Avenue. While this neighborhood had been planned for and studied a number of times, few revitalization plans had been implemented. The City Design Center and DevCorp North planning process

Prof. Brent Ryan Prof. Rachel Weber July, 2005

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS

NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

PROJECT TIMELINE AND METHODOLOGY

The Rogers Park retail revitalization planning project began in September of 2004 and concluded with the publication of this study report in October, 2005. The planning process employed a three-phase approach and a process that relied heavily on community participation and leadership.

The approach and process of the three public meeting are described in this report on pages 35, 52 and 56.

Throughout this process the CDC project team and DevCorp North staff met regularly with a volunteer group of Rogers Park residents. These residents comprised a community Steering Committee to provide input and community leadership in the planning process. In the later stages of the planning process, representatives from the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission also provided their assistance with the facilitation and organization of community meetings.

The CDC project team researched the Rogers Park retail corridors using a variety of sources, including: •

Retail district inventories

•

Historical research

•

Demographic and market data for the neighborhood

•

Retail market analysis using commercial databases

The goal of this research was to provide an up-to-date, comprehensive assessment of existing conditions for the Howard Street and MorseGlenwood retail corridors in Rogers Park.

Photos from community meetings

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

PROJECT TIMELINE AND METHODOLOGY Public participation and input were major components of the Rogers

During the first meeting on October 14th, 2004, participants were

Park retail planning process. Input from the residents of Rogers Park

asked to identify assets and opportunities along each retail corridor

and community stakeholders took a variety of forms, including:

and discuss areas that showed clusters. The discussion was orga-

•

Three large community meetings with a combined attendance of nearly 200 residents and other stakeholders

•

Frequent advisory sessions with the community Steering Committee

• •

Custom-designed survey work resulting in 41 retail business

nized around the issue of appearance, retail shopping mix and public safety. The results of these small-group exercises during the meeting created a baseline inventory of assets and opportunities that allowed the CDC research team to assess critical issues in the commercial districts.

surveys and 117 customer and resident surveys

The goal of the second meeting, on January 6th, 2005, was to gener-

Interviews with key stakeholders and Special Service Area

ate critical issue “headlines” that described the most important plan-

commissioners

ning and design issues for the two neighborhood shopping districts

This community input formed an important foundation for creating both

while incorporating appropriate opportunities and assets identified in

guiding principles and recommendations for new development and

the first public meeting. This meeting helped the City Design Center

neighborhood revitalization.

team and DevCorp North develop guiding principles to direct the plan

Three Part Meeting Process The City Design Center team designed a three-part community meeting process that formed the foundation of the public participation

recommendations. The team then examined how these guiding principles could be developed and created nearly thirty recommendations building on these principles.

component. The purpose of these three meetings was to listen to

At the final meeting on April 4th, 2005, the City Design Center team

the community’s concerns and interests at multiple points in the plan-

shared these preliminary recommendations with the community. The

ning process and to transparently transform those ideas into planning

discussion also covered issues of community development and trans-

recommendations. The three community meetings were designed as

portation in response to ideas expressed during the second meet-

a three-part sequence, with each meeting building on the data and

ing. Using electronic and graphic systems of voting and discussion,

insights collected from the previous one and reinforcing corresponding

participants discussed in depth the issues that concerned them most

research efforts. The participatory community process sought to

while amending or adding to all of the guiding principles and recom-

create a public, collaborative and comprehensive approach to revital-

mendations. The recommendation ideas expressed at this last meet-

ization.

ing were incorporated into the final study report.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS

NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS Neighborhood Characteristics The first phase of the planning process and the content of this first chapter of the report investigate the current conditions of the Howard Street and Morse Avenue shopping districts in Rogers Park. All aspects of the retail environment, including economic, physical, transportation and public safety issues are examined.

Rogers Park has a rich diversity of neighborhood residents and shoppers, both in terms of ethnicity and economics. Data from the 2000 US Census illustrate the point: •

The Rogers Park community area is fairly evenly divided among white (32%), African American (32%) and Latino (28%) residents with small but significant Asian and Caribbean populations.

•

Over 6% of Rogers Park households earn over $100,000 per year, and over 26% earn more than $50,000.

•

Nearly 18% of Rogers Park families fall below the poverty line.

•

32% of Rogers Park adults have a bachelor’s degree or higher (6.5 percentage points greater than the city average).

• 25% of the area’s adults lack a high school diploma.

•

Only 18% of the housing units in the neighborhood are owner occupied, with a median home value just over $180,000.

•

The other 82% of housing units are renter occupied with a median rent of $610.

Figure 1.1 Map of the Rogers Park neighborhood

During the last five years since 2000, there has been a great deal of residential construction in Rogers Park. This has mainly consisted of condominium conversions that have brought new residents to the neighborhood at a higher level of housing costs.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Retail Market Analysis Examined independently of its larger trade area, the Rogers Park Community Area has enough unmet local demand to support a variety of new stores. However, when the community is viewed as a part of a larger regional trade area it is apparent that the retail environment is fairly saturated and highly competitive. The overall retail environment has two parts. The first is neighborhood retail that serves its local community with convenient goods and services. The second is larger retail destinations that satisfy most of the comparison shopping needs for the area. The CDC project team found that both the Howard Street and Morse Avenue districts were largely comprised of the first part.

The CDC team’s retail market analysis for the Rogers Park Community Area (Table 1.1) showed that there was an estimated $500 million in retail demand that was being met at destinations outside of the neighborhood in early 2005. Using data from the US Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources, the approximate amount spent in the community on Figure 1.2 Map of Rogers Park retail districts in relation to major regional retail destinations

retail purchases and restaurants was estimated by the CDC project team.

This was compared against the retail sales figures for the neighborhood.

The difference between the spending and sales is called “leakage” and represents the amount of additional retail sales in dollars that a community can theoretically support. Two previous studies of the retail market in Rogers Park indicated that the neighborhood could support many types of new stores. A study by the Center for Neighborhood Technology in 2002 indicated a strong potential customer base for a number of new stores, including apparel and cafés. A 1997 report by one Michael T. Land using Claritas Consumer Expenditure data indicated that local residents have the buying power to support new restaurants and hardware stores,

Table 1.1 Retail market analysis

among others.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS

NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS The CDC team found that Rogers Park is not alone in experiencing retail leakage. The Chicago neighborhoods surrounding Rogers Park also showed substantial leakage (Table 1.2). With a leakage rate of 67%, Rogers Park lost more retail spending in 2004 than most of its peer Chicago neighborhoods. However, such a distribution of retail spending is not unexpected because the majority of the retail needs for Rogers Park and nearby Chicago neighborhoods are currently served by several nearby retail destinations inside and outside the city rather than from stores within the neighborhoods. With $1.18 billion in retail sales in Skokie, $876 million in Evanston and $1.24 billion in Lincoln Park, these popular shopping destinations were the chief competitors for Rogers Park shoppers as of 2004.

This retail market data was echoed in the opinions voiced in the CDC surveys conducted in Rogers Park. Both Skokie and Evanston ranked high among preferred shopping areas for Rogers Park residents and

Figure 1.3 Comparison of Rogers Park with nearby retail destinations

shoppers. The survey data indicated that the strongest determinant of shopping frequency is income—the wealthier the respondent, the less frequently they would shop in Rogers Park. The CDC team concluded the wealthier Rogers Park residents form a “missing market” of individuals who do not shop in the community with any regularity, and that the Howard and Morse shopping corridors are neighborhood shopping districts that largely serve local, lower-income residents. Despite the limited customer base, about 65% of the businesses surveyed indicated that they were satisfied with their Rogers Park location. In fact, 24% of the businesses indicated that they were planning to expand their operations, and none reported that they were planning to

Table 1.2 Comparison of leakage in Rogers Park to surrounding neighborhoods

reduce their business in Rogers Park.

10

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS

In the 1920s and 30s, Howard Street was a bustling commercial corridor, and among the busiest entertainment districts in the city.

Howard Street was home to some of the first movie theaters outside of Chicago’s Loop. During the past twenty years, the commercial district has experienced greater vacancies and a deteriorating appearance.

Table 1.3 Survey results indicating that income is greatest determinant of shopping frequency in Rogers Park

Today, auto traffic is heavy, but retail activity is diminished.

Howard Street Shopping District The Howard Street shopping district stretches 12 city blocks from

Prior to this study there had been recent efforts, both private and

Sheridan Road in the east to Ridge Road in the west. East from

public, to revitalize the street. Cooperative efforts with Evanston led

Ridge Road to the CTA Red Line Howard station, the Howard Street

to a coordinated streetscape improvement program west of Clark

district encompasses commercial buildings in both Evanston (on the

Street in 2000. The Howard Street Special Service Area (established

north) and Chicago (on the south). Although a “one-sided” planning

in 1999) now provides additional services and support to this large

process was not ideal, this study examined only the Chicago side of

commercial district.

Howard Avenue.

n

Bosworth

Marshfield

Paulina Re A CT

Howard Street

a Sherid

Greenview

Evanston, IL

East

Lake Michigan

d e Lin

k Clar

Wolcott

Damen

Seeley

Hoyne

Ridge

Winchester

Central

Ashland

West

Ro

ge

rs

Park / Recreational Space Parking CTA Red Line

Figure 1.4 Map of Howard Street shopping district ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 11 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Morse-Glenwood Shopping District The Morse-Glenwood district surrounds the Morse Avenue CTA Red

deteriorating appearance and concerns about public safety progressively

Line Station. The study area for this retail study stretches from Sheri-

discouraged shoppers from visiting the district. The City of Chicago, in

dan Road in the east to Clark Street in the west, one-half block north

conjunction with local groups including the Morse-Clark Special Service

of Lunt to Farwell in the south. Although this study examined nine

Area (formed in 2003), has planned streetscape improvements for the dis-

blocks of the Morse-Glenwood area, commercial activity was largely

trict that are slated for installation after about 2006.

concentrated within one and one half blocks of the CTA station.

The remainder of this section examines the current condition of the shop-

Morse Avenue was a busy local neighborhood-shopping district

ping districts in five areas: retail, physical character, transportation and

since the 1920s when it was built out. In the last two decades, its

parking, public safety and zoning.

Sheri

Glenwood

Arts District

dan

Morse

Arts District

Wayne

Lakewood

Greenview

Ashland

k Clar

Ravenswood

West

East

Central

Central

Parking CTA line and stations

Figure 1.5 Map of Morse-Glenwood Street shopping district

12

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Retail Conditions on Howard Street At the Center of the Howard Street shopping district is the Gateway Centre development, built in 1999, which hosts large retail spaces and national retailers anchored by a major grocery store. Moving east or west from the center, one finds older retail buildings with smaller stores occupied by local retailers. Despite new development and new stores in the district, vacancies remain a substantial problem for the district in both new and old structures.

The Howard Street shopping district contains an estimated half a million square feet of available retail space, making it a substantial Figure 1.6 Business mix in Howard Street district

regional shopping area. Nearly 40% of this available retail space is vacant, including 28% of the new space at the Gateway Centre.

Retail vacancy may be in part explained by intense retail competition from area retail destinations, but in the older style retail spaces the small size and variable building condition may also contribute to vacancy. Over half of the available retail storefronts (or 20% of the available space) in the Howard District consist of small store spaces with approximately 1,000 square feet of leaseable space. As a result sections of Howard Street contain storefront vacancies as long as one full block.

Among the occupied stores in the Howard Street District, nearly all of the national retailers are clustered in and around the Gateway Centre in the middle of the district. The remainder of the district largely consists of local stores and regional chains. There is a wide variety of shopping available, although much of the retail is value/convenience-

Figure 1.7 Small storefronts on Howard Street ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 13 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS oriented. Carry-out restaurants comprise the largest single retail

The Morse-Glenwood district primarily consists of small local retail

group with 14% of the total retail and service operations. Financial

operations. Only 6% of the businesses in the Morse district are part

service businesses rank second with 10%, and convenience grocers

of large companies, such as a RE/MAX agency, Washington Mutual

and general dollar stores taken together are another 9% of the retail

Bank, a J.B. Albertos’ restaurant and Family Dollar. Even these

and service establishments.

regional chains are oriented towards local or neighborhood custom-

In general, Howard Street currently provides mainly convenience items for the local neighborhood. The nearby retail destinations in Skokie and Evanston are drawing customers that could otherwise support stores to fill the vacancies in the Howard Street district. These competing shopping areas provide the type of retail environment that Rogers Park shoppers enjoy when they are not looking for convenience.

Retail Conditions on Morse Avenue

ers rather than drawing customers from other neighborhoods. Overall, when surveyed, the small local retailers are supporters of the district and optimistic about its future. Of the 14 Morse-Glenwood businesses surveyed during the course of this project, 6 (or 42%) indicated that they expected to expand their business in the community.

Seven (or 50%) of the surveyed businesses planned to improve their building and nine (64%) expressed satisfaction with their location in the Morse-Glenwood district. Additionally, these stores demonstrate great longevity, with an average of 22 years of operation in the district.

The Morse-Glenwood Corridor is a small neighborhood shopping area. With approximately 150,000 leaseable square feet, the Morse Avenue district has less than a third of the retail square footage of the Howard Street district. Despite its small size, the shopping district draws a great deal of interest and concern. This district is notable both for its almost complete reliance on small or local businesses and its store composition that serves two very different purposes. This district has the Morse Avenue CTA station at its heart, but is insulated from nearby thoroughfares by residential and institutional buildings at each end of the retail district.

Figure 1.8 The Morseland Restaurant

14

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS The businesses in the Morse-Glenwood district can be divided roughly into two dominant groups: the first offers convenience and value, and the second is oriented towards arts and leisure. General dollar stores, convenience groceries and carry-out restaurants together comprise 23% of the businesses in the district. These stores provide daily needs for neighborhood residents and do not draw many customers from outside the community. The Glenwood Arts District is the core of the arts and leisure group of stores in the corridor. With a theatre, five galleries, a photography studio, a dance instruction space, and two available studios, the Arts District represents a substantial retail niche.

Together with the district’s two locally-owned sit-down restaurants, martial arts instruction and yoga space, stores focusing on arts and leisure form about 17% of the businesses in the district.

There are many empty stores in the Morse-Glenwood shopping corFigure 1.9 Glenwood Avenue Arts District

ridor, with a 30% vacancy rate assessed in April 2005. While over a quarter of the storefront vacancies can be attributed to current or planned renovations, the remainder is often found in small, belowgrade commercial spaces that do not meet the needs of most retailers. Despite recent construction activity, the attraction of new retailers and optimistic expectations of business owners, there is a persistent opinion that the district requires substantial improvement.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 15 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS Physical Character on Howard Street The character of the Howard Street business district has gone through many changes over the years, evident in the inconsistent appearance and identity of the street. Although the negative issues are somewhat isolated, the district’s rundown appearance, poor building condition, and encroachment of suburban style development have all discouraged revitalization of the district. These undesirable elements have overshadowed the street’s many assets, including strong pedestrian accessibility on the east side, architecturally significant buildings, and a number of well-designed multi-story, mixed-use retail and commercial buildings.

As a whole, the area lacks distinguishable characteristics that would contribute to a unique district identity.

Most of the east and central sections of Howard Street are urban mixeduse commercial areas with small-scale retail interspersed with medium to high-density residential developments. A mix of uses with ground-

Figure 1.10 Poor signage and unappealing storefronts on Howard Street

floor retail, no setbacks, large buildings, and a street front orientation, support a walkable, pedestrian-friendly environment. In contrast, the west district is more homogeneously commercial in nature, lacking residential density, and catering to automobile access.

Howard Street’s identity, physical appearance, building style, and the connection between its sub-districts are highly differentiated. Sheridan Road, Clark Street, and Ridge Avenue are major arterials that provide prominent access points to Chicago but are not physically connected with the Howard Street business district. The changes in character for each sub-district and the lack of design interventions reinforcing continuity along the street are barriers to pedestrian shopping activity.

16

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Both the public streetscape and private areas of the Howard district are in need of renovation. Building condition and storefront appearance on both the east and west portions of Howard Street, specifically establishments near the train station and particular locations in the west district were of concern. Survey results indicated that 42% of respondents disliked the look and feel of the shopping district. These concerns were expressed despite a streetscape improvement project recently completed by the City of Chicago in joint co-operation with the City of Evanston. Accented sidewalks, identity signage, trash cans, and planters were added to the street.

The physical conditions of Howard Street support the area’s inconsistent image as standards seemingly vary from building to building. In some areas homemade signs and rundown building appearances project a Figure 1.11 Rehabilitation of the Pivot Point Building

negative character, whereas in other areas recent rehabilitations and appealing window displays show signs of revitalization. Unattractive and unappealing buildings, signage, and façades are scattered throughout the district. Cluttered window displays, security bars, vacant storefronts, and unkempt entrances lend an unsafe and unwelcoming identity to much of the district.

In the last four years, DevCorp North has pursued existing city programs to rehabilitate façades throughout the community by encouraging business owners to take advantage of Chicago’s façade rebate program.

New developments and renovation have begun to alter unsightly building appearance. Despite the progress, the district still needs improvement.

Positive change is occurring through these revitalization efforts but a lack of consistency and a common community vision has hampered efforts.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 17 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS East Howard Street The east end of Howard Street has a strong pedestrian character supported by high-density residential development close to the lake and multi-family developments located on the street. The Gale Park School, Rogers Park Community Center, and DevCorp North contribute to a concentration of community institutions that support neighborhood activity. Pedestrian activity is most prevalent in the morning and evening rush hours as commuters from the CTA station and Bus terminals travel to and from their homes.

The City Design Center team concentrated on the design and aesthetic challenges of Howard Street from Ashland to Greenview. On the southern section, buildings are primarily one story commercial or retail uses.

Although these uses are pedestrian oriented, they are inconsistent with

Figure 1.12 Lost Eras Costume Shop in an appealing and prominent two story building

the denser character of the district. Many buildings in this area are in need of improvement. On the northern side of Howard Street, conditions are better, but inconsistent signage and window displays create a disorganized appearance. Building size, scale, and pedestrian orientation for the rest of the district are in keeping with the dense urban, mixeduse environment of Rogers Park.

Figure 1.13 Dilapidated vacant store front

18

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Central Howard Street The central district, from Ashland to Clark Street includes the Howard CTA, bus terminals, and the Gateway Centre retail complex. The Gateway Centre houses multiple big box retail establishments, office space and small retail stores designed in a traditional suburban fashion.

During the early and late afternoon hours, the central district supports substantial activity from the CTA users at the Howard Avenue El and bus terminal, Gale Park School, and commuting residents. The central district is plagued with building and sign conditions and cluttered storefront displays, with the exception of the Gateway Centre. The area has the physical assets needed for revitalization, Figure 1.14 Rundown physical conditions in and surrounding the CTA El station are prevalent

but uncontrolled street activity, aesthetic appearance, and a high incidence of public loitering create a dilapidated image and raise safety concerns in the community.

As the central nexus of the district, the dilapidated condition of the CTA station and surrounding buildings exacerbate the already unappealing character of the district. In the CDC survey results, 35% of respondents indicated a negative feeling toward the appearance of the train station, with only a 16% positive rating. Unappealing physical conditions immediately surrounding the train station, including Paulina Street, are more prevalent then the other areas of the district, with a predominance of vacant storefronts, dilapidated facades and signage, cluttered window displays and consistent loitering. However, the concentration of uses and the CTA El and bus stations contribute to a large amount of pedestrian activity that supports area businesses.

Figure 1.15 Vacant store fronts (in Evanston) across from the CTA station and Gateway Centre ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 19 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS The Gateway Centre development, opened in 1999, is predominantly a single story commercial center with large retail establishments catering to motorists.

The Gateway Centre’s design dictates a separation

of residential and commercial uses and orients the major retailers to the rear of the site with parking as the dominant street view. Parts of the Gateway Centre are integrated with the character of the street, with retail uses abutting the street and a 2- to 3-story office and commercial building adjacent to the new CTA bus terminal. Despite these design attempts, activity from the Gateway Centre remains isolated from Howard Street.

West Howard The retail establishments, building type, and streetscape design of this district cater more to an auto-oriented consumer. The district has a greater number of parking lots, curb cuts, a smaller street scale, and lack of prominent buildings. Despite past marketing and streetscape

Figure 1.16: The Gateway Centre, the area’s largest development, is not in context with the surrounding area

efforts along Howard Street, the west end suffers from a lack of visual markers and retail destination attractions that would give the area a definite urban mixed-use character like the rest of the district. Buildings west of Clark Street to Ridge Avenue are primarily one-story commercial structures. This environment accommodates retail activity that discourages walkability and the creation of a strong community image.

Figure 1.17: Strip retail with front parking lot

20

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Physical barriers and changing development patterns discourage pedestrian activity from filtering between the central and west sub districts. Clark Street, as a highly trafficked large arterial, acts as a barrier to pedestrian movement. Just east of the Clark and Howard intersection, a poorly lit and unkempt Metra underpass obstructs the physical view of the west sub-district. The car friendly design and development patterns in the west area are in contrast to that of the pedestrian environments in the east and parts of the central district. The combinations of these conditions have isolated the west district from that of the rest of the Howard Street study area.

Figure 1.18: Automobile oriented fast food restaurant

Figure 1.19: Intersection of Clark and Howard Streets ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 21 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS Physical Character on Morse Avenue Morse Avenue is a small neighborhood oriented, pedestrian friendly

they were satisfied. Storefront entrances are cluttered with signs, boards,

commercial district supporting a combination of neighborhood

or bars, which discourage window-shopping. Unsightly and vacant store-

retail, residential, and institutional uses. The area generally sup-

fronts often display homemade, unprofessional quality signs and facades

ports small-scale retail with building sizes averaging between 800

that are counterproductive to the district’s physical identity. A lack of

and 1500 square feet, typical for a Chicago neighborhood com-

consistent design standards is apparent, as landlords routinely leave signs

mercial district. Some larger locations do exist; such as the vacant

from previous tenants and neglect to support continued upkeep and main-

Osco Drug property, Morse Fruit and Meat Market, and recent

tenance of their property.

rehabilitations at 1225 and 1448 West Morse and 6454 Greenview.

The area is predominantly a mixed-use environment, with ground floor retail and residential above. This type of development is more pronounced in the east, west and in the Glenwood Avenue Arts districts; where as the central district has a greater concentration of single story, strip retail. Consistent street frontage, lack of building setbacks, a strong residential base, and centrally located public

but their effects have led to an identity concern for the entire district. These physical concerns are most pronounced in the central district, particularly in the area around CTA El station. Constant loitering and sporadic criminal activity in this area has led to an unsafe feeling in the district, creating serious community concerns.

transit has helped support the pedestrian activity, critical to any

To alleviate some of the physical conditions associated with Morse Avenue

small neighborhood commercial district. Despite these assets,

and enhance the existing pedestrian accessibility, streetscape improve-

many challenges remain, with current aesthetics and uses creating

ments are being planned for about 2006. They call for additional lighting

an unappealing identity.

on Glenwood Avenue, street trees, sidewalk “bump outs”, trash recep-

Of particular concern to the CDC team and community were inconsistent building standards. These included signage, façade treatment, and window displays. The CDC survey results indicated that 47% of residents were displeased with the look and feel of the Morse Avenue commercial district, with only 19% indicating that

22

Similar to that of Howard Street, the negative physical issues are isolated,

tacles, planters, accented crosswalks, light poles, banners, and pedestrian level street lamps. While this will improve the aesthetic appearance of the street, with noticeable impact in the central district, a great deal of attention will need to be paid to improving the physical conditions in and around the transit station. 40% of respondents from our survey results indicated a need for improved physical conditions of the Morse Avenue transit station.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Morse Avenue has three sub-districts and the character and identity issues differ greatly in each. The area’s strengths cluster on the ends of the district, while the greatest concern exists in the central area. The east and west districts anchor the area with improved buildings, retail façades, and streetscaping as well as new construction and renovation throughout the district. Storefronts are interrupted by residential, non-profit, municipal, and vacant uses. Additionally, a lack of design connections between Morse Avenue’s sub-districts creates a discontinuous character on the street.

East Morse Avenue The east end supports a concentration of residential uses interspersed with mixed-use buildings supporting ground floor retail. The physical Figure 1.20: Cluttered window displays on Morse Avenue

conditions in this sub-district are vastly improved, with clean and welldesigned facades, numerous street trees, and overall clean appearance of the street. The senior housing development, recent condo conversation of the Re-Max building and the Morseland Restaurant are notable buildings that improve the area’s character and physical identity.

This sub-district is isolated from the activities and assets of Sheridan Road and Lake Michigan. A lack of both gateway signage and marked pedestrian walkways identifying the Morse Avenue commercial district create a barrier from the activity of Sheridan Road. This area of the district does benefit from the increased development demand due to the proximity to Lake Michigan, evident in the recent condominium conversions near the lake like those at 6900 N. Lake-

Figure 1.21: Morseland Restaurant with the senior residential development in the background

wood Avenue.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 23 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS Central Morse Avenue The central sub-district consists primarily of one story commercial buildings supporting small, marginal retail stores. Consistent public loitering, unsightly building appearances, and the deteriorated condition in and around the transit station create a blighted and unappealing physical condition. The station is rundown with spalling concrete on the overpass, graffiti on the walls, and poor maintenance throughout. Some of these issues will soon be resolved, as renovations were underway during 2005. The CTA’s current redevelopment and construction plans call for painting, patching concrete, and replacing damaged facades. However, other improvements that would positively alter the identity of the station, such as benches, murals, and planters are currently not scheduled. In the past, community groups have attempted to improve conditions by installing planters at the CTA

Figure 1.22: Conditions immediately west of the Morse Avenue El Station

station, only to have their efforts thwarted because the planters were used as trash receptacles. The combination of the area’s central location, the highest concentration of activity in the district, its poor physical appearance, and constant loitering project an unappealing and unsafe identity for the rest of the Morse Avenue District.

Due to the area’s marginal retail environment, preserving historic architecture and neighborhood character becomes increasingly difficult. Particularly, establishments such as Cobbler’s Mall (a building with historic architecture and a long standing community establishment) are in jeopardy.

Figure 1.23: Historic Cobblers Mall

24

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS West Morse Avenue The west end sub-district serves as a community anchor area with a concentration of religious and educational uses coexisting with scattered residential and commercial. The area supports small, neighborhood retail with better building appearance, façade, and street cleanliness than the central area. The majority of the architecturally distinct buildings on Morse Avenue are located in the west district.

The United Church of Rogers Park, Chicago Math and Science Academy, and Catholic convent are representative of architecture that adds visual identity to the district. Despite a relative lack of streetscaping, the area’s building design, scale and appearance support a pedestrian friendly environment.

The changes in use from the predominantly retail focus of the central district to the institutional and residential uses in the west create a Figure 1.24: View of West Morse District

disconnect between the two sub-districts and a physical and psychological barrier for pedestrians and consumers. A lack of signage connecting the sub-districts and a change in land uses from Morse Avenue to Clark Street prevent the intermingling of activity between the two areas.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 25 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS Glenwood Avenue Arts District

Glenwood Avenue Arts District

The Glenwood Avenue Arts district is isolated from the rest of the Morse Avenue retail district. This prevents many of its positive characteristics from acting as a catalyst for revitalization on Morse Avenue.

The Arts District is located on the north and south sides of Morse

Glenwood

Avenue along Glenwood Avenue. The area supports a variety of theaters, art galleries, restaurants and bars that lend an artistic, creative identity to the area. Murals line the northern Morse El stop, adjacent to the Heartland Café and Café Descartes. Area theaters and restaurants serve as anchors despite poor lighting and safety concerns that spill over from the Morse Avenue train station. Additional lighting in

Multiple art galleries located in this building

Heartland Cafe

Cafe Descartes

No Exit Cafe (currently vacant)

this area has been approved as part of the streetscape improvements, which will have a positive effect on safety concerns.

Morse

Lifeline Theater

CTA Red Line

Figure 1.25: Map of the Arts District with retailers’ locations

26

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS

Howard Street Transportation and Parking Howard Street is one of Chicago’s major transportation hubs, well

parking spaces. With 250 on-street parking spaces, and over 1000

served by public and private transportation. Overall, Rogers Park is a

free off-street shopping center spaces, there are approximately 2.7

dense urban community with less overall reliance on the automobile

parking spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space. If one includes

than the region as a whole. Data from the 2000 US Census indicates

the 400 spaces at the Gateway Centre parking garage the parking

that 38.5% of Rogers Park workers commute via public transit and

space allotment approaches the standards of a small suburban mall.

car ownership is a relatively low 0.81 vehicles per household. By comparison, in the Chicago metro region overall only 11.5% of commuters use public transit and there are 1.52 vehicles per household.

Morse-Glenwood Transportation and Parking The Morse-Glenwood area sees much less traffic than Howard Street, but remains well served by transportation. The Morse Street L Station

At the heart of the district the Howard Street CTA elevated train station

sees around 3,000 riders on weekdays and is served by two bus lines.

provides service to the Chicago Loop, as well as Evanston and Skokie

Traffic along Morse is much lighter, averaging around 4,000 cars per

on three different train lines. Train ridership at this station tops 5,900

day. Morse Avenue is also served by the nearby Lunt Street Station of

riders per day. The Howard Street CTA station is also home to a

Metra’s Union Pacific North Line, providing intercity service to Chicago

bus terminal for 5 CTA and 2 Pace bus lines that together serve over

and Kenosha, WI. With 230 on-street parking spaces, and over 100

36,000 riders per weekday over their entire routes.

free off-street spaces next to its small shopping centers, there are

Traffic volume on and near Howard Street is fairly heavy. About 22,000 cars pass along Howard Street in Rogers Park each day. Its three major cross streets also have considerable traffic volume. Ridge Road with 17,000 cars per day, Clark Street with 27,000 and Sheridan Road with over 20,000 all are heavily trafficked thoroughfares. For an urban environment, Howard Street has an adequate number of

about two parking spaces per 1000 square feet of retail, which would be sufficient for a transit-oriented community. However, in the business survey a lack of convenient parking was identified by 71% of business owners on Morse Avenue as an important concern. Future retail development has the potential for consuming the remaining available parking.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 27 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS Public Safety Despite new residential development and revitalization throughout

Many of the concerns that surfaced during the study’s community meet-

Rogers Park, the Howard Street and Morse Avenue commercial dis-

ings, customer and business intercept surveys, interviews with stake-

tricts have not kept pace. Safety concerns are the most critical

holders, and independent CDC analysis can be traced to safety issues.

issues facing the two districts and represent the largest barrier to any

Although these conditions are mutually reinforcing, safety and crime con-

revitalization attempts.

cerns need to become the community’s number one priority. For example,

Safety concerns and their effect on the community have been hotly debated. Race, ethnicity, and the future vision of the community often become entwined into the debate. As to the exact nature and effect of safety, both the perception and reality of criminal activity in both districts are of critical concern. During the project’s second community meeting, one participant noted his displeasure when safety was discussed as a perception rather than as a reality. The meeting attendees applauded in agreement, emphasizing the community’s conviction that public safety is a major issue in Rogers Park’s retail districts.

Constant loitering, prostitution, drug dealing, “gang banging” activity, destruction of public property, theft, and aggravated assault are criminal activities that both retail districts have had to deal with at various times. Many in the community have indicated that the current conditions on the streets are some of the worst they have seen during their tenure as community residents. These activities, coupled with the appearance and physical conditions referred to earlier can only reinforce the unwelcoming and unsafe environment.

residents repeatedly expressed a desire for youth activities. This is likely due to youth loitering and young adults on the street corners. In the CDC surveys, an overwhelming majority of respondents indicated their concern with public safety and crime in the districts. 61% of respondents on Morse Avenue noted that crime and safety were the most important issues facing the districts and 54% noted the same for Howard Street. Constant loitering in the area around the train station and adjacent side streets was a particular concern. 72% of all survey respondents, many of whom were neighborhood shoppers and commuters, indicated that the retail districts would benefit from decreased loitering.

Statistically, per capita crime rates in Rogers Park are lower than expected for most criminal offenses, compared to nearby neighborhoods. This statistic should not be used as a justification for neglecting safety issues.

The high density and pedestrian activity on commercial streets, where numerous clusters of criminal activity generally exist in Rogers Park, has made crime particularly problematic and visible. The major safety concerns seem to be isolated in the districts’ central areas. In both districts, much of the activity is concentrated around the CTA stations and spills over to adjacent side streets (Paulina on Howard Street and Greenwood on Morse Avenue, for example).

28

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Zoning The City of Chicago completed a new zoning ordinance in 2004, but the

Business Districts

specific zoning and mapping processes were left to individual Chicago

B1: Neighborhood Shopping District

communities. Future changes to the ordinance and approvals for zoning

Primarily storefront style, small scale retail and service uses

variances will be determined in part by the local alderman, city council, and

intended on narrow, pedestrian friendly streets.

B3: Community Shopping District

planning department.

The majority of the Howard Street and Morse Avenue study areas are zoned as business or commercial districts, permitting small scale, storefront retail and service uses, with residential above the ground floor.

The sur-

rounding neighborhoods for both streets are supported by medium to

Accommodates destination, automobile oriented retail and service uses such as shopping centers or larger buildings than are permitted in B1 or B2 districts. These districts often have primary access to major arterials.

high density residential development. Although somewhat isolated, recent,

Commercial Districts

larger developments have threatened the pedestrian oriented, neighbor-

C1: Neighborhood Commercial District

hood shopping feel for both districts.

The use, character, and density permitted in each zoning classification are critical to understanding the development patterns for both districts.

Modifications to these regulations and rezoning certain sections of the street can have a major impact on revitalization and development efforts.

The following section describes the various zoning classifications that exist on both Howard Street and Morse Avenue. Zoning maps for both streets

Accommodates small-scale business, service, and commercial uses. This districts permits more automobile oriented, intensive uses then do B1 districts.

C2: Motor Vehicle-Related Commercial District Allows nearly any type of business, service, or commercial use. These districts are primarily destination attractions catering to automobile users.

(Figures 1.28, and 1.30) are provided in the following sections.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 29 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS Residential Development for Business and Commercial Districts

Residential Districts

(Mixed-Use)

RT-4: Residential Two-Flat, Townhouse and Multi-Unit Districts

Above floor residential is permitted on all businesses and commercial

Accommodates a mixture of detached, two-flat, townhouses, and

districts on Howard Street and Morse Avenue. The residential densi-

multi-unit residential buildings. The RT-4 districts allows similar

ties and unit sizes permitted are identified by the number following

residential densities as the commercial and business districts with a

the dash in each district. The specific amount of residential density

dash 2 designation. Maximum building height is 38 feet or 3-4

permitted by the ordinance depends on a number of factors, including

stories.

total lot size, parking ratios, and specific design standards. Buildings developed on multiple parcels are more easily able to maximize per-

Existing city regulations require a minimum of one parking space for each

mitted square footage while accommodating parking requirements.

new residential unit. Fortunately, both districts benefit from an exception to

Conversely, smaller developments are often unable to meet parking

this rule that encourages development near commuter train stations. The

requirements because of limited lot area. For specific information on allowable uses and calculations on use and permitted residential densities, please refer to the Chicago Zoning Code.

In business and commercial districts with a dash 3 residential designations, assuming a total of 10,000 square feet of developable space (approximately three standard city lots), a building of 5-6 stories and 20-25 condo units would be feasible. In a dash 2 designation, 3-4 stories and 8-10 units would be allowed.

recent zoning ordinance allows for a 50% reduction in parking requirements for “rehab” construction and a 25% reduction for new construction, for developments within 600 feet of a CTA El or Metra rail station.

Planned Developments The planned development district is a special zoning designation designed for many religious, educational, municipal, and quasi-governmental projects. Additionally, it is commonly used for larger residential and commercial developments. The designation is intended to allow flexibility with the existing zoning requirements while maintaining building and urban design, density, use, environmental, and economic considerations which are compatible with the character of the existing community. Planned developments are scrutinized under additional design and development reviews by the City of Chicago. Both Howard Street and Morse Avenue have planned development districts.

30

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Howard Street Zoning Zoning regulations are a major factor that have shaped the character, design, and development along Howard Street. In the east and central districts, moderate residential densities, small format retail, and buildings which face and abut the street have created a pedestrian accessible shopping district. In contrast, the Gateway Centre and development patterns in the west district are more automobile oriented and in contrast to the traditional neighborhood districts in Rogers Park.

PD-641

ra et

Clark

C2-2 RT-4

Business Commercial

C1-3

PD-950

B3-3

C1-3

B3-3

Ashland

C1-2

Wolcott

Damen

Seeley

Hoyne

Ridge

Winchester

RT-4

RT-4

B1-3

dM an ine dL

C1-2

B3-3

B1-3

B3-3

RT-4

Lake Michigan

n

Re

B1-2

C1-2

Public School

A CT

B3-2

B3-2

RT-4 B3-5 a Sherid

Paulina

Howard Street

RT-4

Greenview

B1-3

Bosworth

B3-3

Evanston, IL

RT-4

Marshfield

B3-3

C1-1

Ro

g

ers

RT-4

RT-4

PD-641

Park Parking Planned Unit Development Residential * All business and commercial districts permit residential above the first floor.

Figure 1.26: Howard Street Zoning Map

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 31 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS East and Central Districts In much of the east and central districts the zoning classifications allow moderately high levels of residential density (5-6 stories and 20-25 units) and support small format, pedestrian oriented retail, with the exception of the Gateway Centre. Conversely, the shorter building heights and smaller scale found on the eastern end of Howard from Greenview to Ashland are inconsistent with the surrounding streets and general Rogers Park neighborhood character. Despite a strong demand for residential development, this area remains largely one or two story strip retail. This development pattern can be traced back to the narrow lots that exist on the block, discouraging new assembly and rehabilitation efforts. The City’s parking requirements also stymied redevelopment because space is not available on these small lots to provide adequate parking for new residential units. In both the east and central districts,

Figure 1.27: One story strip commercial from Greenview to Ashland on Howard Street

the existing regulations encourage buildings without setbacks and that maximize available developable space.

West District The west district of Howard Street, from Clark Street to Ridge Avenue allows for lower residential densities than the east and central districts.

Zoning permits building heights of 3-4 stories and 8-10 units (assuming the availability of three standard city lots). 2-3 stories and 2 -8 units are feasible on smaller parcels. The lack of residential buildings on this part of Howard Street is likely due to the fact that much of this area was built from 1950 to 1970, with automobile oriented retail and commercial uses.

Figure 1.28: Automobile oriented west district

32

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

EXISTING CONDITIONS Morse Avenue Zoning Morse Avenue primarily supports smaller format retail stores, interspersed with multifamily residential, religious and educational uses. Residential densities permitted on Morse Avenue are moderately high, with most areas of the district having heights of 5-6 stories and 20-25 units in a typical building. As on Howard Street, the existing regulations encourage buildings without setbacks to maximize available developable space.

East District The east district, stretching from Sheridan Road to Lakewood and including the planned developFigure 1.29: Morse Avenue Zoning Map

ment senior housing building, supports a variety of business and commercial districts, allowing moderately high residential densities. The section just west of Sheridan Road permits auto-oriented retail uses. Although this zoning classification is not in context with the existing community character, new construction of auto oriented retail is unlikely. Because of the high demand for residential units along the lake front, many of the structures in this district are likely to become condominium buildings with small ground floor retail spaces.

Figure 1.30: North Beach Loft rehab ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 33 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

EXISTING CONDITIONS Central District The central sub-district contains most of the district’s retail character with the majority of the commercial establishments. The retail uses along the street are continuous, which help to solidify this street’s character as a neighborhood shopping district. Moderately high residential densities (5-6 stories and 20-25 units) are permitted in much of the district, which has been one factor in spurring new development, including a new condominium building planned for 1225 West Morse Avenue.

West District The western sub-district is a mixture of educational, religious, multi-family residential and scattered retail uses. The area will unlikely see much change in building footprints and development patterns, as a majority of the land is occupied by religious and educational uses. Additionally, a large part of this district is zoned RT-4, which does not permit business or

Figure 1.31: Continuous retail in the Central District

commercial uses on the first floor. Although they are noncompliant, retail does exist in some of the multi-unit residential buildings in this district.

Glenwood Arts District The majority of the Glenwood Avenue Arts District is zoned as a business or commercial district. The small-format low-intensity retail permitted is in context with the existing neighborhood and conforms to the community’s future vision of the area as expressed in the three public meetings.

The narrow width of some of the parcels on Glenwood may discourage new residential development. As is the case on Howard Street’s eastern sub-district, smaller developments are often unable to meet existing parking requirements. The parcels are too small to accommodate the regulation of one parking space for each new residential dwelling.

34

Figure 1.32: Galleries in the Glenwood Avenue Arts District with Residential above

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES First Community Meeting The first community meeting was held at the New Field School on

Participants were then asked to discuss the groups or clusters of

October 14, 2004. The meeting process and structure were formulated

assets and opportunity areas, specifically addressing the issues

by the City Design Center in consultation with DevCorp North. Follow-

related to each cluster and how to effect positive change around each

ing site visits and other data collection, discussions with community

cluster. Facilitators and group scribes generated conversation and

stakeholders and consultation with the Steering Committee, the City

recorded the results for latter analysis, noting areas of group consen-

Design Center team convened the meeting to determine the commu-

sus and disagreement.

nity’s perception of the assets and areas needing improvement in both commercial corridors.

To keep residents engaged, limit individuals from monopolizing conversation, and ensure that all attendees had an equal voice, the CDC

DevCorp North, the Asset Based Community Development Institute

team created a highly structured but flexible process that allowed for

(ABCD) and City Design Center team members all provided introduc-

a variety of suggestions and input. Placing stickers on the maps was

tory comments. Over 40 participants were asked to identity the assets

used as the participatory mechanism to assist with data collection and

and liability areas (referred to as opportunity areas) in three categories:

ensure incorporation of ideas into the final analysis.

safety, business mix, and character. These categories were broad enough to provide for input on various issues for each retail district and simultaneously allowed for a linking of discussion in each section.

The importance of discussing interrelated issues became apparent, particularly with regard to safety.

The first community meeting provided participants with an opportunity to identify and confirm the assets and opportunities areas in both commercial districts. The following maps display the results of the sticker voting process and participant responses at the first community meeting.

Participants were divided into three small groups, two for Morse Avenue and one for Howard Street. Each group was provided a data collection map with photos and numbered buildings to orient group members with the street. For each category attendees placed stickers on large maps of each street to represent assets (green) and opportunity areas (red). Each group member was given a total of 18 stickers, six for each category.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 35 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Howard Street Participants noted that the Howard Street shopping district has aspects that appeal to both nearby residents and visitors from surrounding neighborhoods. One of the street’s strongest assets is its transportation infrastructure.

The CTA station and bus terminal function as a central hub for Chicago commuters, linking Evanston, Skokie, and surrounding Chicago communities with the city. While the area has a diversity of businesses and activity that define its character, all of its sub-districts are isolated from one another. These sub-districts are seen as having distinct issues with different character and needs. Much of the overall district is in need of physical rehabilitation, particularly in the central area. The concentration of negative physical conditions in this area, constant loitering, and deteriorated appearance of the train station were reinforced by safety concerns.

Figure 2.1 Howard Street group sticker maps

36

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Morse Avenue According to opinions expressed at the meeting, the area’s strengths

This prevents the area’s positive attributes, such as the Glenwood

cluster in the ends of the district, while the greatest concerns exist in

Avenue Arts District from acting as a catalyst for revitalization on

the center. Unappealing physical conditions, constant loitering, and

Morse Avenue.

criminal activity that are prevalent in the central area contribute to an unsafe and unwelcoming identity. The western end supports a group

The following sections summarize the results of the assets and oppor-

of institutional uses and the physical conditions in this sub-district are

tunities discussed for each category: retail, character & safety. Later

much better. The eastern end supports a large number of well-main-

in the planning process, the City Design Center team felt it appropri-

tained residential uses. As with Howard Street, the activities of the

ate to add new categories to the analysis. These new categories are

sub-districts and prominent gateways are isolated from one another.

described on page 55.

Figure 2.2 Morse Avenue group stickers ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 37 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Assets and Opportunities: Retail in Howard District The strengths and weaknesses of the Howard Street shopping district

Michigan and nearby lakeside parks were identified as a potential tourist

were discussed at the first community meeting and are summarized

attraction. The district’s convenient transportation access, new develop-

below. The participants identified a tremendous opportunity to trans-

ment and unique features form a basis on which new retail diversity could

form the district into a shopping destination by building on its unique

be brought to the neighborhood to fill problematic vacancies.

assets. The Howard Street district has extremely good transportation access into the wealthy northern suburbs along Ridge, Clark and Sheridan Roads. With one of the city’s busiest Red Line L stations at its center, and an adjoining CTA and Pace bus terminal, the neighborhood is also extremely well served by public transit. In addition to the new Gateway shopping center and historic buildings, this district has some unique and interesting stores like the Caribbean Bakery and Lost Eras costume and antique store. Even the close proximity of Lake

Due to a significant group of Chicagoans of Caribbean descent in the Rogers Park area, there are a number of Caribbean stores in the Howard Street Business District. With carry-out Jamaican and Belizean restaurants, a Bakery specializing in Caribbean breads, and a new full-service Jamaican restaurant, Caribbean stores present a strong and unique presence in the area. The popular Caribbean Festival is held on Howard Street every July and was cited in the CDC business survey as the Howard Street event that best supported local businesses.

Figure 2.3 Howard Street retail sticker placement

38

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES The national retailers in and around the Gateway Centre draw shoppers from in and around Rogers Park. Dominick’s grocery store and Marshall’s clothing store are two such retail anchors.

The greatest retail challenge in the Howard Street district is to fill the many vacancies. Because some blocks have vacant storefronts along nearly all of their face, there is an opportunity to combine these older spaces to accommodate the 2,000-plus square feet required by many modern retailers.

Retail in Morse-Glenwood District As identified at the first community meeting on October 14th, 2004, the strongest retail assets in the Morse-Glenwood corridor are found along the periphery of the district. Participants also indicated an appreciation for the local ownership of many of the Morse District businesses.

Many of the opportunities for change are clustered at the center of the Figure 2.4 The Heartland Cafe was identified as a neighborhood asset

district near the Red Line Station.

The corridor’s two unique restaurants are both major assets but lie on the edges of the district. The Heartland Café, a neighborhood fixture for over twenty years, features an unusual gift store and was rated one of the top three favorite stores in Rogers Park on the CDC Customer Survey. The Morseland Restaurant is a relative newcomer that has become popular in the neighborhood for both its menu and its live music.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 39 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES The local ownership of Morse Avenue businesses is also a tremen-

hours and draws only a few customers to the shopping district. Meeting

dous asset for this shopping district. The local owners of these

participants expressed the opinion that in its present state, the Arts District

businesses are very active in the local Special Service Area and

is largely irrelevant to the operation and businesses of the Morse Avenue

demonstrate both commitment to and optimism about the Morse-

district.

Glenwood district. These small business owners are considered to be more flexible and neighborhood oriented than their national chain

As on Howard Street, vacant storefronts provide an excellent opportunity

counterparts and may thus be mobilized to tackle shared issues in the

to expand the breadth of retail and service in the district. One obstacle to

district.

filling these vacancies may be a lack of available parking. Another obstacle may be the poor condition and appearance of the available retail spaces, a

The Arts District presents both an asset and an opportunity. This

problem identified by shoppers and business owners alike.

unusual concentration of galleries does not generally hold regular

Figure 2.5 Morse-Glenwood retail asset sticker placement

40

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Character Assets and Opportunities The participants at the first community meeting identified a diversity of activities, physical amenities, and design elements that help to define the character of Howard Street. The area displays architecturally significant buildings, which add to the visual identity and character that is Howard Street. Various multi-story, mixed-use buildings that maintain a ground floor retail identity, in addition to a comfortable street scale, have created a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment. Unfortunately, these and many other assets have been overshadowed by the area’s need for physical improvement. Overall district appearance, building conditions, unsympathetic development patterns, and safety concerns have created a negative district identity.

The community identified and confirmed the importance of preserving and renovating important community landmarks and significant architectural buildings in the Howard Street District, including the Wisdom Figure 2.6: Historic Howard Theatre

Bridge Theatre, the Howard Theater Building, the Pivot Point Building, and the Howard Storage Building. A planned renovation is underway for the Wisdom Bridge and Howard Theater located on the 1500 and 1600 blocks of Howard Street. A few blocks west, a condo conversion is occurring at the Pivot Point Building on the corner of Howard and Clark Street.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 41 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Howard Street has many assets that exist due to the community’s location. Its close proximity to Lake Michigan, open space, and large parks has contributed greatly to the development potential and allure of the community. There are a number of pocket parks in the Howard district vicinity, including the newest addition, Gale Park. This open space provides activities for both Gale School and community residents to enjoy.

Capitalizing on the location of major arterials, Howard Street provides a prominent gateway to the City of Chicago. The district has major arterial access points at Sheridan Road, Clark Street, and Ridge Avenue that have potential as marketing and identity points for the street. Additionally, these arterials help link the community to the rest of Rogers Park.

New streetscape elements provided by the City of Chicago provide positive character improvements to the street. The addition of pedestrian scale street lamps, ornamental signs, and brick accent sidewalks

Figure 2.7: Gale Park School and future site of the new community center

help enhance the street’s existing pedestrian accessibility.

The group of community institutions located in the east district of Howard Street provides stability and community cohesion to the area. DevCorp North, Rogers Park Community Council, CEDA, the Gale school, the Community Center, and Access Health Center are all located one within blocks from each other. Unfortunately, they also represent an area liability, as their use is not consistent with the retail character of the district.

42

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Opportunities A number of issues on Howard Street have contributed to an inconsistent physical character. Smaller retail centers that encourage walkability, an intimate street scale, and quality design are noted for their visual identity and community character. The new Gateway Centre development represents a change from this type of development pattern that threatens the pedestrian environments that have been

•

With destination retail located at the rear of the large site,

shoppers are discouraged from crossing the parking lot and walking down Howard Street.

•

Transit customers exiting the train station do not have a direct

path to the major retailers in the shopping center.

created in the east and central districts. The community identified this development as a major point of concern because of its divergence from the overall neighborhood character.

Figure 2.8: Assets and opportunity areas on Howard Street

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 43 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Substantial differences in the physical design and character between different parts of the Howard Street have created incongruous neighborhood sub-districts. Major physical disruptions on Howard Street include the Gateway Centre, the pedestrian-unfriendly intersection of Clark and Howard Street, the poorly-lit Metra underpass, and the auto-oriented west end district. Howard Street lacks well-marked pedestrian paths and physical design connections that would alleviate barriers between its sub-districts. These conditions discourage shopping activity by creating barriers for pedestrian movement.

One of Howard Street’s major physical and character concerns is the overall appearance of the district, with particular emphasis on the areas surrounding the CTA Howard El Station, the south side of Howard Street from Ashland to Greenview, and isolated areas in the west district. This includes poor signage, façade, and store front

Figure 2.9: The Gateway Centre breaks the district in half, discouraging pedestrian passage from the east/central areas to the western side of the Clark and Howard intersection

conditions; safety concerns; and an unkempt streetscape. These conditions have exacerbated an unappealing and blighted identity of the district.

Figure 2.10: Vacant store front east of Howard Avenue El Station

44

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Figure 2.11: Inconsistent façade and signage standards

Figure 2.12: Bland wall at the video store does not allow for window shopping

Figure 2.13: Signage from vacant storefronts has not been removed ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 45 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Morse Avenue Character Overall, the community meeting participants identified Morse Avenue’s

The character of and activity generated by the Glenwood Avenue Arts Dis-

strongest assets near its end points. Its major points of concern, or

trict represents one of the area’s greatest strengths. The conditions in this

areas of opportunity are located in the center. Many in the community

district are quite different from that of Morse Avenue. Long-standing retail

saw Morse Avenue as a neighborhood oriented shopping district,

establishments and local theaters, such as the Heartland Café and Lifeline

but one where its rundown appearance and safety concerns have

Theatre provide destination attractions. Across the street, numerous gal-

prevented the district from reaching its full potential. Many assets

leries are decorated in varied colors and their window designs provide a

were also identified that have the potential to contribute to the district’s

strong visual anchor. The murals adjacent to the northern location of CTA

revitalization.

train station help showcase the area’s artistic identity.

Figure 2.15: Physical character sticker placement on Morse Avenue

46

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES On Morse Avenue, the east and west districts’ physical and safety issues are vastly improved from that of the central area. Educational and religious uses interspersed with multi-unit residential buildings anchor the west district and provide stability to the area. A concentration of residential uses and high quality retail anchor the east district including a well kept senior development, the popular and attractive Morseland Café and recent condominium conversions. The pedestrian activity and positive identities of both districts have the potential to act as a revitalization catalyst for the central area of Morse Avenue.

Most of the architecturally distinct buildings on Morse are located in Figure 2.15: Lifeline Theatre on Glenwood Avenue

the west district, which add visual identity and character to the area.

In the central section of Morse Avenue, the Cobbler’s Mall is both historically and architecturally significant as a long-standing community establishment, which is undergoing renovation to update its retail space. There are also a number of mixed-use, brick facade multifamily buildings that have distinct ornamental features throughout the street, which add character to the neighborhood.

In addition to notable architecture, community participants from the public meetings and various stakeholders felt that the most appealing buildings were those that had been recently constructed or renovated.

Recent development has been supported by a strong housing market in Rogers Park, with condominium conversions a common occurrence.

Figure 2.16: The new Field School on Morse Avenue

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 47 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES On Morse Avenue, a number of redevelopment projects are underway.

They include: •

Figure 2.17: Chicago Math and Science Academy and the Catholic Covenant

Two mixed-use, ground floor commercial and residential buildings at 1225 and 1448 West Morse.

•

Mixed-use, ground floor commercial and residential building at 6930 N. Greenview

•

Double Crown International Stores at 6954 N. Glenwood

These improvements will have a major impact on the character and identity of the street, as they are centrally located on Morse Avenue.

Figure 2.18: United Church of Rogers Park

As with Howard Street, Morse Avenue benefits from geographic assets, including the close vicinity to Lake Michigan and direct access points to prominent arterials. These assets also represent opportunity areas. The physical paths across Sheridan Road need to be strengthened to encourage use of the lake’s amenities. Additionally, Sheridan Road and Clark Street could provide opportunities for increased customer activity by using gateway-marketing signage to announce the district.

Figure 2.19: 6930 N. Greenview

Opportunities The character and identity issues on Morse Avenue differ greatly in each sub-district. Physical barriers, change in uses from one area to another, development that is not in context with the surrounding community, and a lack of design standards create a segregated and disjointed district.

48

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The Glenwood Avenue Arts District’s established character could be used as a catalyst for revitalization but is isolated from the rest of the district. Urban design, safety, and lighting conditions adjacent to the train station discourage connections between the two areas. The east and west sub-districts suffer a similar situation: the activity from Clark Street and Sheridan is separated from institutional and residential uses, discouraging activity from filtering to the central, retail heavy area.

The vacant Osco Drug location, partially occupied by Washington Figure 2.20: Large commercial development

Mutual and Family Dollar, is not in character with the small format, street-front retail that dominates the district. Its large parking lot situated on the street disrupts the existing building pattern on Morse Avenue.

Evident in the results of the community meetings, residents affirmed the CDC team’s initial findings of the poor character and physical identity on Morse Ave. While identifying liabilities and existing conditions, community participants agreed that the central district, particularly the area surrounding the CTA station, is in need of revitalization.

This area was routinely identified as a cluster for safety and physical concerns.

Figure 2.21: Conditions on Morse Avenue east of CTA El station

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 49 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES Public Safety There is considerable concern in Rogers Park about public safety

On Howard Street, the area east of the CTA station stretching up Paulina

in the shopping districts. According to both the CDC customer and

Street and into Gale Park were identified as areas needing attention with

business surveys public safety was overwhelmingly identified as the

regard to public safety. In the Morse District, the areas around the El sta-

most pressing issue facing the commercial districts. In both areas,

tion and along Glenwood Avenue were seen as areas in need of improve-

the greatest concern about public safety centers on the public transit

ment.

stations. Fortunately a number of assets were identified that could be built upon to enhance safety. Participants in the first public meeting identified community institutions, schools, government offices as well as private developments as bases for safety enhancement.

Figure 2.22 Howard Street safety sticker placement

50

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

ASSETS AND OPPORTUNITIES

A number of factors were identified as decreasing the sense of safety near the train stations.

Poor lighting is a chief factor related to a diminished sense of safety in the area. Portions of Gale Park and the alleys near the Howard L Station appear dark and menacing at night. Likewise, Glenwood Avenue along the CTA rail tracks has only a modest amount of lighting. Additionally, barred or covered windows, deteriorating building appearance and litter contribute to an abandoned and dangerous appearance for the area. Community meeting participants frequently expressed the opinion that safety concerns must be addressed to bring them back to the districts.

