Walgreen’s on wrong corner?
April 13th, 2008 at 06:00pm Ed Leach
Closing two successful businesses, at the corner of Latham and Auburn streets to allow the building of a new drug store appears wrong to me, when the South East corner of Main and Auburn has available space. The empty gas station which backs onto the empty restaurant (formerly Joel’s) looks like a better option.
Obviously the city does not care about the parking lot which they share as it looks like a war zone, with all the pot holes.
Why close two successful businesses, and probably the audio store on the North West corner of Main and Auburn, when space is available across the street?
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized
8 Comments Add your own
1. Jan Herbert | April 14th, 2008 at 6:09 am
Have to agree with you Ed. But let\’s back up further, there\’s a Walgreens perhaps 2 miles north. Will that one then be closed leaving an empty building? I don\’t want to deprive anyone of the opportunity to be able to purchase the things they need, but somehow this just doesn\’t seem like sensible development. And how will this improve the congestion of Auburn & Main?
2. hokumboy | April 14th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Ed & Jan,
I don’t think it’s about the best locations. It’s more about who makes the profit from the land sale to Walgreens.
3. JG | April 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I agree with all of you. When i first heard that table 13 and the salon would be closed to create a Walgreen’s… wow we have one right down the road. another question i had is audio installers staying?I live in the N main and auburn (nesa) neighborhood and i think its ridiculous.At 5:00 N main and auburn is so messed up as it is let alone now having the traffic from a store entering and exiting onto the streets.
4. hokumboy | April 24th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Add the often discussed \\"round-a-bout\\" and we\\\’ve got ourselves a SNAFU of mythical proportions!
5. SSD | May 6th, 2008 at 10:08 am
I was aware that a development company bought the land - not guaranteeing a Walgreens. Did the city actually close the stores or did the owners voluntarily close and sell before the proposed round a bout came into play. Last I knew this was a free society and if the owners chose to sell - good for them!
6. charlie | May 13th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
with the closing of the restaurant and salon, walgreens will be bringing several jobs to the area. hurray for walgreens. let the restaurant and salon relocate to the east side where they belong.
7. carolyn williams | May 13th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I was hoping that it was finally time to rebuild the west side and bring more business to the area instead of closing some to open others. It is long overdue for development on the far west side. When I was coming up in Rockford in the 70\\\\\\\’s the west side had stores, movies, skating rinks, outdoor theatres , swimming pools and much more entertainment ,and I believe that is why the crime has esculated so.
8. Dennis Wallace | May 24th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Jeez… Gang what some think is the wrong corner may be considered by others as the perfect corner… So let’s leave it to the Pro’s to figure out and then live with it… Come on Hindsight is 20\20 but when you are planning for future development it doesn’t all look so clear as looking back into the past. Yea we’ll do some dumb things in the pursuit of Progress but let’s cool it on the armchair quarterbacking… If Walgreens wants to tear down the old and build something new on the West side… I say great!
Now as far as Urban Renewal one of my pet peeves… We need to come to grips with the fact that just because soemthing is old doesn’t mean it’s something we should keep around forever. Yes I agree with selective “historical significance” but every building from 150 years ago isn’t worthy of preservation…
Now to continue on my soap box… Will we finally come to grips with the fact we are competing with brand spanken new communities that don’t have the baggage of old worn down sections of town or just urban decay?
Rockford needs to put a bounty on every building over 50 years old that is currently occupied by a viable existing business and offer to freeze property taxes if the business BUILDS SOMETHING NEW AND MOVES AN EXISTING BUSINESS INTO IT… At the same time agreeing to tear down any old structure that has or is close to exceeding a reasonable life expectancy. fyi, All because an old building is still useable in some peoples minds doesn’t mean we should keep in “On the Books” as thatempty building puts us at a competitive disadvantage to investors and Banks looking to BUILD SOMETHING NEW IN ROCKFORD….
This idea would reward existing companies with similar giveaways offered to the new big box stores that come into the community and extort money from local Gov’t taxing bodies… But in this case the money would go to improve Rockford not just to build on some current cornfield on the fringe of Rockford.
While were at it… How about we establish a fund by selling bonds to buy up vacant factories, warehouses and commercail properties and tear them down… All they are now is eyesores, urban blight and worse yet… SHOW UP ON THE BOOKS AS EXCESS CAPACITY PREVENTING NEW CONSTRUCTION i.e. placing us at an uncompetitive advantage against the “newer” communities we are battling for jobs…
Ok …. I feel better now. (;-)
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed