Here’s why the orchard proposal doesn’t work, and some alternatives

Some words from acclaimed Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin in his recent piece, “West Side story:  A new park, with dynamic geometry and bold interactivity, creates an urban oasis amid wall-to-wall condos,” prompt me to write again about the current proposal on the table for the Logan Square public plaza and orchard (also see Post-public meeting on the Logan Square public plaza). 

Kamin’s words about a new West Loop park and its design process:

engagingly interactive;

ran a good process;

didn’t impose their design;

polled neighbors on their preferences;

evoking rather than erasing the (character);

passing through a series of enticing entrances;

a dynamic green space…

validate my thoughts and raise some anger about the process and proposal for this Logan Square site.  As a planner, it’s inconceivable to me that no alternatives have been considered.  Meanwhile, in another neighborhood there has been a thoughtful and (neighborhood) engaging process to come up with the right solution.

Alternative suggestions

I have heard and read suggestions from others for total open green space, a plaza with niches for vendors, a sculpture garden, a playground, miniature golf or other games venues, a summer beer garden or Gallery 37 type program with a winter ice rink.  

New York and San Francisco have had recent successes with public space by experimenting with dimensions and moveable furniture prior to making a commitment to one idea or another.

You may have wondered why the St. Louis arch, the virtual garden and other images are included in this post.  I’ve attempted to evoke my own ideas that I’ve shared in previous comments.  They are not the precise images that convey what I’ve suggested.  They are modern and classic, natural and manufactured.  They are meant to allow and inspire you to imagine different possibilities for arches or an arcade, for a greenhouse with a café (I’m really liking the container greenhouse), and for what I think is my best idea, a sound garden.  To that point, I’ve also included a couple of videos to assist in imagining a sound garden.

Forgive me where I repeat what I’ve written on this blog before or what I spoke at the public meeting.

This is not the place

The proposed orchard will fence off and prohibit public access to part of a vital commercial corridor.  Milwaukee Avenue is the commercial center, the spine of our neighborhood, where there should be the highest concentration of buildings and people.

Commerce and trade are the very reason for the existence of cities.  Cities formed for the purpose of facilitating trade.

One important responsibility of the city is good design that supports the urban form, the grid, small blocks, coherent architectural patterns, buildings instead of vacant lots (parking or planted).  This is one of the strengths of the city, and what you might call its “unique selling proposition.”

We already have the square itself, the Paseo Prairie Garden, the desolate concrete of the CTA station.  Any additional open space must be active and inviting space to contribute to the vitality of the commercial strip.

People like a sense of enclosure that comes from being surrounded by a continuous street wall.  But, including this proposal, the span of Milwaukee Avenue without two opposing street walls would be about 1/4 mile. 

It’s also about a 1/4 mile from the “el” station south to the first Mega Mall entrance, the first active destination on the west side of Milwaukee Avenue.

Typically, people are only inclined to walk about a 1/4 mile to various neighborhood amenities and facilities.  But that distance is greater the more there is to look at and interact with, like shop windows.

That’s one of the reasons just north of the square that banks cannot be closer than 600 feet to each other:  because their blank walls don’t provide the needed interaction for passers-by.  Similarly, that’s why shop windows are supposed to be 60% transparent, so that there’s something for pedestrians to look at.

That’s why big box stores like those on Elston Avenue don’t work for a walkable community.  With only one or two entrances over the equivalent of a city block, they don’t offer any opportunity for people to interact with the building and its purpose in the spaces in between.

The rationale for these rules and practices is sound.  They enhance foot traffic; they enhance commerce and exchange; they enhance liveability.

That is why any place on this commercial corridor must be well-designed and inviting to the public, and not just on an occassional basis.  Any proposal that fences out people on a regular basis cannot achieve that.

New businesses, at last, continue to crop up on Milwaukee Avenue.  It would be counterproductive to create a passive space that could harm their success, whether through diminished foot traffic or an inability to manage the space.

Regarding management of the space, the most effective and least costly means is to keep the area vital, active and populated so that there are watchful eyes.  Again, any proposal that fences out people cannot achieve that.

I presume Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds have already been used and will be used some more for any proposal that is accepted.  But it would be counterproductive to use TIF funds toward a passive space that would not contribute to the vitality and economic development of the district, which is the purpose of the TIF district.

The value of the transportation hub we have just north of the square with trains, buses, and a parking lot, is also diminished by additional passive open space.