Figure 2.26 Morse Avenue safety sticker placement ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 51 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

CRITICAL ISSUES Community Vision Meeting The second community meeting was held at the Pottawattamie Park

ideas. These results were used to develop vision headlines that summa-

Field House on January 6th 2005. The meeting was designed to

rized the group’s vision. The meeting format and participatory exercises

gather visionary ideas from the community and begin the initial pro-

allowed for the open exchange of ideas while ensuring that all participants

cess of developing guiding principles. This information was simulta-

had an equal voice in the process. This created lively, energetic, and

neously used to further develop the critical issues created by the City

engaging discussions in each of the small groups. Participant evaluations

Design Center team and create a community vision that would support

of the meeting indicated that the majority of participants, over 80%, rated

plan recommendations (the focus of the third and final community

the meeting either a good or excellent experience.

meeting). To accomplish this objective participants were asked to create visionary statements, which were termed “headlines”, for both commercial corridors in the three functional areas used at the first meeting: character, business mix, and safety.

At the onset, the City Design Center provided a summary presentation of the results from the first community meeting for each district, and a synopsis of the project process. Maps were provided to each

Below are some sample visions for Howard Street and Morse Avenue commercial districts resulting from the community meeting discussion: •

street that has diverse activities for youth and adults.

•

Howard Street invites you to our lakeside community.

•

Morse Avenue attracts quality, accessible, vibrant, welcoming, working, shopping opportunities for everyone regardless of income,

participant indicating the distribution of assets and opportunities from

race, etc, where you can get what you need and want for home,

the first community meeting. Attendees were asked to consider this information, along with their personal knowledge, in creating district headlines.

business, spirit, stomach, creativity, brain, and the joy of life.

•

Come to the 4th annual Rogers Park Playwright Festival at the Wisdom Bridge Community Arts Center and use your ticket for 10% off at any Howard Street businesses.

Over 80 attendees participated. They were divided into groups of 8-10 participants for each district. The City Design Center, DevCorp North,

Morse will become a pedestrian friendly, well-lit and landscaped

•

Morse Avenue is safe because police patrol the well-lit street on

and the Rogers Park steering committee facilitated small group discus-

bikes and on foot, and mingle with the many people who are hap-

sions and acted as scribes for note taking purposes. Introductory

pily thronging the street seven days a week, buying in stores served

questions assisted participants to vision for the future of their district,

by locally trained youth.

such as “Using your imaginations and best ideas, what do we want the character of this commercial district to be or include?” Following each

•

Better, more attractive retail brings pedestrians a feeling of safety to Howard Street. More “feet” on Howard Street.

of the three functional areas, participants voted on their prioritized

52

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

CRITICAL ISSUES Based on the input of the community during the first public meeting, the results of the customer and business surveys and other research,

District Appearance and Design •

the CDC team developed a set of critical issues. Many of these issues were seen to affect both districts. The first and second public meetings

Parts of the districts have a deteriorated, cluttered and unwelcoming appearance.

•

raised other issues about the community’s commercial districts, which

Parts of the shopping districts are separated and/or isolated from one another.

resulted in the addition of two additional categories of critical issues:

•

The shopping districts lack a positive and distinct identity.

community development and transportation. Below is a summary of

•

Unsympathetic developments and a lack of pedestrian ameni-

the critical issues.

Shopping Mix and Business Environment •

There is an uneven mix of businesses, with many stores of the same kinds and other stores missing.

•

•

•

•

Both new development and older buildings have high vacancy.

•

Existing retail assets in the community are located far from one another and are not mutually reinforcing.

•

The need for youth-oriented activities is much greater than the availability of programs.

•

Some groups within the community are underrepresented in community development initiatives.

Transportation •

Public Safety •

The efforts of community groups, businesses and residents are not coordinated to solve shared problems.

There are not enough positive night-time activities or entertainment venues.

The Arts District is isolated from activity on Morse Avenue.

Community Development

There is a “missing market” of middle to higher income Rogers Park residents that do not shop in the neighborhood.

•

ties have threatened the existing pedestrian orientation.

The train stations are poorly maintained and appear unsafe or unwelcoming.

There are places that allow or contribute to safety problems on

•

A lack of parking is perceived to be a problem.

the street and appear dangerous.

•

Retail areas are separated from heavily trafficked streets.

•

The community is committed to dealing with safety issues.

•

Community meetings about safety and community policing efforts do not reach out to or include all aspects of the community.

•

Criminal activity is occurring on both streets.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 53 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS

Guiding Principles Following the second community meeting, the City Design Center

Design and appearance

team synthesized the results into guiding principles, while attempting

Improve the appearance of the streets and buildings to cultivate a distinct

to maintain the integrity and spirit of participants’ ideas. Guiding prin-

district identity and encourage more pedestrian activity through better

ciples are statements that describe the goals, community vision and

signs, greater cleanliness and physical improvements.

framework for new development and revitalization efforts. A final set of five guiding principles were co-developed by the City Design Center, DevCorp North, the Rogers Park Steering Committee, and the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, by synthesizing the headlines, results of the voting priorities, and visionary ideas that surfaced from the second community meeting.

Shopping Mix Celebrate the diversity of Rogers Park through a broad mix of businesses and services, varying in size and type and catering to a range of incomes, races and ethnicities.

Safety Enhance the safety of the streets for everyone at all hours of the day through preventative and responsive measures that reduce the opportunity for criminal activity in order to create a welcoming feel

Community Development Foster a healthy foundation of commerce, culture, education and community service that focuses on organizing and mobilizing stakeholders to improve their commercial districts.

Transportation Capitalize on Rogers Park’s transportation and parking to promote stronger connections to adjacent districts and enhance the accessibility of neighborhood destinations to attract shoppers from the larger region.

The following page summarizes the complete set of recommendations, developed by the CDC, which are then described in more detail in the remainder of the chapter. Each recommendation was designed to support the guiding principles and provide a mechanism for achieving the visionary ideas expressed during the second community meeting.

in the area.

54

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations Summary Shopping Mix 1)

Encourage the growth of new retail stores and services to fill

non-viable commercial spaces.

5)

storefront vacancies in both districts.

2) 3)

Work with the niche opportunities in both districts to tackle

and redecorating the CTA berm.

7)

distinguishes them as a part of a lakeside community, which

community to strengthen business development efforts.

should be announced at community entry points.

8)

Develop a community building approach that enforces Track crime statistics to identity hot spots and disseminate

ties.

Community Development 1) 2)

Promote new residential, mixed-use development on the west end of Howard Street through denser zoning.

3)

quality of life in balance with the commercial activity.

3)

Transportation 1)

Eliminate the retail zoning on Paulina north of Howard Street to consolidate the retail districts and promote new uses for

Make existing parking opportunities more accessible to the public for shopping in both districts.

2)

development.

4)

Create opportunities for volunteerism in and around the commercial districts.

Support mixed-use, residential development near the train stations with an emphasis on mixed income or affordable unit

The Howard and Morse-Glenwood Commercial Districts should include healthy and active pursuits to enhance the

walkable and visually appealing community.

2)

Encourage genuinely diverse collaboration among community groups and residents to confront shared issues.

Design and Appearance Implement façade and sign design guidelines that support a

The commercial districts should remain pedestrian friendly environments with improved landscaping and public ameni-

Strengthen community policing efforts with the support of

resources accordingly.

1)

The shopping districts should have a vibrant appearance that

Align the efforts of landlords, realtors, business owners and the

accountability and involves all stakeholders in the process.

3)

Redesign Glenwood to provide a visual path to the Arts District by supporting the improvement of lighting, adding banners

municipal and neighborhood agencies.

2)

6)

Encourage businesses to develop positive night-time activities

Public Safety 1)

using district-map kiosks and wayfinding signs.

shared retail problems and build on existing strengths. and draw shoppers to the districts at night.

4)

Market retail sub-districts in the areas with high volume by

Encourage public officials to provide rehabilitation, upkeep and maintenance to the train stations.

3)

Announce the Shopping district gateways with wayfinding signs.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 55 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS Community Recommendations Meeting The third community meeting, held on April 4th, 2005 at the Lakeshore Healthcare & Rehabilitation center (7200 N. Sheridan Road), was a culmination of the public participation component and research conducted for the Rogers Park Comprehensive Retail Plan. The two main goals for this meeting were to affirm and or modify the guiding principles developed and to respond to and comment on the recommendations created by the City Design Center team. A summary of the community’s suggestions for the guiding principles and recommendations are provided at the end of this section. Section 3 of this

Table 4.1 Percentage results of electronic voting on guiding principles

chapter is a full description of the recommendations created by the City Design Center team, which incorporates the suggestions from this community meeting.

Guiding Principles

Results included the votes of steering committee members, DevCorp North

The meeting process included multiple participatory tools, including

staff, and NIPC attendees in addition to those of community participants.

technology supplied by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission

Small Group Sessions

that allowed participants to vote, in real time, on the guiding principles. Participants were asked to affirm or reject the guiding principles by choosing one of three responses; 1) “Liked the guiding principle”, 2) “Mostly right”, and 3) “Needs work”. A lack of support indicated a need for further discussion, which the small group sessions addressed.

The following chart represents the participant responses for each guid-

The second half of the meeting was divided into three small group sessions, during which participants were given the opportunity to 1) discuss the guiding principle; 2) comment on recommendations or create new ideas; and 3) identify priority sites and specific implementation criteria where appropriate. The first two sessions included an in-depth analysis, whereas the third was an opportunity to provide general feedback for each guiding principle.

ing principle. Based on these responses, the community development guiding principle was determined to warrant further discussion.

56

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS Participants’ votes and small group input helped to both affirm and

Guiding Principle: Design and Appearance Improve the appearance of the streets and buildings to cultivate a distinct district identity and encourage more pedestrian activity through better signs, greater cleanliness and physical improvement.

Dot Voting

Recommendations

prioritize the recommendations provided by the CDC, in addition to providing visions and implementation ideas that the City Design Center incorporated into the final recommendations. A summary of

1. Implement façade and sign design guidelines that support a walkable and visually appealing community.

each guiding principle discussion, the prioritized recommendations

2. Support mixed-use, residential development near the train stations with an emphasis on mixed income or affordable unit development.

and other community ideas are provided below.

3. Market retail sub-districts in the areas with high consumer volume by using districtmap kiosks and signs that orient shoppers.

Safety Guiding Principle: No Change

4. Promote new residential, mixed-use development on the west end of Howard Street through denser zoning.

5. Eliminate the retail zoning on Paulina north of Howard Street to consolidate the retail district and promote new uses for non-viable commercial space.

6. Provide a path from the lake with blue pavement, both on Howard & Morse.

7. Encourage continued enhancement of the appearance and walkability of the Gateway Shopping Center.

8. Support and enhance public amenities on both streets including, open space, a dog park (possibly on Paulina), planters on Morse Avenue, improved landscaping, public murals, public notice boards, trashcans, benches, and outdoor chess tables.

9. Redesign Glenwood to provide a visual path to the Arts District by supporting the improvement of lighting, adding banners and involving the gallery owners in redecorating the CTA berm.

Business, Community and Economic Development in Rogers Park

Recommendations Community Meeting - April 4, 2005

Comprehensive Retail Plan: Howard St. and Morse Ave.

Figure 4.1: Design and Appearance voting board. Boards for all five guiding principles were developed to allow for voting on specific recommendations created by the city Design Center

Prioritized Recommendation: •

Participants identified the need for year-round, highly visible police foot patrol as the most pressing need.

Community Ideas: •

Hold businesses accountable for activities on their premises.

•

Encourage youth to get involved in safety issues.

•

Promote greater communication between police and businesses owners.

Community Development Guiding Principle The community recommended that the guiding principle read: Foster a healthy foundation of commerce, culture, education and community service that focuses on organizing and mobilizing all parts of the community to improve the Morse St. and Howard Ave. commercial districts.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 57 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS nage, and lock up areas that cater to riders.

Prioritized Recommendation: •

Collaboration among community groups around common

•

Improve wheelchair accessible ramps near the CTA El station.

issues areas.

•

Emphasize safety with improved lighting around transportation nodes.

Community Ideas •

Clarify Rogers Park stakeholders.

•

Encourage genuine diversity in community activities.

Design Guiding Principle: No Change Prioritized Recommendation:

Shopping Mix Guiding Principle: No Change

•

guidelines that supported a walkable and visually appealing

Prioritized Recommendation: •

Community Ideas: • •

community.

Marketing storefront vacancies to developers, retailers, and entrepreneurs was identified as a priority.

Participants indicated the need for signage and façade design

Community Ideas: •

Encourage live/work studios and non-profit organizations as a substitute for the current retail uses on Paulina.

Encourage the growth and prosperity of small, locally owned businesses.

•

Improve and clearly mark pedestrian walkways for both corridors.

Attract significant anchor business as a revitalization catalyst

•

Promote attractive signage and awnings.

for both Morse Ave. and Howard St. •

Attract business that cater to middle and upper income shoppers, a missing market in Rogers Park

Transportation Guiding Principle: No Change Prioritized Recommendation: •

The continued rehabilitation, upkeep, and maintenance of the train stations is a priority.

Community Ideas: •

58

Include bike transportation provisions, including lanes, sig-

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS Plan Recommendations: Retail and Shopping Mix The high rate of storefront vacancy and reliance on convenience and value-oriented stores are opportunities for retail growth in both

Rogers Park: A Great Place for Restaurants!

2OGERS 0ARK PROVIDES AN EXCELLENT BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY FOR RESTAURATEURS .EW RESIDENTS ARE MOVING TO ITS NEW CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS IN DROVES 2ESTAURANT BUSINESS IS GOOD AND GETTING BETTER IN 2OGERS 0ARK 'ET IN ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THIS GREAT RETAIL OPPORTUNITY

One of the great restaurant opportunities of Rogers Park

incomes, races and ethnicities.

0ROPERTY &EATURES . 'LENWOOD #HICAGO ), "UILDING 4YPE 3IZE ,EASE 2ATE

Recommendation 1: Encourage the growth of new retail stores and

&REESTANDING STORY 3& 3& NET

4HIS FULLY EQUIPPED AND RECENTLY REHABBED STOREFRONT IS IMMEDIATELY READY FOR A NEW RESTAURANT )TS FULLY RENO VATED KITCHEN HAS ALL NEW APPLIANCES AND A WALK IN REFRIG ERATOR 2ENT INCLUDES A 3& SECURE BASEMENT STOR AGE AREA ,OCATED NEXT TO A 2ED ,INE STOP FOOT TRAFFIC AVERAGES NEARLY PEOPLE PER DAY

+EY $EMOGRAPHICS

forms that this business development activity should take in order to take advantage of local opportunities and build on area assets:

nities to developers, entrepreneurs and retailers.

MILLION

4HERE ARE MORE THAN HOUSEHOLD IN 2OGERS 0ARK THAT EARN MORE THAN PER YEAR !CCORDING TO A RECENT SURVEY OVER TWO THIRDS OF THESE UPPER INCOME HOMES LEAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SHOP 4HE SURVEY ALSO SHOWS THAT THESE HOUSEHOLDS ARE TWICE AS LIKELY AS ALL OTHER 2OGERS 0ARK RESIDENTS TO VISIT LOCAL RES TAURANTS 3O IF YOU BUILT IT THEY WILL COME

services to fill storefront vacancies in both districts. There are two

A. Direct and aggressive marketing of storefront vacancies as opportu-

The Rogers Park Neighborhood

4OTAL POPULATION .UMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS -EDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME 4OTAL CONSUMER SPENDING

celebrate the diversity of Rogers Park through a broad mix of businesses and services, varying in size and type and catering to a range of

4O FIND OUT MORE CALL $EV#ORP .ORTH

s s s s

districts. The goal and principle driving this retail growth is to

The Howard and Morse shopping districts hold incredible potential for new retail ventures. With available space and moderate rents, new -ARKET ANALYSIS SHOWS OVER MILLION IN POTENTIAL LOCAL RESTAU RANT RECEIPTS

retailers could easily open new stores. All that remains is to share positive information about the districts and persuade those who can open new stores to do so.

Rogers Park Restaurant Testimonials "USINESS IS BOOMING 7E HAVE DONE BETTER EACH YEAR 7ITH THE HELP OF $EV#ORP .ORTH THIS COULD BECOME THE DINNER DESTINATION ON THE NORTH SHORE *OE -ATLUM *OEgS #AFE 4HIS IS A GREAT COMMUNITY FOR DOING BUSINESS !LL THE BUSINESS OWNERS LOOK OUT FOR EACH OTHER HERE +AREN 3TONE #ORNER $INER &OR MORE INFORMATION CALL 2ENE #AMARGO #OMMUNITY #OORDINATOR $EV#ORP .ORTH 7 (OWARD 3TREET #HICAGO ), 0HONE INFO DEVCORPNORTH ORG

Creating promotional materials to advertise particularly important vacant retail spaces while emphasizing the market strength and potential of the neighborhood are one way to attract retailers. Such materials should contain specific information about storefronts, like lease rate, size and contact information for the management company.

Figure 4.2: Mock-up of marketing sheet

Also, area demographics and business assistance programs should be featured to show the market potential of the site. Such materials

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 59 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS can even be customized for particular types of businesses with information about near-by complementary or competitive businesses.

However, such marketing materials must be disseminated to the right people. By tapping into local business networks, like the Rogers Park Builders Network, local banking institutions, or the business school at Loyola University, information about retail opportunities can be shared.

Another effective mechanism includes carefully orchestrated tours of the neighborhood for developers and retailers. Choosing particularly strong areas for the starting and ending points of the tour and showing the interiors of some of the best retail spaces can make such tours very effective exercises. Additionally, using local media by issuing press releases about positive retail activity may attract wider interest

Figure 4.3 Critical area for new retail on Howard Street

in the neighborhood.

By taking an aggressive stance in cooperation with local realtors and landlords to fill storefront vacancies, the shopping districts may earn reputations as retail friendly districts.

Efforts to market storefront vacancies to new businesses should focus on particular priority areas where new businesses will have the maximum benefit for the district as a whole.

On Howard Street, it is vital to bring new business to two key areas: (1) the Eastern End from Ashland to Greenview, and (2) in the Gateway Centre. The East End of Howard Street is nestled in a dense residential area and has a few of the district’s best assets, including Lost

60

Figure 4.4 Example of vacancy priority on Morse Avenue

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS Era’s Costume Shop and the Caribbean Bakery. Filling the numerous

music or second-run movie theaters, would also appeal to a broad

vacancies here will bring vital activity to this pedestrian-friendly area.

range of Rogers Park residents. Middle to upper income Rogers Park

The Gateway Centre is the newest and most modern retail building in

Shoppers could be attracted to additional full-service restaurants. Sit-

the district. Retailers and developers will use this shopping center as

down restaurants coupled with some of the unique shopping opportu-

an indicator of market strength, so if the vacancy is not reduced here,

nities in Rogers Park could help to attract shoppers from outside the

new retailers will be wary of the neighborhood.

community.

Morse Avenue business attraction efforts should focus on vacancies

Successful efforts to bring new business to the community

from the corner of Wayne to Greenview in order to provide more retail

should be celebrated in the local newspaper. Well-advertised

activity in the heart of the Morse shopping district. Likewise, vacan-

grand opening events for new stores will also bring needed

cies in the core of the Arts District should be aggressively pursued if it

attention to the districts. Such publicity is invaluable to

is going to be an important attraction for visiting shoppers.

highlighting the growing vitality of the districts to customers

B. Attract the attention of retailers who have been successful in neighborhoods like Rogers Park.

Many Chicago neighborhood shopping districts have faced sets of issues similar to those in Rogers Park and become successful and attractive. By working with retailers in such districts, Rogers Park may develop strategies, contacts and partnerships with individuals and firms with successful track records of participating in retail revitalization. The type of retailers that would be successful additions to Rogers Park would be those that (1) appeal to the breadth of diversity in the community or (2) can successfully capture the “missing market” of middle to upper income shoppers. The types of businesses that would appeal to a broad range of Rogers Park shoppers would include hardware stores, pizza parlors and affordable yet fashionable clothing chains. Evening entertainment venues, for instance live

and the potential opportunity in Rogers Park to other retailers.

