[firstcranialnerve]

I'm curious, does this move of the Childrens museum (wherever it may go), factor in to a longer term plan for Navy Pier? to make navy pier more upscale? I think something like Sydney's circular quay (the end of which is the opera house) would be awesome.

[honte]

Honte: although I always respect your opinions and expertise, in this case you're off-base. Reilly was persuaded by the extremely vocal group of high-rise dwelling, ultra-selfish NIMBYs who mainly fear the congestion that the museum would bring to "their neighborhood park", plain and simple (which of course is a ridiculous reason to oppose a development in downtown Chicago by a 3-level road system!). Of couse he's not going to cite this as his reason for formal opposition.


Well, I will be the first to admit that I've never seen him in action, only reading what he says in the papers. But I've got to say, nothing I've read about him or said by him has been disagreeable. I think his arguments are always sound and logical. Compare that to Natarus, who couldn't even form complete sentences.

Reilly is still fresh, and I am hoping that my perception of his "level-headedness" will prove to be true, when he is truly faced with a purely NIMBY fight that has no other merit.


The positives outweigh the negatives of this development in this location...

You see, this is the problem with the way Chicago is planned and developed. It's purely based on what is politically expedient, clout-driven, or money managed. It has nothing to do with sound planning. I am sick of the "compromise" model... "Well, here is better than there, so it must be great; let's shove the decision down the community's throat." I am sick of my tax dollars being spent that way. Gigi Pritzker wants her museum at this location so that it can be next to her family's bandshell and Daley wants it there to generate parking fees in the city-owned lot. The fieldhouse is a goddamn carrot and you guys all know it. They have yet to show a study showing why this is the ideal location for this museum.... because there isn't a study ... of any kind. It's whim-based, capricious, shitty planning.

Museums, parks, recreational facilities, transit, etc... these are the tools a city has to revitalize areas and make major, positive impacts on its residents' quality of life. Chicago would really benefit from people using these tools in a more sophisticated and thoughtful fashion.

So, maybe Reilly's not really into the "Forever open, free and clear" stuff. But if you are going to advance a hidden agenda theory, you have to allow that his "hidden agenda" might be along the above lines and not just NIMBY pandering.

[honte]

...he has the right idea in that these residents have no right to treat the city's backyard as their own.


Daley treats the parks like his own personal sandbox. Just plop a building in here, whatever. It's like a land-bank that he can use in whatever means he desires, despite the overblown claims that he is doing so much for expanding parkland in Chicago.

The Olympic proposal is case-in-point. This museum issue is just another part of the same trend.

The last time the city went on a major "spending spree" of public land was in the 1970s, when the city made the foolish move to construct many public schools on park land. The public was outraged. Where are they now? Or, will they just figure it out once it's too late? (Yeah, I know at Daley Bi they are burying the thing, but we all know that wasn't the intention, so I don't give the City credit for that.)

[Chicago2020]

Everyone should see the Daley press conf. at the festivel of maps. Its a 6 min clip on the Chicago Tribune website.

www.chicagotribune.com

[the urban politician]

Well, I will be the first to admit that I've never seen him in action, only reading what he says in the papers. But I've got to say, nothing I've read about him or said by him has been disagreeable. I think his arguments are always sound and logical. Compare that to Natarus, who couldn't even form complete sentences.

Reilly is still fresh, and I am hoping that my perception of his "level-headedness" will prove to be true, when he is truly faced with a purely NIMBY fight that has no other merit.

^ You know, I would venture to say that Reilly is kind of making the right decision for the wrong reasons.

For example, if the LSE NIMBY's weren't so vocal in their opposition, would Reilly have bothered to oppose this museum, even though it breaks the "forever open and free" edict for Grant Park?

All in all, when looking at this issue, I would say the Reilly is right, and Daley is wrong on this one. I don't trust Reilly's intentions, but I do agree with his arguments.

On the flip side, I think Daley is sort of acting in an unusually belligerent fashion, and should choose his battles more thoughtfully. The museum is "about the children" and for "the children" and yada yada yada--that's fine and dandy, and nobody is saying that the museum shouldn't be built. We're simply trying to find the best place for it, and there are a million possible sites. Why are they so hell-bent on building it only in Grant Park.

Last I checked, a building is still a building whether it's above ground or below ground. It still undermines the idea of a park being a peaceful respite from all aspects of the functions of a city--both commercial and cultural. In other words, putting a subterranean museum in the city is no different in principle from putting in a subterranean trading floor for the Chicago Merc.

There are plenty of places for this museum--why not fill in one of those ugly parking lots that everybody hates? Why must it be in a park at all?

A better battle for Daley to fight? The Children's Hospital in Streeterville--a lot of NIMBY opposition going on with that one, and if you're going to fight "for the children", I can't think of a better war than a top-notch hospital for them.

[schwerve]

A couple of numbers I just got that I thought might be appropriate to the debate:

Footprint of the museum: ~20,000 ft2
Portion of footprint which is Publicly accessible terraces and ramps: 17,000 ft2
Portion inacessible to public (lower terrace): 3,400 ft2

[StormFire]

Yes, they were nice.

I am still making some calls about this - will let you know the results in this thread when I find out anything conclusive.

I suppose nothing ever panned out on whatever happened to those bronze Tribune front pages?

[VivaLFuego]

Daley treats the parks like his own personal sandbox. Just plop a building in here, whatever. It's like a land-bank that he can use in whatever means he desires, despite the overblown claims that he is doing so much for expanding parkland in Chicago.

The Olympic proposal is case-in-point. This museum issue is just another part of the same trend.

The last time the city went on a major "spending spree" of public land was in the 1970s, when the city made the foolish move to construct many public schools on park land. The public was outraged. Where are they now? Or, will they just figure it out once it's too late? (Yeah, I know at Daley Bi they are burying the thing, but we all know that wasn't the intention, so I don't give the City credit for that.)

I agree to some extent with your take on Daley. However, I think this notion of "forever free and clear" in Grant Park is sort of silly. This is not a natural park (e.g. Central Park, Jackson Park). This is a park full of people doing stuff. Millenium Park is very interactive. There are also the tennis courts, baseball diamonds, Petrillo shell, Art Institute, sculpture garden at the south end, Buckingham Fountain, not to mention the entire Museum Campus and Soldier Field, etc. In fact, this characteristic of the park is why it is such an asset to the city. Having huge roads plowing through it ( like Columbus) make it prime for hosting our multitude of other interactive activities like the Taste, Lollapalooza, and other such fests. Trying to "preserve" the park as-is seems an incoherent desire to me. I too would fight such a proposal to build a children's museum next to the wooded isle in Jackson Park or the nature preserve in Lincoln Park. But Grant Park is the city's backyard, not the city's forest preserve.

I don't feel so strongly one way or another where the museum ends up, but I do reject the arguments being put forth as to why it shouldn't be located in Grant Park.

[dvidler]

I disagree with that in a sense. Grant Park is Chicago's front yard but it will have to make way for some room for the residents. Its a changing dynamic for the park. And not just on the north end. All sides of the park will need room for the residents around the park.

[VivaLFuego]

Imagine the overwhelming park traffic and noise from this absurd Children's Museum. It's just totally not comparable to all the annoyance from the Taste, Lollapalooza, BluesFest, GospelFest, CelticFest, Millenium Park events....

[honte]

^ You know, I would venture to say that Reilly is kind of making the right decision for the wrong reasons.

For example, if the LSE NIMBY's weren't so vocal in their opposition, would Reilly have bothered to oppose this museum, even though it breaks the "forever open and free" edict for Grant Park?

Quite possibly true.


On the flip side, I think Daley is sort of acting in an unusually belligerent fashion, and should choose his battles more thoughtfully. The museum is "about the children" and for "the children" and yada yada yada--that's fine and dandy, and nobody is saying that the museum shouldn't be built. We're simply trying to find the best place for it, and there are a million possible sites. Why are they so hell-bent on building it only in Grant Park.

Last I checked, a building is still a building whether it's above ground or below ground. It still undermines the idea of a park being a peaceful respite from all aspects of the functions of a city--both commercial and cultural. In other words, putting a subterranean museum in the city is no different in principle from putting in a subterranean trading floor for the Chicago Merc.

There are plenty of places for this museum--why not fill in one of those ugly parking lots that everybody hates? Why must it be in a park at all?

A better battle for Daley to fight? The Children's Hospital in Streeterville--a lot of NIMBY opposition going on with that one, and if you're going to fight "for the children", I can't think of a better war than a top-notch hospital for them.

Yes, precisely. You can smell something else is up when this is what pulls his chain. Can't get the guy this fired up about virtually anything of real importance - public transit, affordable housing, traffic congestion, what have you. Chicago has many real and rapidly escalating problems at the moment. This is about a power trip, and pleasing a certain segment of the population.

VivaL, I hear your arguments, but the overwhelming carnival atmosphere of Grant Park and the loss of tranquility is precisely why I think spaces like the Daley Bi are so important. Not every part of the city has to be designed as though everyone has ADD. And what about parity within the park? The south end of Grant Park is decidedly shabby compared to the north; I wonder why Bob O'Neil isn't latching on to this chance to inject some life and capital into the south end?

[woodrow]

honte -
I hear your arguments, but the overwhelming carnival atmosphere of Grant Park and the loss of tranquility is precisely why I think spaces like the Daley Bi are so important. Not every part of the city has to be designed as though everyone has ADD. And what about parity within the park? The south end of Grant Park is decidedly shabby compared to the north; I wonder why Bob O'Neil isn't latching on to this chance to inject some life and capital into the south end?


BINGO!! I have been opposed to the CCM moving to that location to GP for just that reason. Why does every part of the park have to have some BIG ATTRACTION!?!?! Shouldn't there be parts of the park that are just trees and grass and flowers and benches and playlots and yes, even tennis courts and fieldhouses?

I live in Lakeview so I am not a NIMBY on this.

And wouldn't it be great to put this further south, maybe on Michigan Avenue or over the train tracks South side of Roosevelt. Location much nearer the Museum Campus, and it would fit in the burgeoning Sout Loop / South Grant Park area.

[ardecila]

The south end of Grant Park is decidedly shabby compared to the north; I wonder why Bob O'Neil isn't latching on to this chance to inject some life and capital into the south end?

Do you seriously need to ask this question? It's obvious why O'Neill wants the museum here - he gets a renovated fieldhouse out of it, and nice modern place to host his meetings instead of a dump that makes his organization seem like the basement sewing circle of some church in Sycamore. And he gets it for free.

He's a bit of an unusual guy anyway - I've done some volunteer work with GPC, so I have met him several times. He has a strict vision for Grant Park, and he will use every tool at his disposal to ensure that his ideas are enacted exactly as he envisioned them.

[honte]

^ It was more of a rhetorical question... but I do have a slightly different answer, which I edited out because it really isn't important at this juncture.

[austin_bound009]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I am wondering how Cabrini Green is doing? I know they demolished it but how does it look now? Sorry for the off-topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread.

[i_am_hydrogen]

I don't know if this is the right place to post this but I am wondering how Cabrini Green is doing? I know they demolished it but how does it look now? Sorry for the off-topic, but I didn't want to start a new thread.

It hasn't been entirely demolished yet. A few of the "whites" and many "reds" have yet to be knocked down.

[Alliance]

Side Story:

"Developer who proposed Chicago tower indicted"

"(Crain’s) — An Atlanta real estate developer who once proposed building the world’s tallest building in Chicago has been charged with stealing $3 million from owners and tenants of his properties, federal prosecutors said Wednesday."

Read the Full Article: Here. (http://chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?rssFeed=news&id=26432&seenIt=1)

[Mr Downtown]

Here's what Cabrini-Green looked like last summer. (http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=qzh6x67pws3x&style=o&lvl=1&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=11385436&encType=1) I bicycled up Larrabee Tuesday morning and noticed a couple of the "reds" (the midrises with red brick infill of the concrete frame) were ready for demo.

[austin_bound009]

so when are they supposed to be done with the remodel? and where did all those residents go who cannot afford the new homes?

[Mr Downtown]

According to the CHA Plan for Transformation, (http://www.thecha.org/transformplan/plan_summary.html) the bulk of work is to be done by 2009. A more independent report on the status. (http://www.metroplanning.org/resource.asp?objectID=3046&categoryID=2) A Chicago Sun-Times assessment. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20061012/ai_n16788289)

Residents were supposedly given Section VIII certificates and relocation assistance, but in fact thousands of them have just disappeared and no one knows where they went. Several suburbs in southern Cook County appear to have absorbed a large number of former CHA residents.

[i_am_hydrogen]

so when are they supposed to be done with the remodel? and where did all those residents go who cannot afford the new homes?

I don't think a date certain has been set. Where did all of the residents go? That's a complicated question. Some of them are given the ability to buy/rent in the homes that are replacing the old buildings, but they must meet certain conditions: no one in the family can be convicted of a felony, no history of drug abuse, must be working 30 hours a week (which automatically eliminates the senior citizen residents who made up a large portion of the public housing population), and so on. Some get Section 8 vouchers. But many have just resettled in other poor neighborhoods.

[austin_bound009]

^ Really? Like where?

[the urban politician]

^ A lot of them moved to Carney Gardens, from what I heard ;)

[i_am_hydrogen]

And the beat goes on... From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Board chief: Museum opposition is racial
CHILDREN'S MUSEUM | Calls Grant Park site 'critical'

September 20, 2007
BY ANDREW HERRMANN AND FRAN SPIELMAN Staff Reporters

Jean "Gigi" Pritzker has produced more than 10 movies -- including an upcoming flick called "Living Hell'' -- but these days she finds herself in the midst of a real life drama.

Pritzker, the billionaire president of the board of the Chicago Children's Museum, which is planning a controversial move to just east of Millennium Park, said the uproar is "just killing me.''

Read the rest here (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/566154,CST-NWS-museum20.article).

© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group

[the urban politician]

Last updated: September 20, 2007 08:38am
Morningside Plans $30M Mixed-Use Development
By Gina Kenny

http://www.globest.com/newspics/chi_chelseastreet.jpg
Chelsea Street

OAK PARK, IL-Morningside Equities Group Inc., based in Chicago, is planning a $30-million, mixed-used development at the intersection of South Boulevard and Harlem Avenue. Morningside and the village of Oak Park recently announced they reached an agreement for the Chelsea Street development, which will have 96 condominium units and 12,500 sf of retail space. The development will also have 245 public parking spaces in addition to parking for condominium owners.
http://www.globest.com/news/996_996/chicago/164181-1.html

[harryc]

Last updated: September 20, 2007 08:38am
Morningside Plans $30M Mixed-Use Development
By Gina Kenny

http://www.globest.com/newspics/chi_chelseastreet.jpg
Chelsea Street

OAK PARK, IL-Morningside Equities Group Inc., based in Chicago, is planning a $30-million, mixed-used development at the intersection of South Boulevard and Harlem Avenue. Morningside and the village of Oak Park recently announced they reached an agreement for the Chelsea Street development, which will have 96 condominium units and 12,500 sf of retail space. The development will also have 245 public parking spaces in addition to parking for condominium owners.
http://www.globest.com/news/996_996/chicago/164181-1.html

Odd that the rendering doesn't showcase the CTA station across the street.

[Via Chicago]

Yes, precisely. You can smell something else is up when this is what pulls his chain. Can't get the guy this fired up about virtually anything of real importance - public transit, affordable housing, traffic congestion, what have you. Chicago has many real and rapidly escalating problems at the moment. This is about a power trip, and pleasing a certain segment of the population.


no kidding. he said something to the effect of "this is a fight for the future of chicago". the kids museum going/not going in GP is suddenly the end all be all? the man needs get a grip...he comes off as a child whos not getting his way

[Alliance]

Moving the Childrens Museum to grant park is a HORRIBLE idea. That are of the park needs to be redeveloped (meaning un-developed in to PARK).

End of Story imo. The Park should be immutable.

[Ecker]

The Gino's East building has been gutted
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb167/EckerTallness/Construction%209-19/IMG_3952.jpg

Site of the new Barney's
http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb167/EckerTallness/Construction%209-19/IMG_3938.jpg

[forumly_chgoman]

I forget how tall is that barney's supposed to be...is it 5 stories?

[budman]

I forget how tall is that barney's supposed to be...is it 5 stories?

^I am still bummed that Papa Milano's is gone, and that tiny bar, Mondelli's, next to it.

[Nowhereman1280]

I forget how tall is that barney's supposed to be...is it 5 stories?

7 I believe.

My cousin is 18 and worked there in Dallas, now he is going to school here and plans to start working at the Chicago one next semester. He was the top sales person in Dallas (I know its hard to believe, and 18 year old the top salesperson at a Barneys?), I wonder how he'll do here in Chicago?

[Chicago2020]

BARNEY

http://pbskids.kids.us/images/sub-square-barney.gif

:haha: :haha: :haha:

[nomarandlee]

AI's bridge ground breaking.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bridge21sep21,0,1436059.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

Institute's addition donations, costs rise

By Charles Storch Tribune staff reporter
8:58 PM CDT, September 20, 2007

The projected cost of the Art Institute of Chicago's Modern Wing continues to mount but so, too, does the amount raised for the project.

The institute said Thursday private donors have given $300 million toward the $373 million now being sought to build the wing and a companion bridge and to endow the structures. Last October, it said it had raised $267 million of a then-goal of $350 million.

The updates came at a groundbreaking ceremony held in Millennium Park for a planned $30 million pedestrian bridge across Monroe Drive. The bridge would link the south end of the park and the third floor of the Modern Wing.......................

[Alliance]

Good to hear that's getting started. I actually like the profile of the bridge. Reminds me a bit of the Millennium Bridge in London.

[2PRUROCKS!]

I sent this email to Bob O,Neil of the Grant Park Conservancy. boboneill@grantparkconservancy.com

If anyone wants to send a similar one feel free. I would also like to send one to Reilly, does anyone have his email?

Feel free to post this over in SSC as well, I can't post there.

Mr. O,Neil,

I want to thank you for you tireless and valiant efforts on behalf of Grant Park and for the good of Chicago to make Grant Park all that it can and should be. I have attended a number of you "park-archeture" meetings in the Daley Bi plaza building and have been impressed by your desire, work, and progress in improving Grant Park. I also strongly agree with your desire to surround and frame Grant Park with tall and thin towers with great design.

I have also been closely following the debate about the Children's Museum possible relocation to Grant Park. I have seen the latest designs and I love the overall design and concept. I love Krueck + Sexton's work especially the stunning Spertus Museum. I feel another work of theirs near Grant Park would be wonderful. I am however concerned about the precedence this might set for buildings in Grant Park. I know that the proposed Children's Museum is mostly underground and the above ground faceted glass is beautiful but I wonder if a better location may be possible. I believe building the Children's Museum over the rail road tracks that bisect Grant Park between the Art Institute and Roosevelt Rd. might be such a location.

There are many advantages to building the museum over air-rights of the tracks. (1) It would help cover what is now a blemish that cuts though Grant Park like a chasm. One of the great things about Millennium Park is that it took what was a blemish and hindrance to Grant Park and turned it into a great asset and beautiful green space. (2) It would add to land and green space in Grant park. In addition to the actual Museum an outdoor playground and green space could be built with the museum as part of it but open to the public. (3) Krueck + Sexton's brilliant work could be more fully displayed above ground instead of being forced underground and it would be closer to their Spertus Museum. (4) It would allow for a more centrally located Grant Park field house. Instead of rebuilding the field house in Daley Bi a new field house could be built over the tracks. The field house needs to serve all of Grant Park, so one that is more centrally located within the Park would be better than one on the northern border. (5) By building over the tracks the neighborhood controversy should be avoided. I don't agree with NIMBY pandering nor the New East-side residence complaints of increased traffic. This is all of Chicago's park not just their local play-land. However, avoiding confrontation on this matter may be beneficial in the long term. (6) The location over the tracks would protect the Ward "open, free, and clear" spirit and actually add land, green space and usable areas to Grant Park for all of Chicago's benefit. (7) This location would still offer the benefits to the Children's Museum of being in or near Grant Park.

I am sure that by building the Children's Museum over the tracks there may be some logistical issues but these could be worked out and the overall benefits would make it worth it. I just want to say in closing that I am not against the Children's Museum current design proposal and location but I believe that placing it over the rail road tracks would be a better location and offer more gain for all involved.

Thank you for all of your time and effort for Chicago.

[Marcu]

Good to hear that's getting started. I actually like the profile of the bridge. Reminds me a bit of the Millennium Bridge in London.

Any images?

[VivaLFuego]

Following-up on a correspondence from the "over-12" thread

^ Thanks for clarifying. I hate to use pathetic anecdotal points, but I am aware of at least a handful of car owners in Chicago who still use transit. I realize that the total lack of car ownership is the ideal situation in which to support transit use, but I'm not sure if car ownership and transit usage are necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm curious to see the data regarding the percentage of people who use the L who also own cars.

and

Own a car, have off street parking, still ride my bike to the El and take the El downtown.

When I lived in LakeView ( next to the Sheridan El ) 2/3 or better of the people owned cars, most took the El anyways.

The Chicago requirement for parking w each unit is a bit misleading, often that parking is at the expense of the on street parking that is now gone because of a stupid little driveway for each unit ( e.g. Fletcher W of Racine ).


Right, these people will take transit to the central area; for those trips, car ownership isn't very useful. If the marginal cost of a car trip doesn't have a parking cost component, a car owner will probably drive, otherwise why even bother with the expense of owning a car? the only other potential motivator for a car owner to take transit, other than parking cost, is travel time, and traffic in that corridor isn't bad enough, nor transit service frequent and accessible enough to a critical mass of trip origins and destinations, for that to be true for many people.

Given the above, how would the Circle Line help car-owning residents who live along it, who already have bus service and in many cases, rail service to a variety of destinations including downtown? Even if building the Circle Line will somehow generate new transit riders for work trips, additional rush hour ridership alone isn't adequate justification for a multi-billion dollar heavy rail rapid transit line that will also have major ongoing capital and operating costs. I only see it working if the Ashland corridor along which the Circle Line would run were majorly upzoned to high-rise residential and office densities to generate origins and destinations in several time periods throughout the day.

[the urban politician]

^Because most of Chicago isn't dense enough to actually support rail rapid transit (other than as a trunk line with feeder service, e.g. the Dan Ryan Red line).....and unless you create trip destinations along the line (e.g. significant office and retail density) there simply won't be a significant net gain in system ridership by building a new line where there is already bus and rail service.

Also, with modern zoning, I think a forest of highrises (Vancouver-style) actually is necessary when we're talking about a new-construction neighborhood supporting rail transit and pedestrian livelihood. Modern zoning has very high parking requirements, high open space and setback requirements, high minimum unit size, and a small maximum percentage of efficiency units (like 20%). All of these translate to both a low effective population density, and a general friendliness to automobile use. A neighborhood full of 3--story subdivided old flats with no accessory parking (Wicker Park, Lincoln Park) and 4+1s with inadequate parking (Lakeview, Lincoln Park) can clearly support transit, but in terms of new construction most zoning districts just won't cut it, since those lowscale transit-supportive land uses in those neighborhoods (or in European cities like you mention) are currently unbuildable.

You can't build new 4+1s full of efficiency units, and you can't build a 4-flat without 4 parking spots (or, if you're within a generous 600 ft of a transit station entrance, you can provide a mere 3 parking spots). And once you've got a neighborhood where basically every resident car-owner has off-street parking, then there's not much of an on-street (free) parking crunch, and you quickly lose incentives to take transit.

^ One other point I'd like to make--again, this is weak anecdotal crap, but I want to bounce it off you to see what you think.

Currently I own a car here in Queens. I live within a 5 minute walk of the subway. There is a shopping mall about 2 miles away with a huge garage that fits plenty of cars (for a small charge), but it's also near a subway stop. I drove there twice, but now I've decided it will probably be more convenient to just take transit. Plus, I already have a paid for parking space at my job (which is NOT in Manhattan), but I've chosen to take the subway there every day instead.

That's just me, but I'm pretty sure a lot of other people would make such a choice. In Chicago, for example, even with car ownership in place, I can imagine that at least some people living in the WLCO-fied west loop would consider taking a train to North/Clybourn instead of driving if they had a quicker option, such as the Circle Line, no?