From an urban planning perspective, the above is why the orchard proposal does not work.  The perspective of a locavore is probably different.  But let’s first consider and agree on the objectives of the space. 

Engaging the neighborhood in the process to imagine a future for this space is the minimum required.

The next public meeting should be “what else?” 

Summer diversions in Logan Square:

Cinema Minima:  My Own Private Idaho:  view this cult classic journey of self-discovery, Sunday, September 5, at 8:00 p.m., at Cole’s, 2338 N. Milwaukee Ave.


7 Responses to Here’s why the orchard proposal doesn’t work, and some alternatives

  1. Andrea says:

    Great post! Thank you for putting your ideas out there. I agree about not fencing in public spaces and keeping people out. And I never thought about windows and big box stores.

  2. Ed says:

    Hi. In your opinion what is the most effective way for me to oppose this project? Who do I email (or is writing better,) what arguments should I use, and is there anything else I could do? I am a LS resident and property owner.

    Ed: I think both city staff:

    Nelson Chueng
    Coordinating Planner
    Chicago Dept. of Zoning and Land Use Planning
    121 N. LaSalle St.
    Chicago, IL 60602

    and the alderman should hear your thoughts. I know some people have surprisingly gotten through on other issues with a letter to the mayor. I plan to write a letter and have shared Nelson’s mailing address as it’s public information.

    IMO, the best approach is to speak to what your personal objections are about the proposal. Bear in mind that this land has been purchased with the idea in mind that there be some type of open space there. If you haven’t already, also take a look at previous posts: Post-public meeting on the Logan Square public plaza, Public meeting August 17 re: Logan Square public plaza, and Fertile fields of Milwaukee Avenue? and the accompanying comments and links thru to other discussions.

    As to anything else you can do, suggest alternatives and convince them to engage the neighborhood to come up with even more! This should not have been set up with a “you’re either with us or against us” mentality. ~ Lynn

  3. Carter says:

    speaking of sound “garden” installations, Logan Square resident Andrew Bird has one at the Field Museum for a few more days:

    Andrew Bird’s Music On Display At Field Museum’s Mastodon Exhibit

    Singer-songwriter Andrew Bird may only be 37 years old, but he’s already found his way into a museum.

    One of the Chicago native’s compositions is the centerpiece of a dazzling soundscape that accompanies the Field Museum’s “Mammoths and Mastodons” exhibition.

  4. J says:

    I don’t understand why a fence is such an issue. Most parks have curfews, some fences, and the Garfield Park Conservatory is all surrounded by glass. It is free and open to the public. Plus, Logan Square isn’t downtown Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc. And the budget that downtown locations have to patrol their parks is immense. These are rare trees that should be protected so they can take root. I am assuming you have never owned property or bought a tree or you would understand the cost. Trees can cost anywhere to three hundred dollars to thousands depending on the species and the rarity. Logan Square still has vandalism, theft, and robberies. It sounds like you are bitter and didn’t think that you too could have thought of an engaging project before someone else did. I really dislike it when bitter people stand in the way of creating diverse projects for people in the city.

    J: I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I think this is a great idea for a different location. Remember, C.R.O.P. didn’t pick this location for its project. The city turned them down for other sites, and then chose this location for C.R.O.P.

    I do wish the city had informed the neighborhood way back when that this space would no longer be the public market plaza that had been planned. Indeed we have a creative and diverse community that could have and can offer alternatives for the site.

    Regarding the fence, C.R.O.P. stated that it would be happy to have it removed, but under the proposed ownership structure, the owners want to keep the fence up. But only those who hop the fence will gain access when the few C.R.O.P. volunteers are not around to open the gates. As much passion as they have for their mission, they don’t have the capacity to be there to keep the space open even most of daylight hours.

    Garfield Park Conservatory is located in a park, surrounded by park land. This space is located on a prime commercial corridor surrounded by commercial buildings and near a major transportation hub. As such, it needs the types of things Kamin writes about: to be engaging, interactive, to evoke the character of the area, to provide enticing entrances (which implies openness), to be dynamic. I think Garfield Park, however, might be a fine location for the orchard. ~ Lynn

  5. Carter says:


    What you are describing are reasons I’m fairly skeptical of the appropriateness of this project.

    yes, trees are expensive – who is paying for them, and why would you put them where fencing is required to keep them from being mishandled? fencing is also expensive, and who is paying for it?

    This is a very unusual space, and it may well be that many ideas wouldn’t be optimal. But the point is that nobody seems to have known that they could even submit proposals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s