Recommendation 2: Work with the niche opportunities in both districts to tackle shared problems and build on existing strengths.

Both retail districts have clusters of unique local businesses that could form the core of a retail destination; Howard Street has a group of Caribbean oriented stores, and Morse Avenue has a substantial number of stores with an arts and leisure focus. In order for these clusters to become effective retail niche destinations, they must overcome some challenges. Important aspects of successful retail niches exist on both streets, like popular festivals oriented around the niche strength and a number of restaurants to anchor the niche. However, by pooling resources and efforts, these retail niches can build on their strong beginnings to draw greater numbers of people to Rogers Park.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 61 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS The Caribbean Niche on Howard Street The Caribbean Bakery and annual Caribbean Festival were cited in

While the Caribbean niche could be an important attraction on Howard

meetings and surveys as important neighborhood attractions. As with

Street, it should not comprise the entire identity of the district. Howard

many retail niches in the city, the Howard Street Caribbean niche finds

Street, especially its eastern end, should continue to provide neighbor-

its greatest potential in its restaurant base. With the more recent addi-

hood-oriented shopping opportunities.

tions of Jamaica Jerk restaurant, Tickie’s Belizean and Good-to-Go Jamaican take-out, the Caribbean niche could be even stronger on Howard Street.

The first challenge facing the Caribbean business cluster on Howard is the need for additional, shared promotional activities. Retail brochures that describe and map the stores in the niche can be placed at each participating business. Advertising expenses can be shared and by highlighting the niche as a whole, the district has a greater chance of becoming known as a Caribbean dining destination.

Other local businesses can participate in the niche effort by expanding their product lines to include Caribbean items. Other stores may also wish to add to the appeal of the Caribbean Festival by decorating their stores appropriately.

Organizing and building upon the Caribbean businesses and their networks may help to attract other similar businesses. Where possible, new Caribbean businesses should be recruited to occupy vacancies between Jamaica Jerk restaurant and the Caribbean Bakery; this way each end of the niche has a strong anchor. A diverse assortment of Caribbean businesses should be courted, especially those that provide shopping or entertainment opportunities before and after the dinner hour.

62

Figure 4.5 Photo of Jamaica Jerk Restaurant

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS The Arts and Leisure Niche in Morse-Glenwood As on Howard Street, many aspects of a successful retail niche are already present in and around the Glenwood Arts District. Galleries, a couple of popular restaurants, entertainment and a well-attended Arts Festival all contribute to the arts niche. There remain some obstacles to making this arts district into a powerful attraction. The galleries and arts businesses must be open and available to walk-in customers and the arts businesses must work together with other businesses on Morse Avenue, especially those with complementary offerings.

district, the niche can be strengthened. Including businesses that complement the Arts will add greater diversity and shopping and entertainment opportunity to the district. Such businesses include the Skylight Wellness yoga studio, the Tyego Dance Project dance studio and the martial arts instruction studios along Morse Avenue.

While the Arts District could become a vital attraction for the Morse Avenue district, it could also, in the long run, become a victim of its own success. Increasing shopping activity on Morse Avenue will lead to growth in retail lease rates. In some cases this rent growth may

Many of the art galleries, including those that form the core of the Arts

outpace the ability for some Arts and Leisure businesses to increase

District on Glenwood, are often open by appointment only and not

sales. Organizing the Arts and Leisure businesses and building a

generally available to walk-in customers. If necessary, resources can

good relationship between these businesses and the retail building

be pooled to staff the galleries on the busiest days of the week for shop-

owners will be essential to preserving this asset in the future.

ping: Thursday through Sunday. It may be necessary to consolidate the entrances to the galleries and share staffing to make the effort cost

Implementation: Lease-Banking

effective. Expanding the product lines of the galleries to include items priced under $30 may also encourage walk-in traffic crossing over from local restaurants and entertainment to make purchases.

Promotional efforts could be expanded by pooling the resources of the businesses. Niche brochures that share information about the several arts and leisure businesses can be produced and distributed. Artwork sold in local galleries can be lent to local restaurants and theatres to expand the visibility of Arts District stores.

Lastly, the Arts District has a more diverse business assortment than is frequently recognized. By expanding the Arts District concept to

One way to protect retail assets from rent growth, or even incubate new stores, is to “lease-bank” retail space. Lease-banking involves a business association or community organization signing a long-term lease for retail space at a fixed, below-market rate.

Even a lease with fixed market rates may work. This arrangement protects the landlord from tenant turnover. It also provides the community organization an opportunity to sublease the space and subsidize an important retail attraction or help a promising entrepreneur to get established.

Market Rent * Area Vacancy = Lease-bank rate on ten-year lease

include all of the Arts and Leisure activities in the Morse-Glenwood ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 63 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 3: Encourage businesses to develop positive night-

Recommendation 4: Align the efforts of landlords, realtors, business owners

time activities and draw shoppers to the districts at night.

and the community to strengthen business development efforts.

Building a vital retail district requires a critical mass of activity, espe-

Making both districts thrive against local rival retail destinations requires

cially in the evenings and weekends. Free or low-cost entertainment

a coordinated effort among city officials, the Rogers Park community and

and events can draw good numbers of people to the district and

business owners. Businesses, landlords, and developers need to share

enhance the sense of vitality on the street.

information and concerns with one another in order to more quickly fill

On Howard Street, Caribbean music at local restaurants or on the sidewalk in the summer on Friday and Saturday night can draw more people to the street. Likewise, cooking demonstrations and classes at local restaurants and bakeries may draw an additional crowd.

In the Morse-Glenwood District, walk-in activities at local arts and lei-

vacancies and attract new retailers. Community organizations must work with businesses and residents to tackle shared issues like public safety.

Businesses and their associations should provide business development support by lending their expertise and abilities to furthering local business efforts.

sure businesses can enhance the vitality of the district in the evenings and weekends. Walk-in dance or martial arts classes may attract more visitors. Martial arts demonstrations, outdoor theatrical shorts, and sidewalk arts sales can also use local business strengths to attract more visitors to the area.

Initially, these activities can use only local talent and expertise found in current businesses to minimize costs. Later, if the events are successful, hired performers can be incorporated into the activities.

These activities should be well advertised and good attendance is a must. Positive reviews of the events and activities in local papers will encourage attendance at future events.

64

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS Safety Safety issues in both districts are interconnected with many of the

nerships. Encouraging business owners, residents, and other stake-

other recommendations presented here. The City Design Center

holders to regularly participate in CAPS programs and meetings will

team’s approach is to combat conditions that lead both to the percep-

help improve the capacity of the districts to combat crime. Addition-

tion and reality of criminal activity. Doing so requires a combined

ally, providing year round, highly visible police foot or bicycle patrol,

and multifaceted approach to the revitalization efforts. Design recom-

will help address safety concerns.

mendations for increased lighting in the Glenwood Avenue Arts district and replacing window bars with laminated glass in store windows

Recommendation 2: Develop a Community building approach that

improve the aesthetic nature of the districts and also make the area

reinforces accountability and involves all stakeholders in the process.

appear safer. It is important to advertise the successes in the district with safety efforts, such as announcing the removal of problem land-

Organizing and unifying the districts’ stakeholders will help lay the

lords or tenants.

foundation for a community building approach to safety. Creating

The City Design Center team’s recommendations for safety require both technical and organizational efforts, which are further explained in the Plan Recommendation and Implementation Priorities (see page 75). The two main priority areas are 1) strengthening community policing efforts with the support of municipal and neighborhood agen-

institutions like block clubs, which can deal with a broad array of local issues, will help send a message of solidarity against criminal activity.

Signs that advertise the block club and display the rules of the neighborhood, such as no loitering, drinking, etc, are common methods in dealing with safety issues.

cies, and 2) combating safety concerns with a community building

Pressuring individuals and business entities that allow or contribute to

approach that reinforces accountability and involves all stakeholders

criminal or dangerous activity is critical to safety efforts. For example,

in the process.

the “cease and desist” message could be directed at drug dealing

Recommendation 1: Strengthen community policing efforts with the support of municipal and neighborhood agencies.

activities, store owners who permit loitering in front of their establishments, and landlords who consistently rent to problem tenants. Starting a “neighbors who care” campaign where residents would phone,

With safety resources scarce at the city level, successful efforts are

protest, and march against these activities would be an effective

often reliant on community members or through public-private part-

implementation solution.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 65 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendation 3: Track crime statistics to identity hot spots and disseminate resources accordingly.

Various websites now track community crime statistics and provide mapping interfaces that can identity clusters. Available community resources should be mobilized to combat crime in these areas and provide a visual presence of security. The DevCorp North cleaning crew, community groups, and block clubs could help patrol these areas. To access crime statistics, visit CitizenICAM and www.ChicagoCrime.org. ChicagoCrime.org offers a mapping interface as shown in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6: Narcotics violations around Howard Street from May 25, 2005 to August 19, 2005

66

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS Plan Recommendations: Design and Appearance Many physical conditions in both districts are in need of improvement.

B.

Improve window transparency by placing bars behind the

Deteriorated physical conditions, isolated sub-districts, and suburban

window or using laminated safety glass instead of outer secu-

style development and building design have created image problems.

rity gates; discourage posters and signs that prevent window-

The following recommendations and implementation suggestions sup-

shopping.

port the guiding principle for character; to improve the appearance

C.

Window displays should be designed to welcome activity and

of the streets and buildings to cultivate a distinct district identity and

create a comfortable atmosphere for shopping. Encouraging

encourage more pedestrian activity through better signs, greater clean-

clean, attractive, and uncluttered displays that provide a quick

liness, and physical improvements.

glimpse into the stores merchandise are critical.

A lack of identity standards is prevalent in both districts. Many of the businesses’ facades, signage, and storefront displays have a deteriorated, cluttered and unwelcoming appearance. The following

D.

Encourage the use of projecting, externally lit signs that appeal to pedestrians and add to the prominent feel to the districts.

Discourage mounted and internally lit signs.

ideas outline how façade and signage guidelines can be used as an

New signage and design regulations should support the existing

efficient and cost effective way of implementing identity standards.

urban scale and pedestrian character of the districts. Wood materials

Recommendation 1: Implement façade and sign design guidelines that support a walkable and visually appealing community.

A.

and external illuminated signage will help support a “quaint” main street identity and prominent image for the district, characteristics requested by the community. These improvements could be partially

All signs should be professionally produced and maintained.

subsidized by a local community organization or the districts’ Special

Borders, trim, and aluminum siding should be cleaned on

Service Areas.

regular basis.

Implementation of signage and façade guidelines can be accomplished through various means.

• Aldermen can influence the design and appearance of new development.

• A common, district-wide retail lease:

Creating a consistent signage theme throughout the districts, while providing sufficient branding opportunities for business will help improve the area’s inconsistent physical identity. These regulations should be accompanied by specific maintenance and cleaning requirements to ensure continued upkeep. Signage from vacant stores should be removed and the outer facade should be cleaned on a consistent basis to prevent deteriorated conditions over time.

Adopted by the landlords and building owners in the districts, a common retail lease could outline specific design and retail standards to be followed. Items could include signage and façade conditions, window displays, hours of operation, involvement in community festivals, and other issues that would add to the vitality of the districts. The districts’ Special Service Areas could coordinate this activity.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 67 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS The sub-districts for both streets are isolated and separated from one

Rogers Park residents have voiced their desire to maintain affordability in

another. Inconsistent building design, major arterials separating sub-

the community. To assist, planning officials and local aldermen should

districts, incompatible uses, and a lack of design interventions creates

encourage a 20 % affordable housing set aside for all new developments.

a discontinuous physical environment. Four recommendations are

This will help to prevent displacement of low to moderate-income rental

outlined that will assist in creating a continuous feel throughout the

tenants that live in buildings being converted to condos.

district, enhance existing retail, and support the streets urban, mixeduse identity.

Recommendation 2: Promote new residential, mixed-use development on the west end of Howard Street through denser zoning.

Street to consolidate the retail districts and promote new uses for non-viable commercial spaces.

Paulina Street is in a critical state, with consistent loitering, a perception

Increasing the residential densities on the west end of Howard Street

of high crime, and rundown physical conditions. Retail uses are currently

will encourage developers to invest in this sub-district. Larger build-

not viable on this street. Rezoning this area to residential or institutional

ings and additional residents on the street will help to unify the scale

uses will consolidate the retail uses on Howard Street and provide new

and pedestrian character of Howard Street. The additional residential

redevelopment opportunities on Paulina.

activity will likely support both the west and central retail districts.

Residential development within the existing retail districts will provide additional consumers to the street, creating a greater opportunity for retailers to succeed.

Recommendation 3: Support mixed-use, residential development near the train stations with an emphasis on mixed income or affordable unit development.

68

Recommendation 4: Eliminate the retail zoning on Paulina north of Howard

Recommendation 5: Market retail sub-districts in the areas with high volume by using district-map kiosks and wayfinding signs.

Consistent, district-wide marketing strategies will help to unify the street’s sub-districts and improve the vitality of the existing retail establishments.

Kiosks can be located at the prominent points of district activity, advertising the major retail assets of the area. These kiosks are often used to advertise community activities, festivals, and major events. The Gateway Centre, El

The new Chicago Zoning Code allows for a reduction in parking for

stations, Iglesia de Cristo Mision Cristina Elim parking lot and major arterial

residential development built within 600 feet of a train station. The

intersections are ideal locations for these kiosks. This type of marketing

combination of a parking reduction allowance and the high demand

and signage will further encourage the filtering of activity from one sub-

for condos in the area should attract residential developers.

district to another.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 6: Redesign Glenwood to provide a visual path to the Arts District by supporting the improvement of lighting, adding banners and redecorating the CTA berm.

The Glenwood Avenue Arts District, one of the area’s greatest assets, is isolated from the activity on Morse Avenue. The poor physical conditions surrounding the train station, including inadequate lighting and consistent loitering, discourage pedestrian movement from one district to another.

We propose three strategies to improve the connections between these sub-districts; 1) support the addition of pedestrian level lighting on both sides of the street; 2) advertise the Arts District on light pole banners; and 3) create a mural on the CTA berm and involve the gallery owners in this redecorating project.

Each of these three recommendations will provide increased visibility and advertising to the district by improving the physical environment.

Additional lighting on the street, a redesigned CTA berm, and banners will help to alleviate some of the safety concerns in the areas, encourage additional activity, and create a more appealing gateway to the district.

Recommendation 7: The shopping districts should have a vibrant Figure 4.7: Photo of sample pathway

appearance that distinguishes them as a part of a “lakeside community”, which should be announced at community entry points.

There are many ways to announce a district’s identity. In the transportation recommendations, we propose some suggestions for improving the gateways of each district. This recommendation focuses on capitalizing on the district’s proximity to Lake Michigan, a prominent asset that

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 69 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS should not be overshadowed. A pedestrian path using blue accent

B. Support and enhance public amenities on both streets including, open

pavement should cross Sheridan road in both Districts.

space, a dog park (possibly on Paulina), planters on Morse Avenue,

This path should extend to at least Rogers Street on Howard and Lakewood on Morse. Additional signage and banners can be used to reinforce this path if necessary.

improved landscaping, public murals, public notice boards, trash cans, benches, and outdoor chess tables.

The previous lists of suggestions are designed to enhance the existing

Recommendation 8: The commercial districts should remain “pedes-

pedestrian environments in both districts. Community organizations, the

trian friendly environments” with improved landscaping and public

districts’ Special Service Areas and / or retail businesses in Rogers Park

amenities.

could act as sponsors to offset the initial costs of these new amenities. On

Unsympathetic developments and a lack of pedestrian amenities have threatened the existing pedestrian environment for both districts. We believe that minor improvements can and will substantially enhance the public realm.

Morse Avenue, reinstalling the planters under the El station and throughout the street would add visual appeal to the district. Local residents, community groups and volunteers could provide continued upkeep and maintenance of the planters.

A. Encourage the continued enhancement of the appearance and walkablity of the Gateway Shopping Center.

The community identified the Gateway Centre as a major detractor from the existing character of Howard Street. Design interventions can be pursued to integrate this suburban style development with the urban character of the district. Providing a pedestrian path from the street to the major retailers will encourage pedestrians to frequent these retail establishments. Currently, the design of the center caters to automobile traffic. Additionally, designing a mural at the Gateway Video Store will help to break up a continuous stretch of blank wall along the sidewalk.

70

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS Community Development The Howard Street and Morse-Glenwood districts are more than local

There is a particular need to reach out to and include members of the

retail corridors, they are also neighborhood centers-the center of the

community who do not generally participate in planning or community

public realm for Rogers Park residents. In addition to building the

development projects. The community’s different ethnic and socio-

vitality of the businesses in the districts, it is important to invigorate the

economic groups have not yet established a strong track record of

foundation of community to enhance the strength of the public realm

cooperation on community initiatives. Mobilizing the leadership of

in these districts. It is extremely important that Rogers Park foster

local community, religious, business and educational institutions with

a healthy foundation of commerce, culture, education and community

all of their diverse constituents will be critical to encouraging greater

service that focuses on organizing and mobilizing all parts of the com-

diversity. Using the full range of talent and leadership in the com-

munity to improve the Morse Avenue and Howard Street commercial

munity will enhance and balance efforts to improve the community.

districts.

Recommendation 2: The Howard and Morse-Glenwood Commercial

Recommendation 1: Encourage genuinely diverse collaboration among

Districts should include healthy and active pursuits to enhance the

community groups and residents to confront shared issues.

quality of life in balance with the commercial activity.

While Rogers Park has many committed and active community organization and residents, the efforts of these organizations could be better organized to tackle shared neighborhood problems. Likewise, a broader spectrum of community residents could be engaged in efforts to bring positive change to the community. Building bridges between community groups and different parts of the Rogers Park community can begin with smaller projects that affect many parts of the community. Such project may include an effort to improve the appearance of the train stations or a local park. By focusing on

Throughout the planning process, community residents identified a need for positive activities for area youth and young adults. Additionally, participants in community meetings cited a desire for a familyfriendly atmosphere in the shopping districts. A need for engaging the community’s seniors in the public life of the community was also identified as important. Opportunities for all of these community residents should be active, healthy, vibrant and create an asset and attraction for the community but should not overpower the need for shops and services in the district.

immediate needs and small accomplishable projects, larger issues

Integrated into and balanced with the stores in each district should be

can be postponed and a successful partnership established. Later,

organizations that provide positive and engaging activities. Arts and

cooperation on these smaller projects can grow into broader coalitions

education centers, entertainment venues like arcades and billiards,

of groups and residents working together for the community.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 71 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS and youth oriented music stores provide activity centers that fill a com-

bring vital activity and a positive presence that may help deter crime and

munity need and attract activity to the district. These activity centers

loitering. Finally, such volunteer opportunities put to work the experience,

must be attractive, safe and draw many people if they are going to

knowledge, talents and abilities of community residents to improve the

positively contribute to the commercial districts. Empty, unappealing

appearance and vitality of the community.

or nuisance-causing storefront activities detract from the vitality of the districts.