In other words, transit is about density, but it's also about selling itself as an alternative to driving. Even when parking is abundant, driving can still be a hassle--traffic congestion, rude drivers, the fear of getting into an accident (especially in a big city), the cost of parking in a garage, etc. We talk about "free parking", but I think that eventually the market will force property owners to charge money to use their garage. I'm betting that the underground garage in the Roosevelt Collection won't be entirely free (although it may be so in the beginning)

[harryc]

^ ...snip... We talk about "free parking", but I think that eventually the market will force property owners to charge money to use their garage. I'm betting that the underground garage in the Roosevelt Collection won't be entirely free (although it may be so in the beginning)

The term FREE PARKING is not used in Chicago, there is no such thing.

An interesting local law is that if there is no meter there is no parking. If you say "but hearing officer ( NOT Judge ) there were no signs saying no parking" the response is " No meter means no parking ". Chicago can also write you a ticket for expired State plate sticker. Yet another fund raiser is to tow cars from "SNOW ROUTES" even when there is no snow forecast for weeks.

[the urban politician]

^ Harry, I'm talking about garage parking, not street parking

[harryc]

^ Harry, I'm talking about garage parking, not street parking

No free garage parking either - NEVER seen that in the downtown area.

[the urban politician]

^ Is parking free at the SouthGate Market at Roosevelt/Canal?

[harryc]

^ Is parking free at the SouthGate Market at Roosevelt/Canal?

Not what us old farts think of as downtown, there was free parking at Belmont|Broadway and at the Jewl at Addison|Broadway. BUT between Chicago| Halsted | Congress ........

[VivaLFuego]

^ One other point I'd like to make--again, this is weak anecdotal crap, but I want to bounce it off you to see what you think.

Currently I own a car here in Queens. I live within a 5 minute walk of the subway. There is a shopping mall about 2 miles away with a huge garage that fits plenty of cars (for a small charge), but it's also near a subway stop. I drove there twice, but now I've decided it will probably be more convenient to just take transit. Plus, I already have a paid for parking space at my job (which is NOT in Manhattan), but I've chosen to take the subway there every day instead.

That's just me, but I'm pretty sure a lot of other people would make such a choice. In Chicago, for example, even with car ownership in place, I can imagine that at least some people living in the WLCO-fied west loop would consider taking a train to North/Clybourn instead of driving if they had a quicker option, such as the Circle Line, no?

In other words, transit is about density, but it's also about selling itself as an alternative to driving. Even when parking is abundant, driving can still be a hassle--traffic congestion, rude drivers, the fear of getting into an accident (especially in a big city), the cost of parking in a garage, etc. We talk about "free parking", but I think that eventually the market will force property owners to charge money to use their garage. I'm betting that the underground garage in the Roosevelt Collection won't be entirely free (although it may be so in the beginning)

You raise some valuable points. Of course, a significant aspect of transit utilization is cultural, which is quickly evident to anyone who has visited any of the Canadian metropolises, which are built similarly to American cities but have much better transit utilization. That culture comes into play when people like you or I will generally default to making a trip by transit, and using a car only when it's really absolutely necessary. But I still feel economics is the driver, in aggregate, in determining mode choice. Even with similar auto ownership rates as the US, Canada has greater taxes on driving, increasing the cost of not only auto ownership, but auto use (through higher gasoline taxes). People can argue all day about what the appropriate tax would be, but most people who've reseached the topic feel that driving is undertaxed in the US, meaning that each marginal auto trip costs the user a perceived amount less than that trip is actually costing the system, thus driving, in aggregate, is overconsumed. We can even express your and my love for transit-use in economic terms, in that we get a certain utility from taking a train or bus as opposed to driving; but of course that's hardly the norm.

What all that mumbo-jumbo means is that transit in the US is at a disadvantage as a mode choice right off the bat. Further, your situation (where there is a very equal mode choice equation between driving and transit for your shopping and work trips, each with pros and cons) is a situation that is much more common in NYC than it is in Chicago. You're right that some people would use the Circle Line for trips to North/Clybourn. But with ample cheap/free parking, the vast majority of trips to North/Clybourn arrive by car (and a majority are coming from the Northside anyhow), unlike the shopping districts of the Loop or Mag Mile, where parking is basically impossible for less than $15-20. And of course, those areas get great transit mode share.

I never bought that the Circle line would be useful as a crosstown route to save travel time, since it involves adding an extra transfer into those trips when you're only a few minutes outside of downtown anyway (assume no slow zones and frequent service). However, the Circle Line could be an incredible project if it not only became a new locus of trip generation (with two-way traffic during both peak periods), but also had regional buy-in, by which I mean the RTA forcing Metra to co-operate: It would provide a distribution system, directly linking up with every Metra Line, to most major downtown destinations.

The current course of events seems to suggest neither of those will happen, so I can't say a project that will only increase the burden on CTA's paltry operating and capital budgets is a good idea. Hopefully the New Starts process could be guided to provide some basic accessibiliy improvements to the existing system: rather than $1-2 billion on a whole new line, add some infill stations in key locations (18th/Cermak Green, United Center, Division/Brown), improve the transfer connections (State/Lake, Jackson/Library, Medical Center?), and improve the bus facilities along Ashland and Western to implement some features of BRT (signal priority, next-bus LED signs, large information boards, landmark/pylons etc.) for the X49 and X9.

[Mr Downtown]

^ Is parking free at the SouthGate Market at Roosevelt/Canal?

At the moment, it is. But gates and kiosks are already in place for them to charge if they wish to. IIRC, Whole Foods' separate lot is not set up for paid parking.

I think shopping is one of the most difficult trips to capture for transit--unless you're going for mostly entertainment and small, high-value purchases. I think that type of shopping has dropped substantially as women have entered the workforce. That, in turn, is responsible for the decline of both downtown department stores and regional indoor malls.

[the urban politician]

So basically, the Chicago region has a bloated and underutilized rail infrastructure that's simply waiting for market conditions to kick it back into high gear. From what Viva said, that's kind of how I see it.

Until that, it's rubber and gasoline

[ardecila]

^^ That's not a bad description of the situation.

I love how discussion of everything else devolves into a discussion about transit.

I think more important than any public transit improvement is the funding and construction of the projects outlined in CREATE. This will have lasting and great benefits for the NATIONAL rail system, as well as Metra.

I also think the ONLY way to create a transit culture is through TOD - around EXISTING stations in Chicago. Why is nobody proposing any sort of dense TOD along the Orange Line, or the Blue Line, or the Dan Ryan Red Line?

All of New York's transit goals seem to focus on improving access to Manhattan and travel on Manhattan. DC seems to be the only American city that knows how to integrate an extensive transit system into an auto-centric city. Portland and other cities with growing light-rail systems also have some sense of how to do it properly.

[spyguy]

http://www.insideonline.com/site/epage/53540_162.htm

Hollywood celebrities to use Ravenswood Studio to make films
Paul Dickens

...refurbished for use as a sound, film video, and production studio for a major film company...an undisclosed company which is bankrolling the project, said that the idea is to keep it as low-profile as possible.

[the urban politician]

Zipcar Doubles Chicago's Car Sharing Population
Thousands of Chicagoans decide sharing a car beats owning one | 21 Sep 2007 | 05:56 PM ET

CHICAGO, Sep 21, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Zipcar, Chicago's fastest growing car sharing service, today announced that after one year of operations in the city, it has attracted thousands of members and taken hundreds of cars off the city's streets.

During its first year of operations, 250 Zipcars, comprised of 15 makes and models, were placed in more than 100 city locations. To meet growing demand moving forward, Zipcar today also announced that it plans to double its current fleet of vehicles within the next 12 months, adding vehicles in new and existing neighborhoods.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/20911549/

[ardecila]

Hmm... this is excellent!

More shared cars means less dependency on cars. I'm hoping this leads to a reduction or abolition of the city's parking requirement, at least in dense core neighborhoods.

Of course, I'm not sure I like the "taking cars off the streets" part. Reducing emissions is wonderful, but reducing traffic gives people LESS incentive to take CTA.

[Busy Bee]

I think that logic is flawed. I really disagree that less traffic=more car use by what would have been transit trips. I wouldn't think that a large proportion of people that don't drive would start because they can zip up Clark faster. I don't have raw numbers or scientific evidence, I just feel in my gut that this would be the case. Less traffic may I mind you, would also mean smoother and faster bus travel, making CTA trips more attractive.