A lawn in front of a senior center or in a local park can be converted into

The area parks and field houses should provide ample amounts and

a community garden that draws intergenerational volunteers. Unsightly

types of athletic and programmatic opportunities that meet the needs

railroad berms can be painted with community murals. Individuals may

of community residents. Public plazas should provide opportunities

elect to adopt public planters and landscaping and assist with beautification

for more than loitering, including such features as fountains, play-

efforts. Volunteers can perform customer and transit rider surveys that can

ground equipment and chess tables.

help with other community development initiatives. Facilitating residents’

Recommendation 3: Create opportunities for volunteerism in and around the commercial districts.

The community has untapped resources that could greatly enhance the vitality of each commercial district. The skills and experience of the seniors who occupy the district-adjacent senior centers could be engaged to guide community development efforts and participate in outreach, as well as provide guidance and assistance with beautification efforts. Likewise area youth and religious groups can be motivated to help with beautification efforts, organize community events or otherwise assist efforts to improve the community.

Such volunteer activities fulfill three purposes. First, the activities engage those in the community who might otherwise remain idle.

Secondly, putting volunteers to work in the commercial district will

72

There is no shortage of possible activities that volunteers can engage in.

desires to improve their own community can produce more than just the desired result.

Transportation The lack of connections between the major arterials and the districts entry points, concerns regarding adequate parking, and the need to maintain the rehabilitation of the El Stations are opportunity areas in both districts. The transportation guiding principle and goals are to capitalize on Rogers Park’s transportation and parking to promote stronger connections to adjacent districts and enhance the accessibility of neighborhood destinations to attract shoppers from the larger region.

Recommendation 1: Make existing parking opportunities more accessible to the public for shopping in both districts. A combination approach to parking issues will help concerns today and accommodate future growth.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

RECOMMENDATIONS A)

B)

Provide signs that direct customers to available parking on Morse and Howard Street and identify future opportunities

for future growth. Using signage to advertise existing available park-

for additional parking spaces.

ing at the Howard Theater Building, the parking garage at the Gateway

Provide a community organization-sponsored parking lot at

Centre, and the proposed community parking lot on Morse Avenue will

the Iglesia de Cristo Mision Christiana Elim.

help alleviate the perception of a parking shortage. This signage will

A common complaint among retailers is a lack of available parking in the immediate vicinity of their establishments. The justification

direct drivers to available parking that is currently underutilized and remove some burden from the on-street spaces.

for this complaint is that increases in parking are thought to have

In the Glenwood Avenue Arts District, placing meters on both sides of

a direct effect on their bottom line. Quite often, as is the case for

the street will discourage El and Metra commuters from occupying the

the Howard and Morse districts in Rogers Park, these concerns are

parking spaces throughout the entire day and will free up additional

unfounded.

spaces for retail traffic.

Parking plays a key role in the character and identity of business districts. Retail establishments with parking lots located in the front

Recommendation 2: Encourage public officials to provide rehabilitation, upkeep and maintenance to the train stations.

or on the sides of buildings cater to automobiles and often derail

The Chicago Transit Authority is currently undertaking renovation of

the vitality and appearance of pedestrian oriented retail districts.

both Howard Street and Morse Avenue train stations. This develop-

Compact, mixed-use urban environments rely on pedestrian activity,

ment is encouraging to the neighborhood revitalization efforts under-

public transportation, and residential uses in close proximity. Park-

way. Their renovation will contribute to improving the dilapidated

ing at the expense of Rogers Park’s existing character should be

image and safety concerns in the areas.

discouraged, as this strategy, over time, will prevent the success of urban-format retailers.

However, the planned rehabilitation efforts are largely structural in nature and contain little amenities that will add to the aesthetic appeal

Although our research has shown that an adequate supply of park-

of the stations. Rogers Park public officials, with strong support from

ing exists on both streets, it is necessary to provide for growth

the community, need to maintain pressure on the Chicago Transit

opportunities in the future. Implementing simple, cost effective solu-

Authority to provide continued maintenance and encourage the use

tions today will alleviate this concern and provide adequate parking

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 73 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

RECOMMENDATIONS of pedestrian and aesthetic amenities in their rehabilitation plans.

Benches, planters, and outdoor art are some examples of amenities that would support a stronger identity.

Recommendation 3: Announce the Shopping district gateways with wayfinding signs.

The major transportation paths, Sheridan Road, Clark Street, and to a lesser extent Ridge Avenue, bypass both shopping districts. An opportunity presents itself to capture a portion of this automobile and pedestrian activity to increase the number of potential consumers.

One simple and cost effective way to accomplish this is through the use of gateway and wayfinding signage placed at each major intersection. These signs should be one part in a deliberate campaign

Figure 4.8: Sample of wayfinding signage

to advertise the district’s identity and draw shoppers to the area.

Upon entering the district, wayfinding signage should be distributed throughout the street, directing consumers to the area’s major assets and prioritized retail establishments. For example, on Morse possible assets that could be advertised would be the Glenwood Avenue Arts District, the community sponsored parking lot, and the Morseland Café. A combination of gateway and wayfinding signage, kiosks, and banners are all part of a larger marketing campaign to advertise the location, strengths, and identity of the district.

pping o h S e u ven Morse A trict Dis

on Lake M e c n a s is a n A re

ichigan

Figure 4.9: Example of a Rogers Park gateway sign

74

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TY D E S I |GCITY N DESIGN C E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

PRIORITIES The City Design Center’s recommendations have been designed to

A secondary priority is improving the appearance of the districts.

address the critical issues identified by the CDC team, the commu-

Current beautification efforts should not be halted and the immediate

nity and stakeholders in the plan’s public participation process. The

priorities should take district character and appearance into account.

recommendations identify specific activities necessary to realize the

However, additional beautification efforts should come only after the

plan’s guiding principles. Although the recommendations were pre-

immediate priorities have been met.

sented equally, the City Design Center team identified key priorities for implementation.

Immediate Priorities Three vital recommendations that span the range of the guiding prin-

Approach to Priorities The priorities, and the recommendations in general, can be thought of as following two broadly defined approaches: (1) Community Building-The community building approach con-

ciples should be the immediate priorities of the retail revitalization

sists of aggressive activities to strengthen the support struc-

strategies for the Howard and Morse commercial corridors:

ture for the needs of the neighborhood. This approach involves identifying individuals and groups with the ability to

(1) Safety enhancing activities-Safety in the shopping districts is a

initiate change and working with them to effect change

chief concern in the community, consistently expressed by

(includes recommendations Shopping Mix 2 and 4, Safety

residents, shoppers and businesses alike. (includes recom-

1 and 2, Community Development 1 and 3, and Transporta-

mendations Safety 1 and 2)

tion 2).

(2) Organizing residents, businesses, churches, schools and

(2) Technical-The technical approach is concerned with defining

institutions-Accomplishing positive change in the districts

and designing regulations, standards, programs and proce-

requires the cooperation of all the parts of the community

dures that may help revitalize the business districts (includes

and local stakeholders (includes recommendations Commu-

recommendations Shopping Mix 1 and 3, Public Safety 3,

nity Development 1, Shopping Mix 2 and 4)

Design and Appearance 1-4, and 6, Community Develop-

(3) Business development activities-Business development needs to be a priority to tackle storefront vacancies. A critical mass of business and promotional activity is required to draw shoppers to these areas (includes recommendations Shopping

ment 2, and Transportation 1 and 3) Both approaches are critical, but there is a particular need in Rogers Park for the first.

Mix 1, 2 and 4) ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 75 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

Appendix A: Rogers Park Customer and Neighborhood Survey Report Introduction: As a part of the data gathering process, a customer-intercept / neighborhood-resident survey was conducted to gather the opinions and concerns of those who live or shop in Roge rs Park. 117 surveys were completed with usable data. 26 were completed by participants in the first community participation meeting on October 14th at the new Field School on Morse Avenue. In the last week of October, 27 surveys were gathered near the “L” station on Howard Street and 16 were gathered near Metra and CTA transit stations on Morse Avenue. An additional 48 surveys were gathered by several members of the Full Circle Steering committee, a group of area residents and stakeholders leading a larger community planning effort; these 48 surveys were completed by Rogers Park residents who live near steering committee members. A complete copy of the survey instrument follows this report.

Respondent Demographics, Intro and Question 1-3 Survey Respondents ranged in age from 15 to 87 years of age, though the average age was 49. 30% of the respondents fell into the 24 to 44 age bracket, and another 19% in the 44 to 54 bracket, which resembled the data reported by businesses for their typical customer (see appendix B).

However, 24% of the respondents were over 65 years of age, indicating a somewhat larger cohort of senior respondents. 62% of the respondents who indicated their gender (n=102) were women, and 38% were men. The median household size reported was just 2 persons per household, but the average was 2.43. The racial/ethnic makeup of the respondents was fairly diverse. 31 respondents chose not to report a race or ethnicity, and five others reported unintelligible responses 1 . Of the remaining 81 respondents, 38% indicated an African-American identity, 45% a white or EuroAmerican background, 3% a Caribbean ancestry, 2% identified themselves as Hispanic, and another 5% as some other race or ethnicity.

80% of respondents reporting their home zip code (n=107) listed 60626, which is nearly co-terminus with the Rogers Park Community Area.

Another 6.5% of respondents listed immediately adjacent zip codes, with West Ridge (the Chicago neighborhood just west of Rogers Park) being the second most frequent home to respondents.

1

Survey respondents were asked to identify themselves however they saw fit. In all but a few cases correlations to census-like race or ethnicity categories were fairly straightforward.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

CENTER Center | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITYPlan DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER UIC DESIGN City Design Rogers Park 1 of 11 | CITY DE C IDESIGN TComprehensive Y D E S I |GCITY NRe Ctail E NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER DESIGN | CITY CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE Appendix A 76 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

Reported Frequency of Shopping Related to Other Factors There were noticeable differences between the opinions of respondents who reported a Table 1: Income reporting sample size n household income greater than $60,000 and those who reported less. 93 of the 117 Under $30,000 44 respondents reported their household income (Table 1). $30,000 to $60,000 24 The CDC survey found a strong association between income level and frequency of $60,000 to $100,000 9 shopping in Rogers Park. Only 3 respondents who reported income did not report how Over $100,000 16 No answer 24 often they shop in Rogers Park. Those making over $60,000 are much more likely to 2 respond that they rarely or only sometimes shop in Rogers Park (χ =9.43, z-score=3.25, Table 2, Shopping frequency by income Table 2). Similarly, with $30,000 as the dividing line, there still exists a strong association Frequency of shopping in Rogers Park between income levels and Rogers Park shopping (χ 2 =9.82, z-score=3.36), although the Sometimes or Most or All difference in proportion is much smaller (Table 3).

Income Total Rarely of the time This indicates that as one’s income increases, there is a decreased likelihood of Under $60,000 21 (32%) 44 (68%) 65 shopping in Rogers Park. The survey found a strong relationship between income and Over $60,000 17 (68%) 8 (32%) 25 Total 38 52 90 shopping frequency even when controlling for race. For white respondents, a distribution of shopping patterns emerges which resembles that of the whole survey sample with Table 3, Shopping frequency by income shopping frequency decreasing as income increases. However, for African-American (or Frequency of shopping in Rogers Park minority populations more broadly) there was an insufficient sample of upper income Sometimes or Most or All (>$60,000) respondents to make an accurate determination, although data for all non-white Income Rarely of the time Total respondents with $30,000 as the dividing line indicate a similar association of income levels Under $30,000 10 (24%) 31 (76%) 41 to shopping frequency (table 4). However, results were inconclusive for a comparison of Over $30,000 28 (57%) 21 (43%) 49 white and black respondents’ shopping frequency. 64% of African-American respondents Total 38 52 90 reported that they were frequent shoppers, while only 47% of white respondents reported frequent shopping in Rogers Park; this difference, however, is not statistically significant Table 4, Shopping frequency by income for all non-white and may have resulted from chance (χ 2 =1.87, z-score=1.39, n=69). This tends to support respondents the idea that income, rather than race, was the explanatory variable for shopping frequency.

Frequency of shopping in Rogers Park A similar comparison of frequency of shopping in Rogers Park by housing tenure or Sometimes or Most or All Income Total Rarely of the time age provided inconclusive results. It did not appear that housing tenure is significantly Under $30,000 2 (11%) 16 (89%) 18 associated with shopping frequency. The sample data indicated that 52% of homeowners Over $30,000 10 (63%) 6 (38%) 16 were frequent shoppers, while 63% of renters reported frequent shopping in Rogers Park, Total 12 22 34 but this difference is also not statistically significant, and may have resulted by chance.

2 (χ =0.79, z-score=0.88, n=81). 105 respondents reported both their age and shopping frequency. The average age of those who reported that they shop rarely or only sometimes in Rogers Park is 45.7 (Median=47, n=45, s=16.4). The average age of those who reported that they shop in Rogers Park most or almost all of the time is 49.9 years (Median=48, n=60, s=19.6). The difference in these average ages is likewise not statistically ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Page 2 of 11PARK R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRe K tail C |OPlan MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS 77 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix A

significant. Since neither housing tenure nor age seems to have a strong association with frequency of shopping in Rogers Park, income was seen to be the most strongly associated to shopping frequency.

The analysis of shopping frequency and other factors indicated that Rogers Park retail stores have a “missing market” of higher income residents who appear to shop more frequently elsewhere. In an effort to determine the opinions of this “missing market” and distinguish between the efforts that would draw this market and those that would appeal to current shoppers, the remainder of this survey analysis examines the survey answers in terms of shopping frequency or income, as appropriate to accommodate adequate sample sizes.

Shopping Patterns and Change in Shopping Mix: Questions 4-7 Question 4 asked respondents to check boxes next to the type of retail that s/he visited most in Rogers Park. Of the 117 respondents, 4 checked nothing, and 1 respondent checked all categories; these responses will be left out of the analysis of Question 4. Very few provided any information about specialty stores or other types of retail visited in Rogers Park, these results will be likewise excluded. The average number of retail categories selected was 3.88 (n=112, Median=4, s=2.29). The three categories of retail in Rogers Park to which more than 50% of the respondents indicated regular visits were grocery stores (90%), drug stores (59%) and restaurants (54%).

Graph 1. Question4: Percentage of Respondents Choosing Regular Visits by Retail Category 100.00%

Percentage of Respondents (n=112)

90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00%

Ele ctr on Ho ics me Fu rnis hin gs

Gi fts M erc ha nd ise Ge ne ral

Clo thin Ne g ws pa pe rs Ma ga zin es &

Bo ok s,

Retail Category

Co Liq uo nv r en ien ce Ite m s

Dr ug St ore Re s stu ran ts or Ba rs Ha rd wa re St or es En ter tain m en t

Gr oc er ies

0.00%

A comparison between the responses of frequent and infrequent shoppers yields little significant information. In every category, infrequent shoppers (those who indicated that they shop only rarely or sometimes in Rogers Park) had a smaller percentage of respondents reporting frequent visits. Likewise, differences in response compared by income provided little additional information, with one notable exception (see table 5).

Interestingly, the higher income category indicated a much greater proclivity for visiting Rogers Park restaurants or bars than did the lower income category; 84% of respondents making over $60,000 indicated that they frequently visit Rogers Park restaurants, whereas only 45% of those making under $60,000 reported regular visits to Rogers Park restaurants or bars (n=50). This difference is statistically significant (z-score=4.04). This suggests that restaurants and bars may be the key to capturing the “missing market” of upper income residents.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN T Y D E S I |GCITY NReDESIGN Ctail EN T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park Comprehensive Plan 3 of|11 CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER CENTER | CITY CENTER CITY DESIGN CE 78 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix A

Table 5: Answers to Question 4. Compared by Shopping Frequency and Income

Retail Category

n= Groceries Drug Stores Resturants or Bars Hardware Stores Entertainment Liquor Convenience Items Clothing Books, Magazines & Newspapers Gifts General Merchandise Electronics Home Furnishings

Number of Times Listed

30

Total 112 101 66 61 36 27 25 24 21

Number of Respondents Frequent Infrequent Under Shoppers Shoppers $60,000 63 48 65 60 40 61 43 23 41 37 23 29 24 12 19 19 8 14 20 5 19 19 5 17 14 6 14

93.85% 63.08% 44.62% 29.23% 21.54% 29.23% 26.15% 21.54%

88.00% 60.00% 84.00% 44.00% 32.00% 20.00% 20.00% 12.00%

16.07% 16.07%

20.63% 23.81%

10.42% 4.17%

18.46% 18.46%

4.00% 8.00%

17 13 8

13 9 5

4 4 3

9 8 5

2 1 0

15.18% 11.61% 7.14%

20.63% 14.29% 7.94%

8.33% 8.33% 6.25%

13.85% 12.31% 7.69%

8.00% 4.00% 0.00%

10 5

Gr il Aa nd T

Ha rdw are

Ma rsh als

Ba ly's Ho lyw oo dV ide o

Store Name

Tr ue Va lue

Ro ge rs

He ar tla nd

Ca fé Pa rk Fr uit M ark et

0 Me at Ma rke t

83.33% 47.92% 47.92% 25.00% 16.67% 10.42% 10.42% 12.50%

1 2

15

&

95.24% 68.25% 58.73% 38.10% 30.16% 31.75% 30.16% 22.22%

12 12

Frequent Rogers Park Shoppers Infrequent Rogers Park Shoppers

W alg ree ns

90.18% 58.93% 54.46% 32.14% 24.11% 22.32% 21.43% 18.75%

5 2

20

Fo od

Over $60,000

13 15

25

Mo rse

All

Percentage of Respondents Frequent Infrequent Under Shoppers Shoppers $60,000

18 18

Graph 2: Answer to Question 5, 10 Most Frequently Visited Stores

by Shopping Frequency

Do m inic k's

Over $60,000 25 22 15 21 11 8 5 5 3

Question 5 asked a similar question to number 4, asking respondents to name the 3 stores they visit in Rogers Park most often. The results mirror the responses to question 4, with Dominick’s, Walgreen’s, Morse Fruit & Meat, and Heartland Café toping the list (see graph 2). A number of generic retail categories were also written in response to this question, including some permutation of “Grocery Store” (listed 19 times), “Drug Stores” (10), “Restaurants” (8), and “Dollar Stores” (7). These generic categories were excluded from Graph 2, but further illustrate the general trend in the data.

Question 6 asked respondents to name stores that they would like to see come to Rogers Park. The respondents listed mainly grocers or specialty food stores (listed 26 times), bookstores (25 times), and apparel (22 times).

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Page 4 of 11PARK R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRe K tail C |OPlan MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS 79 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix A

Question 7 asked respondents which stores would not be good additions to the neighborhood. Liquor stores, dollar stores and adult-oriented stores were among the most often mentioned.