[VivaLFuego]

Hmm... this is excellent!

More shared cars means less dependency on cars. I'm hoping this leads to a reduction or abolition of the city's parking requirement, at least in dense core neighborhoods.

Of course, I'm not sure I like the "taking cars off the streets" part. Reducing emissions is wonderful, but reducing traffic gives people LESS incentive to take CTA.

Agreed...the 600 foot buffer around transit stations, which only lets you put .75 parking spaces per unit (instead of 1) is a pathetic incentive. All R5 zones, and all lots within 1200 ft (quarter-mile) should have massively reduced parking requirements, perhaps 0.5 per unit. Between 1200 and 2400 ft, and for R4 zones, 0.75 per unit. I really don't get why we need to have street parking in addition to an off-street space for every housing unit. R3 and lower can stay at 1 off-street spot per unit since the population density could never support transit.

^Busy Bee,
Once the travel time/comfort equation is balanced between auto/transit, it will come down to 1) dependency and 2) parking cost. For those with a car, they'll consider transit if they'd have to pay over a certain threshold to park, but otherwise they'll drive the car they've already invested in. The transit-dependent are hooked either way, of course, so less congested streets and smoother bus operations is a gain for them as well. The 'ideal' situation I think are less clogged streets, high downtown parking prices, and peak-pricing on roadways to make those causing the congestion pay for the external costs they are imposing on the rest of the users of the system. The parking and congestion fees would go into a general transportation fund to pay for system improvement that benefit the entire network, e.g. advanced signalling, grade separations, intermodal connections, etc.

[Jaroslaw]

Came across a pretty good "intelligent laymen" discussion of Chicago development below. The word is out!

http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5122.html#more-5122

A large and very cool recent photo of Trump is also included.

[the urban politician]

^ Great find, Jaroslaw. There's a lot of interesting discussion going on in that forum.

One thing that struck me is peoples' fear of what will happen to Chicago in the post-Daley era. I guess I never really thought about that, but perhaps it's a legitimate concern. A really shitty mayor could really screw up the city's wonderful momentum, but (s)he could also focus on areas that Daley has tended to neglect (transit, affordable housing, etc)

[Chicago3rd]

Agreed...the 600 foot buffer around transit stations, which only lets you put .75 parking spaces per unit (instead of 1) is a pathetic incentive. All R5 zones, and all lots within 1200 ft (quarter-mile) should have massively reduced parking requirements, perhaps 0.5 per unit. Between 1200 and 2400 ft, and for R4 zones, 0.75 per unit. I really don't get why we need to have street parking in addition to an off-street space for every housing unit. R3 and lower can stay at 1 off-street spot per unit since the population density could never support transit.

Great post. What car lovers never explain when they demand more parking downtown and in the denser neighborhoods along the lake is how the roads will support all this extra traffic. Isn't it almost unbearable now? Where will all the extra cars go if parking is a 1 to 1 ration? Do we start double decking all our roads downtown or better yet get rid of all the sidewalks so the streets can be wider?

[Patel]

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2007/Throwing-Evanston-a-Curve/

Throwing Evanston a Curve
Design for Grand Bend condos exploits a sinuous location alongside Green Bay Road
By Dennis Rodkin

Evanston’s ongoing condo boom rounds a new curve with Grand Bend at Green Bay, a six-story building that parallels the arcing intersection of Green Bay Road and Emerson Street near the suburb’s downtown

...

http://www.chicagomag.com/images/2007/October%202007/dealestate_evanston.jpg

[TowerGuy37]

does anyone have a rendering of what the new Barneys is suppose to look like??? i haven't seen anything about this anywhere recently

[Mr Downtown]

What car lovers never explain when they demand more parking downtown and in the denser neighborhoods along the lake is how the roads will support all this extra traffic.

Car storage for people who live downtown or in lakefront neighborhoods doesn't mean those people will drive to work or school; in many cases they're deliberately choosing places where they can walk or transit to work. I haven't seen any actual data, but I use my car about once a month, and I think it's pretty common for city dwellers to use their cars only once a week or so.

More problematic is Saturday shopping trips, as anyone who's navigated around the North Side running Saturday errands can attest. That's a really tough trip to capture for transit because it's nonrepetitive, it's chained with other trips, and it involves carrying (and storing in the car) heavy or bulky things.

[VivaLFuego]

Car storage for people who live downtown or in lakefront neighborhoods doesn't mean those people will drive to work or school; in many cases they're deliberately choosing places where they can walk or transit to work. I haven't seen any actual data, but I use my car about once a month, and I think it's pretty common for city dwellers to use their cars only once a week or so.

More problematic is Saturday shopping trips, as anyone who's navigated around the North Side running Saturday errands can attest. That's a really tough trip to capture for transit because it's nonrepetitive, it's chained with other trips, and it involves carrying (and storing in the car) heavy or bulky things.

Car-sharing? Car-rentals? It seems an incredibly inefficient use of resources for so many residents to invest all this money in an asset that required alot of energy to produce and simply sits there depreciating even while not being used (not even counting the carrying costs like insurance and the opportunity cost of having not spent the money elsewhere). I fully understand some trips are horribly inconvenient on transit, but 10-15 trips a year that really require significant storage space scarcely seems to justify universal car ownership. Further, for big-ticket items (appliances, etc.), delivery is an option. In Manhattan, you can buy large appliances at the store on 86th and Lexington and they'll deliver it pretty quickly. Why isn't that considered? Why the marriage to cars for people who make such rare auto trips?

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^
Well most places won't deliver most items. For example, I am basically limited to what I can carry or fit in my backpack while I ride my bike. If I want a cheep 15 dollar shelving unit from Target, its going to be a pain in the ass.

Also, most people own a car because of the sense of freedom it gives them. It doesn't matter to them how much they actually use it because they are getting a lot of utility out of knowing that, if they wanted, they could get in their car and drive to any place on the continent. I really think that many people own cars not because it makes financial sense, but because of the wonderful feeling it gives you. I mean who doesn't like to drive at least occasionally. You have to admit that it is a thrill and mini power trip...

Or, if I want to take a trip to Milwaukee, I have to take the train, get picked up by someone and then still don't have the independence a car gives you because Milwaukee has a virtually non-existant transit system. Any time you leave Chicago, there really isn't anything in the way of transit and car sharing really isn't an option because it would be extremely expensive. So when I go home to visit people, I like having a car, luckily my parents have a spare old one that I can use.

[Via Chicago]

Big projects may be pulled back to earth
High-end residential developments in Chicago and around the country feel the squeeze as lenders turn cautious in global credit crunch

By Susan Diesenhouse | Tribune staff reporter
September 26, 2007

The developer of the proposed Chicago Spire will host a preview and party for the global press Wednesday, but the celebratory mood could be dampened by the worldwide credit crunch and a postponement of the tower's preconstruction sales.

"If I didn't think I could deliver, I'd have a good excuse to pull out, but I'm not doing that," said Garrett Kelleher, who two weeks ago delayed the launch of sales from this week to Jan. 13, citing the complexity of the documents that must be filed with federal regulators. "I'm building an iconic building, using our own resources and doing exactly what I'd said I'd do."

Certainly, people with grand visions often can overcome adversity, but the preview of the $1.5 billion, 150-story building, slated to be the tallest in the U.S. and the highest residential tower in the world, comes at a tough time for high-end residential developments in Chicago and around the country.
.....
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-wed_spire_0926sep26,0,2106425.story

[sentinel]

^^ Wow - some people will never be satisfied; people like Diesenhouse seem to be inherently so negative about projects like the Spire that even when they top this sucker out a few years from now, they'll STILL be talking about whether or not it's a good idea!

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/574572,CST-NWS-museum26.article

Museum 'in a cave' might be OK with Ald. Reilly
GRANT PARK | Could be built in parking garage underground

September 26, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com

A Children's Museum "in a cave" -- built in Grant Park, but totally
underground -- emerged Tuesday as a possible solution to the raging conflict between Mayor Daley and downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd).
When a reporter suggested the idea, Reilly agreed to consider it, even though he had trouble believing that the Children's Museum would "want all of their programming to essentially be in a cave."...........