Rogers Park and Regional Competition: Questions 8-9 The next set of questions sought to identify the chief competitors for Rogers Park shoppers. Question 8 asked shoppers to identify where the respondents went most often for non- grocery shopping. 40 respondents chose not to supply an answer to this question and the remainder supplied 1 to 6 responses, with an average of 1.9. The results are summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Top 5 Competitors for Rogers Park Shoppers, Overall, n=77 Percentage of Respondents 40.26% 36.36% 25.97% 16.88% 15.58%

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Frequent Rogers Park Shoppers

M cC orm ick Do wn tow nE va ns ton Ol dO rch ard M al Lin co ln & Pe ter M ain so n St .& M cC orm ick No rth & Cly bo urn Do wn tow nC hic ag o

Pa rk

Infrequent Rogers Park Shoppers

&

Not unexpectedly, the more value-oriented or big-box retail districts are listed as frequent destinations (such as those on McCormick), but not among the favorite Table 7: Question 9. Favorite Places to Shop, destinations. The n=50 greatest competition Percentage Number of of for Rogers Park Respondents Favorite Place responses shoppers seems to be Downtown Chicago 19 38% coming from Evanston 9 18% Evanston, Old Old Orchard Mall 6 12% Orchard Mall and on Lincolnwood Mall 4 8% McCormick.

Graph 4: Answers to Question 8. Rogers Park Shopping Competition by Shopping Frequency

Ro ge rs

These results are similar to the responses from question 9, which asked respondents to name their favorite place to shop in the Chic agoland area.

113 replies were written, but of these, only 50 gave a usable response.

The unusable responses varied from listing particular stores to general retail categories to statements like “No Special Place”.

Ho wa rd

Number of Respondents 31 28 20 13 12

Number of Times Checked

Shopping Frequency Downtown Evanston Howard & McCormick Old Orchard Mall Downtown Chicago Main St. & McCormick

Shopping Destination

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN T Y D E S I |GCITY NReDESIGN Ctail EN T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park Comprehensive Plan 5 of|11 CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER CENTER | CITY CENTER CITY DESIGN CE 80 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix A

Transportation Accessibility: Question 10

Percentage of Respondents

While this question was asked to identify the quality and convenience of different types of transit to and from the commercial district, the results appear to indicate that many respondents indicated what types of transportation they regularly use to get to the Graph 3: Percentage of Respondents indicating that a given mode of transportation is a convenient way to get All Shoppers, shopping district. Of the 16 upper income respondents who answered this question, 14 (87.5%) answered that a car was n=97 to Rogers Park Shopping Districts a convenient mode of transport. Of the 62 lower income individuals, however, only 20 (32.3%) answered with the Frequent car. The sample sizes are much larger for respondents to 70.00% Shoppers, this question who indicated that they are either frequent or n=54 60.00% infrequent shopping in the district. The results are shown in Infrequent 50.00% the graph 3. The results seem to indicate that the infrequent Shoppers, 40.00% shoppers are more auto dependant and frequent shoppers are n=39 more likely to use mass transit; which is not surprising given 30.00% the correlation between shopping frequency and household 20.00% income.

10.00% 0.00% On Foot

Bus

Car

CTA Train

Metra

Mode of Transportation

Customer Opinion of Existing Conditions: Questions 11-19 Questions 11 through 19 were designed to assess the customer’s opinion about various aspects of the district. These questions gauged the extent to which there was consensus about particular issues facing the district. The questions and range of answers are provided in the tables below.

For Howard Street, 99 respondents provided answers to one of more of the questions. 91 of the 99 provided answers to 7 or more of the 9 questions.

Questions for which there is a substantial difference between answers are highlighted in yellow in Table 8.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Page 6 of 11PARK R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRe K tail C |OPlan MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS 81 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix A

Table 8: Exiting Conditions Summary Howard Street Percentage of Respondents Answering (n=99) Question Yes No Maybe Blank 11 Do you like the look and feel of the shopping districts?

23.23% 50.51% 21.21% 5.05% 12 Do you like the selection of business on these streets?

21.21% 46.46% 24.24% 8.08% Is the customer service good in the businesses on these 13 29.29% 24.24% 36.36% 10.10% streets?

14 Is there enough parking on or near this street?

36.36% 35.35% 16.16% 12.12% 15 Do you feel safe crossing these streets on Foot?

37.37% 31.31% 27.27% 4.04% 16 Are these areas safe places to shop?

21.21% 43.43% 33.33% 2.02% 17 Do you like the appearance of the public transit stations?

19.19% 41.41% 10.10% 29.29% 18 Do you think there are a lot of empty stores on these streets?

67.68% 11.11% 17.17% 4.04% 19 Do you feel welcome when you visit these shopping areas?

48.48% 19.19% 30.30% 2.02%

For the Morse Avenue district, 49 respondents replied to 1 or more questions, and of these 45 responded to at least 7.

Table 9: Exiting Conditions Summary Morse Avenue Percentage of Respondents answering (n=49) Question Yes No Maybe Blank 11 Do you like the look and feel of the shopping districts?

20.41% 59.18% 16.33% 4.08% 12 Do you like the selection of business on these streets?

18.37% 46.94% 28.57% 6.12% Is the customer service good in the businesses on these 13 streets?

28.57% 22.45% 36.73% 12.24% 14 Is there enough parking on or near this street?

38.78% 34.69% 16.33% 10.20% 15 Do you feel safe crossing these streets on Foot?

38.78% 38.78% 20.41% 2.04% 16 Are these areas safe places to shop?

24.49% 36.73% 32.65% 6.12% 17 Do you like the appearance of the public transit stations?

14.29% 59.18% 10.20% 16.33% Do you think there are a lot of empty stores on these 18 67.35% 8.16% 10.20% 14.29% streets?

19 Do you feel welcome when you visit these shopping areas?

51.02% 22.45% 16.33% 10.20%

The results for both streets were very similar. The appearance of the shopping districts received a strongly negative opinion, as did the mix and number of businesses. The appearance of the train stations was a concern in both districts. Respondents were positive about feeling welcome in both districts indicating that only 1/5th of shoppers felt unwelcome in the shopping districts.

The results for safety were not positive, but surprisingly they were not overwhelmingly negative either. This result indicates that safety concerns are not as bad as they possibly could be, but the results likewise do not justify comp lacency. A much more positive rating for safety would be preferred.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN T Y D E S I |GCITY NReDESIGN Ctail EN T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park Comprehensive Plan 7 of|11 CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER CENTER | CITY CENTER CITY DESIGN CE 82 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix A

Recommended Improvements: Questions 20-23 Question 20: Most Critical Issue Question 20 inquired after the prioritization of key issues facing the shopping districts. Safety was overwhelmingly selected at the leading issue facing the Rogers Park shopping districts. There was no substantial difference between frequent and infrequent shoppers in the number of respondents who selected crime as a leading issue.

Table 10: Most Critical Issue Percent of Frequent Percent of Infrequent Issue Shoppers Shoppers All shoppers Public safety and crime in this district 70% 68% 68% The general appearance of the business district 8% 14% 11% The number or mix of businesses in this area 21% 16% 19% n=53 n=37 n=93

Question 21 Appearance 85 respondents provided answers to this question. The table below (as with the tables for questions 22 and 23) indicate what percentage of the respondents checked a particular box. Overall for this question, 19 respondents checked only 1 box, 19 provided 2 answers, 43 checked 3 boxes, and 4 checked 4 boxes.

12 respondents provided write- in answers, but no consistent pattern emerged from these answers. Some of the write- in responses involved crime, loitering or public safety issues.

Table 11: Design Interventions All Respondents (n=85) Frequent Shoppers (n=49) Infrequent Shoppers (n=33) Income > $60,000 (n=15) Income < $60,000 (n=57)

Improved Additional Facade, sign, or Improved Improved Street Street interior design appearance of Landscaping Maintenance Benches improvements public transit stops Street Banners 60.0% 60.0% 12.9% 45.9% 49.4% 9.4% 61.2% 59.2% 10.2% 42.9% 51.0% 12.2% 63.6% 63.6% 12.1% 51.5% 48.5% 3.0% 53.3% 53.3% 6.7% 73.3% 53.3% 0.0% 61.4% 61.4% 15.8% 33.3% 54.4% 14.0%

Better landscaping, maintenance, and improved appearance for public transit stations were the most agreed upon design interventions. It is interesting to note that over 73% of the upper income respondent to this question indicated that building appearance is an important factor. While the sample size is small, this suggests that improvements to the facades, signs, and interiors of district buildings could encourage patronage by higherincome households.

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH

PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P

UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Page 8 of 11PARK R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRe K tail C |OPlan MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS 83 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix A

Question 22: Safety and Crime 102 respondents provided answers to this question. 15 checked 1 box, 29 checked 2, 55 checked 3 and 4, 5 & 6 boxes were checked by 1 respondent each. There were 23 write-in answers. Most of these additional answers dealt with greater police visibility and more pedestrian activity.

Improved Table 12: Safety Interventions crosswalks All Respondents (n=102) 22.5% Frequent Shoppers (n=54) 22.2% Infrequent Shoppers (n=44) 22.7% Income > $60,000 (n=23) 17.4% Income < $60,000 (n=63) 25.4%

Changes in traffic control Better street (stop signs / speed limits) lighting 14.7% 45.1% 14.8% 50.0% 13.6% 43.2% 4.3% 43.5% 22.2% 44.4%

Private Decreased More Security public surveillance Patrols loitering cameras 47.1% 71.6% 47.1% 44.4% 70.4% 46.3% 47.7% 70.5% 47.7% 30.4% 73.9% 30.4% 49.2% 68.3% 52.4%

There is a clear indication that decreasing loitering is the most agreed upon intervention for safety issues. Public loitering appears to be the issue most concerning customers and residents who use the Howard or Morse shopping districts.

Question 23: Business development 89 respondents provided answers to this question. 19 respondents provided one preferred intervention, 30 checked two boxes, 38 checked 3, and 4 and 5 boxes for this question were checked by a single respondent each. Of the seven write- in answers, no clear pattern emerged. The write- in responses included requests for beauty parlors and bike racks.

Table 13: Business Development Interventions All Respondents (n=89) Frequent Shoppers (n=50) Infrequent Shoppers (n=35) Income > $60,000 (n=15) Income < $60,000 (n=61)

More Small or More Additional or Better mass Locally run national Greater product or improved parking transit store variety businesses chain stores areas accessibility 48.3% 64.0% 70.8% 28.1% 15.7% 48.0% 64.0% 72.0% 24.0% 18.0% 48.6% 62.9% 68.6% 34.3% 14.3% 73.3% 53.3% 93.3% 40.0% 6.7% 39.3% 68.9% 67.2% 24.6% 18.0%

The recruitment of new stores and greater store variety are important business interventions for these districts, according to survey respondents. This desire is particularly keen among upper income shoppers who form the “missing- market” cohort. This higher- income group indicated a desire to see more CITY store variety and supported a growth in the number of small or locally run businesses.

DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE

C IDESIGN T Y D E S I |GCITY NReDESIGN Ctail EN T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park Comprehensive Plan 9 of|11 CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER CENTER | CITY CENTER CITY DESIGN CE 84 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix A

Relevant and Interesting Quotes or Comments: Question 24 The survey also asked respondents to provide comments and additional opinions about the shopping districts. Interesting, coherent and relevant comments are included belo w: “When we moved here I was a child in 1932, we could do almost of our shopping for food, clothes, hardware, flowers, gifts, etc in Rogers Park.

There no longer seems to be any quality stores where I would care to shop. I used to shop at Fields in Evanston.”

“We need to improve activities for our young kids!”

“We need more green grass in the area. Also we need more pay phones & ATM machines.”

“There are strange people on Morse, groups at odd times loitering. It's disconcerting. I don't want to shop with that and am considering moving.”

“Police need to get out of cars and walk the streets. Police need to connect with the community.”

“Perhaps a place like Denny on Albion, where kids can play the games, and follow rules, no gang signs, cussing, or disrespect. Or a place like No Exit [a local café] used to be, where young & old can learn to play chess, and have poetry readings.”

“Needs more cultural assets: Theaters; galleries; music; art centers” “Looks Alone won't do it” “I think appearance/upkeep and public loitering are huge issues… fixing that would be an improvement. Adding local/national shops won't keep $ in the neighborhood.”

“Getting the businesses that are here to improve the looks of their stores.”

“Citizens need to organize around ‘real’ issues—come to consensus on real solutions.”

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Page 10 of 11 R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRe K tail C |OPlan MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS PARK 85 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix A

DevCorp North and UIC Commercial Corridor Planning Project This survey for Rogers Park residents and shoppers is designed to gather information about shopping patterns in Rogers Park. DevCorp North and UIC are working together to create a retail area plan for the Howard Street Shopping District and the Morse-Glenwood Shopping District. When the survey refers to shopping districts, it is referring to both the Howard and Morse-Glenwood areas. If your opinions are different about the two, there is space for you to tell us why at the end of the survey.

Age:

Gender:

Number of people in your household :

Occupation:

Under $30,000 $30,000 - $60,000

$60,000 - $100,000 Over $100,000

1. Do you live in Rogers Park?

Yes

No

Home zip code: Do you own or rent your home?

Own

Rent

Almost all the time Most of the time

Sometimes Rarely

4. What types of businesses do you visit most in Rogers Park? (Check all that apply) Groceries Restaurants / Bars Gifts Convenience Items Entertainment Home furnishings Drug Stores Hardware Stores Liquor General Merchandise Clothing Electronics Books, Magazines & Newspapers Specialties: Others:

7. What kinds of stores would not be good additions to Rogers Park?

8. Where do you shop most often for nongrocery items?

Downtown Evanston Main St. (Evanston) & McCormick Howard & McCormick Old Orchard Mall Lincoln & Peterson North & Clybourn Rogers Park Others (please list):

9. What is your favorite place to shop in the Chicagoland area?

A. C.

6. What new stores would you like to see in Rogers Park?

Yes

Maybe/ Kind of

No

13. Is the customer service good in the businesses on these streets?

14. Is there enough parking on or near this street?

16. Are these areas safe places to shop?

17. Do you like the appearance of the public transit stations?

18. Do you think there are a lot of empty stores on these streets?

19. Do you feel welcome when you visit these shopping areas?

20. Which of the following do you consider to be the most important local issue confronting these shopping districts? (Check 1 issue) The general appearance of the business district Public safety and crime in this business district The number or mix of businesses in this area

Other: __________________________________

21. Which improvements would be the most beneficial for the appearance of the shopping areas? (Choose up to 3)

5. What three businesses in Rogers Park do you visit most? Please name them.

B.

No

Morse-Glenwood

15. Do you feel safe crossing these streets on foot?

No, if no skip to # 6

3. How often do you shop in Rogers Park (including visits to restaurants)?

Yes

Maybe/ Kind of

12. Do you like the selection of businesses on these streets?

2. Do you ever shop in Rogers Park?

Yes

Howard Ave in Rogers Park

11. Do you like the look and feel of the shopping districts?

How do you identify yourself (race or ethnicity, Optional) (Optional) Household income:

Please answer the following yes and no questions for the Howard Ave and Morse/Glenwood shopping areas. If you don’t know or have no opinion, then leave the question blank.

10. Which of the following are convenient ways to get to the shopping districts? (Check all that apply) On Foot CTA train

Bus Metra

Car

Improved landscaping Improved street maintenance Additional street benches Façade (exterior of building), sign, or interior design improvements Improved appearance of nearby public transit stops Street banners Other:____________________________________

22. Which safety interventions would be the most bene ficial for these shopping areas?

(Choose up to 3)

Improved crosswalks Changes in traffic control (stop signs / speed limits) Better street lighting Private security patrols Decreased public loitering More surveillance cameras Other:_______________________________

23. What other changes would you most like to see in these business districts? (Choose up to 3) More small or locally run businesses More national chain stores Greater product or store variety Additional or improved parking areas Better mass transit accessibility

Other:________________________________

24. Please add additional comments here:

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE UIC City Design Center Rogers Park Plan 11 of 11 C IDESIGN TComprehensive Y D E S I |GCITY NRetail CEN T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER DESIGN CENTER | CITY CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE 86 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix A

Appendix B: Rogers Business Survey Report In addition to performing the customer survey, the CDC project team surveyed business owners on both streets to assess the business environment in Rogers Park for retailers. 14 surveys were collected from Morse-Glenwood business owners, and 27 businesses along Howard Street. The surveys were collected in the last half of October, 2004. The survey was designed to gather some baseline information about the businesses, solicit opinions about the existing conditions of the district and gauge which types of interventions would be most supported by the business community. Due to the smaller sample size and overall similarity of retail issues facing the districts, differences in responses between Howard Street and Morse Avenue businesses are largely insignificant. A sample of the business survey instrument follows this report.

Intro and Questions 1 through 4: Basic Information Surveyed businesses spanned the range of retail types in the Howard and Morse-Glenwood districts. From the types of products sold to ownership and age, the businesses surveyed were similar to the inventory of the retail districts as a whole (see chapter 1, existing conditions). The survey respondents were largely locally owned businesses rather than national companies or franchises. The size of stores operated by the respondents tended to be small. 20 respondents provided information about the size of their space. Excluding a large-scale grocer and a theatre, which have exceptional space requirements, the average size of respondent’s retail space was 1,970 square feet and the median was 2,000. While some respondents had been in the community less than a year others have been in business in Rogers Park for decades. 38 respondents indicated the age of their business with an overall average of 12 years and a median of five. Additionally 85% of the respondents indicated that they rent their space.

The City Design Center team characterized the respondents according to whether the establishment was a locally owned store, a regional chain or a national company/franchise and the results are shown in figure 1 Figure 2. Busiest Day of the week (n=41)

Figure 1. Ownership of Surveyed Businesses

UIC City Design Center Rogers Park Comprehensive Retail Plan

Su nd ay No Sp ec ial Da y

Sa tur da y

Fri da y

Th urs da y

W ed ne sd ay

Mo nd ay

National 15% Regional 2%

Tu es da y

Local 83%

18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Page 1 of 10

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P Appendix B NORTH | ROGERS PARK ROG E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |ODEVCORP MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH NORTH ROGERS 87 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO

Questions 5 -13 Business Characteristics Question 5 asked businesses to indicate the busiest days of the week for their establishment. All respondents replied with 31 identifying a single day, 8 respondents checked 2 days, 1 respondent indicated 3 and 4 days each.

The weekend, and in particular Friday and Saturday were identified as the busiest days of the week for the two districts.

Question 6 asked respondents to list their competitors. While many respondents listed specific competitors, no clear pattern emerged from the data. Most respondents listed the names of stores or chains that provide similar products and services.

Questions 7 and 8 asked businesses about the number of employees at their establishment. 27 respondents reported having full- time employees, of these the average (excluding an employment center with a large number of full time employees) was 5.5 and the median was three. 20 respondents reported having part-time employees, of these the average (excluding a large grocer with over 100 part time employees) was 4.7 and the median was 2.

31 respondents reported having some employees of either type, and the average number of employees (excluding the outliers listed above) is 7.3 with a median of 4. These figures can be useful for estimating the employment impact of new locally owned retail establishments similar to those currently in the district.