But the alderman maintained that Navy Pier, Northerly Island and the museum campus are far better choices. He also questioned how much the city would have to pay to Morgan Stanley, which has a 99-year lease to operate the city's downtown garages.............
.

[Via Chicago]

^^ Wow - some people will never be satisfied; people like Diesenhouse seem to be inherently so negative about projects like the Spire that even when they top this sucker out a few years from now, they'll STILL be talking about whether or not it's a good idea!

I think all the points in the article are 100% valid, and what a lot of people have been saying for a long time. I would be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

[Mr Downtown]

It seems an incredibly inefficient use of resources for so many residents to invest all this money in an asset that required alot of energy to produce and simply sits there depreciating even while not being used (not even counting the carrying costs like insurance and the opportunity cost of having not spent the money elsewhere).

And yet people will buy condos with a guest bedroom when there's a hotel right down the street . . .

Convenience, convenience, convenience. In an affluent society, people will pay a lot to save time. Going to the car rental place and filling out the paperwork and declining the upgrades and bogus insurance and inspecting for damage and then driving back to the condo to get the cooler and the beach stuff takes time, and you could already be half way to Michigan.

[Chicago3rd]

^^^
Well most places won't deliver most items. For example, I am basically limited to what I can carry or fit in my backpack while I ride my bike. If I want a cheep 15 dollar shelving unit from Target, its going to be a pain in the ass.


Most places do deliver. And if you need a big ass truck rent it. And anyone ever hear of Taxis (they are already on the road).

Also, most people own a car because of the sense of freedom it gives them.

Hogwash. Freedom is always worrying about gas and insurance and upkeep of the car. Where you will park it tonight? Dealing with traffic.....watching your investment get dinged up by all the other inconsiderate drivers.....so much "feedom". Man Madison Avenue has really got people in America believing their ads.

Or, if I want to take a trip to Milwaukee, I have to take the train, get picked up by someone and then still don't have the independence a car gives you because Milwaukee has a virtually non-existant transit system. Any time you leave Chicago, there really isn't anything in the way of transit and car sharing really isn't an option because it would be extremely expensive. So when I go home to visit people, I like having a car, luckily my parents have a spare old one that I can use.

The car isn't the only answer to all those "enslavement" issues.

[Chicago3rd]

In an affluent society, people will pay a lot to save time. Going to the car rental place and filling out the paperwork and declining the upgrades and bogus insurance and inspecting for damage and then driving back to the condo to get the cooler and the beach stuff takes time, and you could already be half way to Michigan.

And the affluent in society should pay more and more for this convenience. The tolls and all the other charges need to be based on income...that way we do not tax/fee out the poor and working class from using our roads. Take that extra money and put it all into Public Transportation.

Since the cities own the streets we should start taking back lanes from many of our streets and making them into mini liniar parks that run along the streets and help clean out our air.

[Nowhereman1280]

Most places do deliver. And if you need a big ass truck rent it. And anyone ever hear of Taxis (they are already on the road).

Why would I buy a 15 dollar cheepo shelving unit and pay 15-30 dollars for a cab? Why would I buy a 100 dollar futon just to pay 100 dollars to rent a truck?


Hogwash. Freedom is always worrying about gas and insurance and upkeep of the car. Where you will park it tonight? Dealing with traffic.....watching your investment get dinged up by all the other inconsiderate drivers.....so much "feedom". Man Madison Avenue has really got people in America believing their ads.

You apparently have never driven outside of Chicago or a big city. When you are on an open country road and only see 1 car every 3 or 4 miles, inconsiderate drivers aren't really an issue, don't forget people from Wisconsin are much nicer and better drivers!

Besides, nothing drives me more nuts than being in a hurry and having to wait for the stupid el to show up. I've been trying to catch a train at union station on a friday night at like 5pm and the train wouldn't show up for at least 10 min, then I got fed up and stormed upstairs and got a cab, just barley caught the train with about 30 seconds to spare...

Remember cabs and transit do not exist in 99.9% of the country and offer limited service just about everywhere else.

Cars aren't an investment, so don't call them that, they are a money pit. Also, not everyone owns a nice car that they care if it gets dented up. IE my best friend and his 1992 Honda Accord with 385000 miles on it. Who cares if it gets dented?

Another example, dealing with inconsider drivers or dealing with vommit, crazies, and general filth on the El or getting a nuts cab driver or, if you rent a car or zipcar, dealing with the same idiot drivers anyhow!

Traffic? Cabs and busses get stuck in traffic as well. Trains? Well they only come so often and, yes, durring rush hour they get caught in traffic because there are so many people getting on and off that they take forever at each station. Not to mention the el is notorious for delays due to choke points.

Where will I park my car? In my parking space or driveway?

So really the only valid point there is that cars are more expensive than mass transit. Though renting a car or zip caring it is actually more expensive unless you use a car once in a blue moon. And again, Transit is way worse on a variety of issues, such as cleanlyness, speed, frequency, and limited options.

The car isn't the only answer to all those "enslavement" issues.

Ok, then give me one alternative that I can use that offers me anywhere near the flexibility of the car. And I am not talking about using it in superdense environments such as Downtown Chicago. I am talking, if I want to live in my small town home town back home and work in Milwaukee...

[Nowhereman1280]

And the affluent in society should pay more and more for this convenience. The tolls and all the other charges need to be based on income...that way we do not tax/fee out the poor and working class from using our roads. Take that extra money and put it all into Public Transportation.

Since the cities own the streets we should start taking back lanes from many of our streets and making them into mini liniar parks that run along the streets and help clean out our air.

Tell me, what exactly is so awful about the concept of individual transit? Is it the smog that is created? What if all cars were zero emission fuel cell or electric cars? Would you have such an issue then?

[VivaLFuego]

Why would I buy a 15 dollar cheepo shelving unit and pay 15-30 dollars for a cab? Why would I buy a 100 dollar futon just to pay 100 dollars to rent a truck?

Why would you spend an average of about $8K per year for a car that you only need about 50 times that year? (assuming $7K national average plus Chicago parking premium). That's over $150 per trip in the car. Makes an occasional cab ride seem like a good deal. For tax purposes, driving costs about $.50 per mile (and it's probably slightly higher than that now that gas has increased), and that's not including the acquisition cost of the car and assumes a relatively low insurance burden. That includes gas, depreciation, maintenance, and insurance. If drivers had to pay to buy the car, then paid a flat $.50 per mile to operate it (which includes gas/insurance/etc), how would that change behavior? Would such a large percentage of Americans choose a lifestyle that involves 50+ miles of driving per day? And if development were more compact, would everyone driving seem like such a great idea if there were to be space for anything other than roadways?


Tell me, what exactly is so awful about the concept of individual transit? Is it the smog that is created? What if all cars were zero emission fuel cell or electric cars? Would you have such an issue then?

I don't think individual transit is bad, per se. The problem is that it creates a ton of external costs that aren't borne by drivers, but rather by everyone in society. A more auto-dependent society consumes alot more land, which has a ripple effect on all kinds of things including air quality, local and global heating effects, food prices because of reduced agricultural land, the requirement for more emergency/police/fire services to deal with accidents and enforcement, the higher insurance costs because of damaged property, premature deaths, and chronic health problems, etc. etc. Further, an additional driver on the road who drives by choice is causing additional congestion and delay for those drivers who have to be on the road, resulting in more wasted gas and emissions while idling.

I'd be fine with individual transport if those who used it paid their fair share; and if they did, alot fewer people would choose to do so because they'd see how expensive it actually is (and yes, in my ideal world, all roads would be tolled, with tolls charged for actual mileage used using a transponder and/or tamperproof odometer, but I wouldn't tie it to income like C3rd).

You would get to the point where only those who really need the individual transport will pay the premium for it, and pay for all the external costs it imposes. Would many still choose to use it? Of course. Would it still even be a majority? Possibly, but that's getting very speculative.

All this is not to say that the private automobile hasn't had many incredibly positive effects for our overall quality of life. Nor is it even to say that the transit systems in the USA are structurally perfect (they require large subsidization as well, obviously). But I maintain that auto-use is not only subsidized, but priced in such a way as to conceal users of how much it's actually costing. $8K/year on average is alot of money; billions of dollars per year. Now imagine if instead of $8K, the household spent something like $2K for a non-ownership lifestyle (transit+taxi+carshare). That's $6K of additional spending money for lower-income households, and $6K of additional investment income for higher-income households, investment money which can then create further societal wealth. Instead, we sink billions annually into assets that consistently lose value. And that's not even scratching the surface of tax money spent maintaining such a huge road network....

[the urban politician]

Tell me, what exactly is so awful about the concept of individual transit? Is it the smog that is created? What if all cars were zero emission fuel cell or electric cars?

^ But they're not. So why create the straw man to begin with?

[nomarandlee]

^ But they're not. So why create the straw man to begin with?

In 30-50 years hydrogen or some other form may make it possible.

But regardless I admit while the environmental factors have importance the primary reason I don't like it is because I think the aesthetics that is brings is isolating, ugly, and somewhat depressing which all of course is my subjective opinion. It is rather a vein way of looking and goes against libertarian sympathies but so be it. If sprawl and car dependency actually made the urban fabric look nice and was more enviromentaly sensative I would be in a bit of dilema.

Should we carry over these post over the transit section? This is worthwhile discussion but I don't want to see them get them deleted for being off topic.

[budman]

^Sounds like nobody here has kids, or responsibility for anyone but themselves. I dont mean that in a bad way, but when you have a family, you will need a car. Or at least really want one. I dont have kids, by the way, but I truly enjoy driving...I probably drive in the city, just to drive, several times a week, just like other people bike or run. And Mr. D is right on about convenience too. I dont want every errand I have to run to be a chore. In fact, I dont want any errand I run to be a chore, and if I have to take the bus (or two busses, or the bus then the train) to go to Best Buy to return the camera I just bought that doesnt work when I could be out on my friend's boat, well...you can probably finish that sentence yourself.

[Nowhereman1280]

^ But they're not. So why create the straw man to begin with?

That's not a straw man in any way. Are you serious? That was a question, not an arguement and a straw man is a type of arguement, so I don't see where you are getting that from.

I seriously want to know why he is so vehemently against it. Lets face it, in some situations it is the most efficient type of transit, some people aren't willing to accept that for some reason.


Viva, I am not saying that I personally would ever own a car whilst living in downtown Chicago, I don't now and I never will living where I do. I am merely trying to explain what motivates some people.

In most places (by land area, not population) in this country mass transit, carshare, and taxi doesn't make sense. It would be undoubtedly less expensive for everyone in Chicago to use mass transit, taxi, and car share, but most people own a car anyhow. How can we can explain that? Its simple, people don't make decisions based solely upon what is cheaper, they make decisions based on what they want. Cars aren't a necessity, they are a luxury and people should be allowed to have that luxury if they are willing to pay for it. People are going to want that luxury at a pretty consistent rate regardless of whether or not they can use transit, its that simple. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[honte]

I don't mean to sound like an "azz" (thanks for the cool word, Piz), but shoudn't this discussion be happening in the Transit Developments thread?

[the urban politician]

^Sounds like nobody here has kids, or responsibility for anyone but themselves. I dont mean that in a bad way, but when you have a family, you will need a car. Or at least really want one. I dont have kids, by the way, but I truly enjoy driving...I probably drive in the city, just to drive, several times a week, just like other people bike or run. And Mr. D is right on about convenience too. I dont want every errand I have to run to be a chore. In fact, I dont want any errand I run to be a chore, and if I have to take the bus (or two busses, or the bus then the train) to go to Best Buy to return the camera I just bought that doesnt work when I could be out on my friend's boat, well...you can probably finish that sentence yourself.

^ Car ownership and creating a car-dependent community are two different things. Surely you recognize that.

Accommodating everybody's car has made the streetscape both uglier and less safe for pedestrians. Everybody, including yourself, should be striving to create a community in which more trips can be made by foot than by car, and allowing for more density is the way to achieve that.

[VivaLFuego]

^Sounds like nobody here has kids, or responsibility for anyone but themselves. I dont mean that in a bad way, but when you have a family, you will need a car. Or at least really want one. I dont have kids, by the way, but I truly enjoy driving...I probably drive in the city, just to drive, several times a week, just like other people bike or run. And Mr. D is right on about convenience too. I dont want every errand I have to run to be a chore. In fact, I dont want any errand I run to be a chore, and if I have to take the bus (or two busses, or the bus then the train) to go to Best Buy to return the camera I just bought that doesnt work when I could be out on my friend's boat, well...you can probably finish that sentence yourself.

...and that's totally fine, like I said there's nothing wrong with private automobiles per se (I love driving too, just not in traffic or when I have to be somewhere at a certain time). The problem is that people don't perceive paying the true cost of owning and using them and building a society dependent upon them, so decisions are distorted. I don't want to take away your right to drive, but I think you should pay more for it. And family's would too; they'd factor that into their calculations of where and how to live, etc.



Its simple, people don't make decisions based solely upon what is cheaper, they make decisions based on what they want. Cars aren't a necessity, they are a luxury and people should be allowed to have that luxury if they are willing to pay for it.
I completely agree. But I think people aren't paying for it, and it totally distorts their decisions. If autos were priced more appropriately alot more people would choose not to own one, especially given the commensurate increase in demand for taxis/carsharing/pedestrian environments would also increase the supply thereof and make them more accessible. My point is that real pricing would definitely change the mode split and fewer people would drive and more would take transit/taxi/carshare.

.....and all this does have some relevance with Chicago General Development because auto-dependence, as noted, has a drastic impact on the streetscape and on development guidelines.

[Chicago3rd]

Why would I buy a 15 dollar cheepo shelving unit and pay 15-30 dollars for a cab? Why would I buy a 100 dollar futon just to pay 100 dollars to rent a truck?
Why would you want to own a car just to pick up cheapo shelving?

You apparently have never driven outside of Chicago or a big city. When you are on an open country road and only see 1 car every 3 or 4 miles, inconsiderate drivers aren't really an issue, don't forget people from Wisconsin are much nicer and better drivers!
Statement based on false assumptions about my personal life. I wanted to use the big "I" word but felt I should be nice.

Besides, nothing drives me more nuts than being in a hurry and having to wait for the stupid el to show up. I've been trying to catch a train at union station on a friday night at like 5pm and the train wouldn't show up for at least 10 min, then I got fed up and stormed upstairs and got a cab, just barley caught the train with about 30 seconds to spare...

3 to 7 minute wait on the el....wow that is so awful. How about 15-30 minutes trying to find parking? We all know the el needs to be corrected. But you seem to be ignoring all this issues owning a car in a cities entails.

Remember cabs and transit do not exist in 99.9% of the country and offer limited service just about everywhere else.

I am sorry but is this not the CHICAGO: general development threat?????

Me thinks somebody needs to move out to Fargo.

[Chicago3rd]

Tell me, what exactly is so awful about the concept of individual transit? Is it the smog that is created? What if all cars were zero emission fuel cell or electric cars? Would you have such an issue then?

Cars and cities don't mix well. I get tired of having my walking interupted at each corner. I get tired of having to dodge cars as they come out of their garages or cut into the crosswalk. An urban loving high density lover understands all this. Fine to love suburbs and car worship. But I have chosen most of my life to not be involved with any of that....thus I chose to live in dense urban cities that have a sustanible transit system.

Besides...I hate cars.

[Chicago3rd]

^Sounds like nobody here has kids, or responsibility for anyone but themselves. I dont mean that in a bad way, but when you have a family, you will need a car. Or at least really want one. I dont have kids, by the way, but I truly enjoy driving...I probably drive in the city, just to drive, several times a week, just like other people bike or run. And Mr. D is right on about convenience too. I dont want every errand I have to run to be a chore. In fact, I dont want any errand I run to be a chore, and if I have to take the bus (or two busses, or the bus then the train) to go to Best Buy to return the camera I just bought that doesnt work when I could be out on my friend's boat, well...you can probably finish that sentence yourself.


Oh the don't have kid thing gets a little old. I see lots of kids and families on the bus and el every day of my life. How did cities ever function without cars????

And the errand thing...is fine too...but I don't want in cities....the dense parts of the cities...to have car convience put ahead of pedestrian/public transit convenience. Pedestrians first.....cars second. Then I might be a little more tolerant of cars.