Table 1: Business Category Number of Respondents for respondents Apparel 2 Auto 1 Convenience 5 Entertainment 1 Furniture 1 General 3 Grocers 2 Home Improvement 1 Liquor 1 Medical 2 Non-profit 1 Pharmacy 1 Restaurant-Carry-out 4 Restaurant-Sit-down 1 Service-Apparel 3 Service-Financial 5 Service-Hair 3 Specialty 4 Grand Total 41

Question 9 Business Challenges

Table 2 Percentage of respondents

Decreasing Local Increasing Increasing Employment Customer Traffic or Crime Appearance Costs Rent Problems Parking Problems of area base 32.4%

18.9%

5.4%

29.7%

29.7%

54.1%

40.5%

Other 13.5%

37 respondents provided answers to question 9, and on average respondents selected about 2 business challenges per answer. Crime and appearance were the greatest problems cited. Five respondents provided written answers, which varied from loitering to vacancy as business challenges.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TComprehensive Y D E S I |GCITY NRetail C E Plan NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park 2 of|10 CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER DESIGN | CITY CENTER CITY DESIGN CE 88 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix B

Question 11 asked respondents to indicate their business intentions within the district, whether their plans included expansion or reduction of business. 37 respondents provided answers to this question. Nearly a quarter of the respondents indicated intentions to expand their business operations within the district. No respondent indicated a plan to reduce his or her business in Rogers Park.

Question 12 asked about capital investments in the store. 38 respondents provided answers. 68% indicated that neither they nor the building owner planned improvements to the structure. 32% (or 12) indicated that improve ments are planned, and of these half indicated a planned improvement to the appearance of the exterior of their space.

All 41 respondents provided an answer to question 13, which gauged satisfaction with the retail district. 69 % indicated satisfaction with the district.

The answers to questions 9 and 11 through 13 reveal that while there were concerns and challenges surrounding business in the community, both investment and satisfaction with the business environment were present.

Figure 4. Satisfaction with Shopping District

Figure 3. Expansion Plans (n=37)

Unsatisfied 7%

60.0%

Nuetral 24%

Percentage of respondents

50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0%

Satisfied 69%

10.0% 0.0%

Expand in Expand District outside District

Reduce No plans

Other

Plans

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Plan Page 3 of 10PARK R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRetail K C |O MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS 89 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix B

Questions 14 through 18: Customers and Customer Parking Question 14 asked respondents about the number of customers that visit their stores each week. 40 respondents provided answers to this question.

Half of the businesses indicated that during a typical week they see 100 to 500 customers. Far fewer respondents reported heavier customer traffic.

Question 15 asked respondents to describe their typical customer. The results are listed below (table 3).

Table 3: Customer Characteristics (n=41) Mostly Male

34%

Mostly Female 27%

Age under 18 25-44 45-54 Over 65 22% 85% 41% 17% Income Under $30,000 $30,000-60,000 $60,000-100,000 Over $100,000 41% 24% 0% 0%

Percentage of Respondants

Gender

Figure 5. Customers Per Week (n=40) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% none

100-500

500-1000

Over 1000

Number of Customers

Figure 6. Residence of Customer, Respondents Selecting 1 Answer (n=31) Percentage of Respondents

Question 16 asked respondents where they think most of their customers live. Very few retailers identified visitors from outside the community as primary customers. Nearly 75% of respondents indicated that their customers live in Rogers Park, further reinforcing the notion that the businesses in the Howard and Morse districts rely on neighborhood residents and do not attract outsiders to the community.

less than 100

70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Less than 5 blocks away

Rogers Park

Outside Rogers Park

Customer Residence

Don't Know

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TComprehensive Y D E S I |GCITY NRetail C E Plan NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park 4 of|10 CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER DESIGN | CITY CENTER CITY DESIGN CE 90 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix B

Question 18 asked businesses about where their customers park.

Given the few off-street parking lots among the businesses surveyed it was not surprising that most indicated that their customers park on the street. 41 respondents provided answers, 35 selected only one.

Of those who selected “other”, some off-site parking area was indicated (4 respondents).

Figure 7. Customer Transit Percent of respondents by mode

Question 17 asked businesses their opinion about the mode of transportation that their customers use to get to their stores. Half of the respondents indicated that their customers drive to their store.

This highlights the importance that parking may play in the perception of the neighborhood as a good place to do business.

Respondents selecting only 1 mode of transit (n=26)

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

All Respondents (n=41)

On foot

By train

By Bus

By Car

Don't know

Mode of transit

Percentage

Figure 8. Cutomer Parking Areas, Percent of respondents selecting 1 answer ( n=35)

35.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0%

In business's parking lot

On the street out front

On the On the street, 1 street, more block away than a block away

In public parking lot

Other

Parking Area

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Plan Page 5 of 10PARK R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRetail K C |O MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS 91 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix B

19-27 Existing District Conditions Questions 19 through 26 asked respondents to provide opinions about a variety of issues facing the retail districts.

The answers are listed in table 4. Most of the respondents indicated that they were happy with current clean-up efforts in their district. It is important to note that more than half of the retailers do not feel safe in their district at night.

Question 27 asked the surveyed businesses which festivals most helped their business. The answers to these questions varied greatly depending on the home district of the respondent. The results are listed in the table below. The festivals most effective at generating crossover business, from the perspective of retailers, were the Caribbean Festival, the Glenwood Arts Festival, the World Music Festival, and the Jarvis Flea Market. No respondents indicated that the All Hallows Eve Fest or the Urban Sound Festival brought customers into their stores.

Table 4: District Conditions

Percentage of respondents Yes No

n Maybe No Opinion 19 Are you happy with police 41 46.3% 14.6% 36.6% 0.0% protection?

20 Are you happy with the street cleanup program?

41 63.4% 12.2% 22.0% 2.4% 21 Is there enough convenient parking?

40 32.5% 42.5% 25.0% 0.0% 22 Do you like the look and feel of the 41 29.3% 46.3% 19.5% 0.0% shopping district?

23 Do you feel safe here at night?

40 15.0% 55.0% 25.0% 5.0% 24 Is it easy to ship and receive goods from your business?

40 75.0% 17.5% 5.0% 2.5% 25 Has the age or condition of your building hurt your business?

40 12.5% 72.5% 10.0% 5.0% 26 Do you think this area is well known 41 31.7% 39.0% 17.1% 12.2% to shoppers? cells where the difference between “yes” & “no” are greater than “maybe” are highlighted

Table 5: Community Festivals Festival name Artists of the Wall Rogers Park Jazz Series World Music Fest All Hallows Eve Fest St Ignatius Messiah Choir Jarvis Flea Market Glenwood Arts Fest Carribean Fest Urban Sound Fest None of the above

Percentage of all businesses (n=36) 3.2%

MorseGlenwood (n=13) 7.7%

Howard (n=23) 0.0%

6.5% 9.7% 0.0%

0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

8.7% 13.0% 0.0%

3.2% 6.5% 6.5% 19.4% 0.0% 61.3%

0.0% 7.7% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0% 69.2%

4.3% 8.7% 0.0% 26.1% 0.0% 60.9%

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TComprehensive Y D E S I |GCITY NRetail C E Plan NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park 6 of|10 CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER DESIGN | CITY CENTER CITY DESIGN CE 92 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix B

Questions 28 – 33 Critical Issues and Interventions Question 28 gauged which issue facing the district was the greatest priority. Public safety and crime was identified on both districts as the greatest priority. The second choice was different for each street. The appearance of the district was the second most given response for the MorseGlenwood district, the number or type of stores was the second most frequent answer given by businesses on Howard Street.

Table 6: Most Critical Issue Appearance and cleanliness Number or type of stores Public Safety Crime

All (n= 35)

MorseGlenwood (n=11)

Howard (n=24)

11.4% 31.4% 57.1%

27.3% 9.1% 63.6%

4.2% 41.7% 54.2%

A number of different possible interventions into the design and appearance were provided as answers to question 29. The interventions that received the greatest number of responses included improved facades, signs or interior design, improved street maintenance and improved landscaping. The written responses spread across a wide range, including reducing loitering and filling vacancies

Table 7: Design Interventions Improved landscaping Improved street maintenance Additional street benches Facade, sign or interior improvement programs Improved appearance of transit stop Street Banners Other Number providing 1 response Number providing 2 responses Number providing 3 responses Number providing 4 responses

12 4 18 2

All (n=36) 44.4% 50.0% 8.3% 52.8% 38.9% 16.7% 16.7%

MorseGlenwood (n=13) 61.5% 53.8% 0.0% 46.2% 46.2% 0.0% 7.7%

Howard (n=23) 34.8% 47.8% 13.0% 56.5% 34.8% 26.1% 21.7%

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Plan Page 7 of 10PARK R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRetail K C |O MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS 93 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix B

Question 30 asked respondents to indicate what should be done about crime and safety in their district. Better lighting, less loitering and a program to assist with the purchase of surveillance came ras received the most responses. 4 of the 5 written suggestions involved increasing law enforcement activity and patrols.

Table 8: Safety Interventions All (n=40) Improved Crosswalks Changes to traffic control Increased lighting Private Security patrol Decreased Loitering Surveillance Camera program Other Number providing 1 response Number providing 2 responses Number providing 3 responses Number providing 4 responses

10.0% 5.0% 55.0% 47.5% 62.5%

MorseGlenwood (n=14) 14.3% 0.0% 64.3% 42.9% 57.1%

Howard (n=26) 7.7% 7.7% 50.0% 50.0% 65.4%

50.0% 7.1%

50.0% 15.4%

50.0% 12.5% 9 6 24 1

Question 31 asked respondents about intervention in the business environment to attract more or better stores. Advertising, parking and the attraction of chain stores received the most responses from the surveyed business owners.

Table 9: Business Development Strategies More Festivals More loading zones Attraction of National Chain Stores More Advertising for district Business Networking Additional or Improved Parking Better mass transit Other Number providing 1 response Number providing 2 responses Number providing 3 responses 'Number providing 4 responses

All (n=39) 30.8% 7.7% 46.2% 59.0% 20.5% 51.3% 12.8% 12.8% 10 4 24 1

MorseGlenwood (n=13) 30.8% 7.7%

Howard (n=26) 30.8% 7.7%

46.2% 53.8% 7.7% 76.9% 15.4% 7.7%

46.2% 61.5% 26.9% 38.5% 11.5% 15.4%

Written responses varied, including keeping rents low for small business, making the streets look better, and an indication that no change is needed.

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TComprehensive Y D E S I |GCITY NRetail C E Plan NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park 8 of|10 CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER DESIGN | CITY CENTER CITY DESIGN CE 94 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix B

Question 32 asked the surveyed businesses to list the three stores that they would like to see come to Rogers Park. While was a wide variety of answers, coffee shops, apparel stores, grocers and restaurants were the most frequently listed.

Question 33 asked which businesses would not be good additions to the neighborhood. Liquor stores, bars, dollar stores and fast food establishments topped the lists. Neither question 32 nor 33 provided responses consistent enough for thorough analysis.

Question 34 provided space for respondents to answer the question: “If you have a vision for the business district, what is it”. Some of the answers follow.

“Vibrant and comfortable with flourishing stores, restaurants and art studios/galleries. I would be sad to see us plug in the same chain stores that one sees in every mall. (The people who go to those want to drive right up to the door so I don't think they'd succeed here anyway). I would like our beautification efforts to maintain our distinct urban, multi-cultural, arty flavor (rather than trying to do matching awnings and chain stores, for instance). We need to embrace and display all the positives of our neighborhood as we undergo change.”

“I would like more foot patrols in the area. Too many street dope peddlers in street that the police seem to pass by. People feel safe when everybody mixes.”

“A safe and friendly environment like that on Central Ave in Evanston” “Chicago Avenue-Evanston-An eclectic mixture of ethnic restaurants, boutiques, services with decorative tasteful facades. Tight but adequate street parking with 1 or 2 public lots. Plenty of light at night for safe walking and window shopping. (No bars/gates on windows, no loitering no-goods).

It CAN happen, one step at a time.”

“If national stores are coming to this area, it will be better for business. Less empty store fronts and more lighting. Less drug dealers in this area.

Less panhandlers.”

“To clean up the streets, to feel safe walking to the store, to have Rogers Park be as beautiful now as it was in the 1960s. To have a Wal-Mart, for example, close by for shopping instead of going to the suburbs. We want to live in a community that gives you business and we want to spend our money in the community also” “My vision is to attract reputable investments to the area through advertising. To encourage existing businesses to reinvest some profit into the existing infrastructure of their business to enhance appearance and quality at first sight” ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS P UIC CityNORTH Design CenterPARK Rogers Park Plan Page 9 of 10PARK R OComprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A RRetail K C |O MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH PARK DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS 95 NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO Appendix B

“We need police presence during the evening hours at least since many of the stores are being closed by one person at night, it would be a comfortable and safe feeling for store owners to know that there is police presence that would deter any possible crime that might happen.”

“Increase the small business population” “Busy and more lucrative area for businesses” “Bring in more cafes or small seaside restaurant” “Improve the environment, improve the reputation” “I would like to see more businesses with different interest other than what is already existing. I believe we need more restaurants. This area should be flooded with options in Food, Clothing, Hair Dressing, Activity centers, etc. This will allow the interest of the consumer to shop or be involved with this area rather than promoting and enriching other areas.”

Space for other comments was provided. What follows are some of those comments: “We have been at this same location for over 70 years and have watched this neighborhood go from good to bad. We would welcome a change.”

“When you have been in business as long as I have and you've seen and have lived through the changes that have occurred all up and down Morse Ave business district, its sad and depressing how much it has deteriorated to what it is now…emotionally you break down to see all of the ugliness that all of us see and our leaders continue to ignore. It's like too much, too little, hopefully not too late” “The SSA has been great. The street looks great. Thanks for all the hard work.”

“Basically even with all of the improvements that have been done to the area, there is still a bad stigma attached to this area. It is well known around Rogers Park that you don't cross over Ridge Ave for your safety. Things are changing, but at a very slow pace.”

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DE C IDESIGN TComprehensive Y D E S I |GCITY NRetail C E Plan NCENTER T E R | UCITY R DESIGN B A NCENTER B U S| I CITY N EDESIGN S S CENTER D I S T|RCITY I CDESIGN T S CENTER PROG R ADESIGN M Page UIC City Design Rogers| Park 10 of 10 DESIGN CE CENTER | CITYCenter DESIGN CENTER CITY CENTER DESIGN | CITY CENTER | CITY 96 CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT Appendix B

DevCorp North and University of Illinois at Chicago Commercial Corridor Planning Project

Fall 2004

Business Survey for the Howard Business District and Morse/Glenwood Business District.

To be completed by interviewer: Business Name

16. Where do most of your customers live?

Business Physical Address

Less than 5 blocks away Outside of Rogers Park

Business Mailing Address Approx. Square Footage of business

On foot

By Train Don’t know

Interviewer reads text in Bold 1. What is your name?

10. Do you own or rent your space?

2. Can we contact you about upcoming meetings about planning in this shopping district?

No (skip to 4)

3. What is your phone number?

4. How many years have you been in business here?

5. What is the busiest day of the week for your business?

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday

Thursday Friday Saturday No special day

6. What are your three biggest competitors in the area?

1.

2.

3.

7. How many full time employees do you have at your business now?

8. How many part time employees do you have at your business now?

9. Are you currently dealing with any business challenges? What are they?

Increasing Costs (Insurance, Wages, Utilities) Increasing Rent Employment Problems Decreasing Customer Base Traffic or parking related problems Local crime problems Appearance of local business area Other:____________________________________

DevCorp North (773) 508-5885

Rogers Park Don’t know.

17. How do most of your customers usually get to your business?

Primary Products & Services

Yes

DevCorp North and University of Illinois at Chicago Commercial Corridor Planning Project

?Own?

18. Where do your customers usually park?

On the street, right in front of this business On the street, within 1 block of this business On the street more than 1 block from this business In a municipal/public parking lot In a customer parking lot you own or rent How many spaces available ______?

Other ___________________________

?Rent

11. Do you plan to expand or reduce your business in the near future?

Expand the business in this district.

Expand the business outside this district. ?Reduce products or square footage on this street. ?No plans for changes.

Other:

12. Are you, or the building owner, considering any building improvement projects?? ? ?Yes??

?No

If Yes, what are the plans?

13. How satisfied are you with the location of your business? ? atisfied S ?Neutral

?Unsatisfied

14. How many customers visit this business per week?

n? one, all business via phone or Internet ?less than 100 100-500 ?500-1000 Over 1000

15. Please describe your typical customer.

Are they men or women?

Male

By Bus

By Car

Fall 2004

Female

How old are they? under 18 55-64

18-24 Over 64

25-44

45-54

How much money do they make?

Under $30,000 $30,000 - $60,000

$60,000 - $100,00 Over $100,000

Page 1 of 3

Yes

19. Are you happy with the local police protection?

20. Are you happy with the street clean-up program?

21. Is there enough convenient parking?

22. Do you like the look and feel of the shopping district?

23. Do you feel safe on this street at night?

24. Is it easy to ship or receive goods from your business?

25. Has the age or condition of this building hurt your business?

26. Do you think this area is well known to shoppers?

27. Have any of the local festivals or events brought people into your business? Which ones?

Artists of the Wall Festival Rogers Park Jazz Series World Music Festival All Hallows Eve Festival St. Ignatius Messiah Choir

Jarvis Flea Market Glenwood Arts Fest Caribbean Festival Urban Sound Fest None of the Above

28. Tell me which of the following is the most important issue for this shopping district. (Check One) Appearance and cleanliness The number or type of stores Public safety and crime

29. What should be done about the appearance?

(Check 3) Improved landscaping Improved street maintenance Additional street benches Façade (exterior of building), sign, or interior design improvement assistance programs Improved appearance of nearby public transit stops Street banners

Maybe/ Kind of

No

No Opinion/ Don’t Know

30. What should be done about crime and safety? (Check 3)

Improved crosswalks Changes in traffic control (stop signs / speed limits) Increased street lighting Private security patrols Decreased public loitering Surveillance camera purchase assistance Other:____________________________________

31. What should be done to bring more stores or better stores to the area? (Check 3) More festivals on or near the business district More loading zones for freight transportation Attraction of national chain stores More advertising for the business district Business networking events or seminars Additional or improved parking areas Better mass transit accessibility

Other:____________________________________

Other:____________________________________

DevCorp North (773) 508-5885

Page 2 of 3

ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH PARK City | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS | DEVCORP NORTH | Retail ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS P UIC Design Center RogersPARK Park 11 of| 12 R O Comprehensive G E R S| ROGERS P A R PARK K C |OPlan MPRE H E N| S I V E PARK R E|T DEVCORP A I L SNORTH T U D|YROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTHPage DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH DEVCORP NORTH ROGERS | ROGERS PARK 97 Appendix A PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCORP NORTH | ROGERS PARK | DEVCO NORTH | ROGERS

DevCorp North and University of Illinois at Chicago Commercial Corridor Planning Project 32. Name some stores that you would like to see come to this shopping district: 1.

Fall 2004 33. Name some businesses that would not be good additions to Rogers Park: 1.

2.

2.

3.

3.

4.

4.

34. If you have a vision for the business district, what is it?

Please add any additional comments here:

DevCorp North (773) 508-5885

Page 3 of 3

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT

UIC City Design Rogers Park |Comprehensive Retail Page 12CENTER of 12 | CITY DE DESIGN CENTERCenter | CITY DESIGN CENTER CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITYPlan DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN C I T Y D E S I G N C E N T E R U R B A N B U S I N E S S D I S T R I C T S P R O G R A M CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CE Appendix A 98

CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CITY DESIGN CENTER | CIT