[the urban politician]

I am sorry but is this not the CHICAGO: general development threat?????

^ Bah, the General Development Thread long ago became Chicago's urban discussion backwater, so why not just carry on here?

I actually think the Transit Thread is far too interesting & productive to waste on this bickering...

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^

Car's aren't inherently evil you know. I do agree that they don't mix well with cities and should not be encouraged. For example our city shouldn't have a minimum parking requirement for new developments. That should be determined by market forces, not the city promoting car use!

Anyhow, move to Fargo? No, I grew up somewhere that was close enough! My lifestyle requires a car at least in the summer because I am all over the states of Illinois and Wisconsin frequently going places Transit doesn't touch, that's my point. There are no buses or trains in Waupaca, Rhienlander, or Iron Mountain Wisconsin, the only way to get to the places I like to visit (or to visit my extended family who are scattered across the remote forests of northern Wisconsin) is by car. So what if I want to live in Chicago and still see my family once in a while? Do you think that is an unreasonable thing? Again, I don't have a car down here because I have one in Milwaukee that I can take the train to when I need to go remote places...

[brian_b]

Why would you spend an average of about $8K per year for a car that you only need about 50 times that year? (assuming $7K national average plus Chicago parking premium). That's over $150 per trip in the car. Makes an occasional cab ride seem like a good deal. For tax purposes, driving costs about $.50 per mile (and it's probably slightly higher than that now that gas has increased), and that's not including the acquisition cost of the car and assumes a relatively low insurance burden. That includes gas, depreciation, maintenance, and insurance.

That's exactly why I got rid of my car. I keep track of my expenses and my transportation costs have gone way down. A taxi ride seems like a large out-of-pocket expense only because the expenses related to owning a car are paid monthly from your checking account, and amortized over a number of years.

[Abner]

I'm surprised the transit advocates are suggesting cabs as an alternative.

A cab is far more polluting than a more reasonably-sized car (a Crown Vic gets, what, about 14 miles to the gallon), they're on the streets all day long, and the fare structure gives cab drivers an incentive to drive like absolute maniacs. Cabs are probably the worst thing you could put on the streets to promote walking and biking.

[VivaLFuego]

I'm surprised the transit advocates are suggesting cabs as an alternative.

A cab is far more polluting than a more reasonably-sized car (a Crown Vic gets, what, about 14 miles to the gallon), they're on the streets all day long, and the fare structure gives cab drivers an incentive to drive like absolute maniacs. Cabs are probably the worst thing you could put on the streets to promote walking and biking.

I disagree. Cabs are a very integral part of a car-free lifestyle, because they offer you a fast travel time if needed (for a price premium, of course). Furthermore, the net environmental benefit of fewer people owning cars would far outweigh the detrimental effects of taxis (don't forget the amount of energy, resources, and pollution required to build the car in the first place, the amount to maintain it, and the land cost to provide storage/parking for it).
And re: gas mileage, of course that can be improved. Low-emissions Crown Vic Hybrid, anyone?

[GregBear24]

The day any government truly pushes hybrid taxis and public transit hybrids is the day I get more than half of what I put into social security back- never. Taxis will always be the cheapest cars out there, and will always be far behind current technology. I don't think cab companies would shell out the initial cost for them- too many short-term thinkers in the world today. But don't worry, there's hope. We can still figure out where to get the tens of billions needed for the state's dream plan (another mega highway going from se to nw) and the multi-billion dollar overhaul the cta needs to merely enter the discussion in the world's quality public transit systems.;)

[the urban politician]

I think to finally silence NIMBY's (as well as making Aldermen happy by not having to deal with this issue any longer) who simply demand unusually high parking ratios in every development because it makes their belly feel warm at night (but otherwise have no real factual basis behind their demand), the city should impose a 1:1 MAXIMUM parking ratio on all residential development that is above a certain density (ie lakefront neighborhoods level of density or higher) throughout Chicago. This includes eliminating the incredibly stupid provision for ample guest parking, which is panic-planning with the assumption that some sort of disaster is pending (your neighbor invites the entire state of Washington over for dinner).

I feel that's the best way to deal with the issue. Take the onus off the Aldermen so they don't have to sweat every time there's a new proposal, take some pressure off the developer, while still providing an off-street parking spot for every homeowner. Then, NIMBY's won't be able to push developers to raise their parking ratios to unreasonable levels (ie Hyde Park NIMBY's are pushing for all development on 53rd st to have 1.5 parking spots per unit, even though established car ownership is less than 1:1---eh?) because it will simply NOT BE possible.

They can blame the city if they want to, but we all know that Daley is untouchable, so the problem kind of solves itself..

[Marcu]

^ Great point. Dealing with this issue one development at a time is highly inefficient.

[emoney2]

Not sure where this is supposed to go, but I guess everyone here has opinions that they would like to share so I have a couple of questions about developments. About LSE. I go in at night and I see like maybe ten people and after it got dark it was really creepy because no one was out. Now do any plans exist for any sort of shops or restaurants or anything? Is this the same case in central station?? Are these marketed to old people?

This next question maybe kind of out of the blue, but what is on goose island and is that sort of off limits to developers?

[Marcu]

^ LSE is supposed to get a Treasure Island and a Bed Bath and Beyond. It's certainly not going to be the next Rush street. I think LSE is targetting families and Central Station is targeting empty nesters but there are so many units in each that you'll likely see a healthy mix.

[Mr Downtown]

Goose Island was manufacturing back in the 20th century, so the city has designated it a "Planned Manufacturing District," making it very difficult to get approval for anything other than "manufacturing." Given the economic realities of our time and that location, that has resulted in mostly warehouses with relatively low number of jobs.

What is now Kendall College was all set for conversion to condos in the late 90s, but the city actually revoked the approval and forced the developer to sell it to someone who would put in a "manufacturing" use. Sara Lee put in a research center, and eventually that became Kendall College.

[HowardL]

Speaking of that grim bit of town, does anyone suppose that Zell's purchase of Tribune could lead to a redevelopment of that obscenely large Freedom Center complex? It's all bloody presses and parking lots. Bit of data center thrown in as well, but it's smack on the river. Presses could be moved out 'elsewhere' and IT consolidated at the Tower. That rail spur could well be ripped out and you've got bang on acres awaiting towers and such. Just thinking aloud. It's real twat at the moment. Really expensive real estate it would seem though. There's plenty of room for thinking there. Plenty things that could replace that dreary pile of bricks.

[forumly_chgoman]

Goose Island was manufacturing back in the 20th century, so the city has designated it a "Planned Manufacturing District," making it very difficult to get approval for anything other than "manufacturing." Given the economic realities of our time and that location, that has resulted in mostly warehouses with relatively low number of jobs.

What is now Kendall College was all set for conversion to condos in the late 90s, but the city actually revoked the approval and forced the developer to sell it to someone who would put in a "manufacturing" use. Sara Lee put in a research center, and eventually that became Kendall College.

Well Mr D...dancin' w/Mr D.....I did not know that....that is/ was plain dumb
You know I interviewed w/ SL right before the terrorist attacks......then they did not hire me

[Mr Downtown]

redevelopment of that obscenely large Freedom Center complex?
Not for a while, probably. Freedom Center just expanded year before last into an addition north of Chicago Ave. The kind of presses you have there aren't something you just load into the back of a U-Haul.

[jstush04]

I love freedom. I like being able to choose car or cta. its pretty nice! :tup:
I take the el everyday to school, and its great. But there are times when a car is better. Like anytime after midnight. I mean, I love sitting in an el car at 2 in the morning that smells strongly of the pot people are smoking in the driver compartment, and being talked to by drunks, and thrown up on, and having my eyes assaulted by people making out, but sometimes a car is better. and a hell of a lot faster. If I'm unfortunate enough to be by the lake on the north side after the irving bus stops, it takes me an hour and half on a good night to get home, as opposed to 15 minutes in my car.

does a cab count as public transportation? just wondering

anyway, my two cents have been donated

p.s. I think the busyness of the car/pedestrian interactions in the city is a charming thing. I love driving in that situation, and I love walking in that situation

[Abner]

The day any government truly pushes hybrid taxis and public transit hybrids is the day I get more than half of what I put into social security back- never. Taxis will always be the cheapest cars out there, and will always be far behind current technology.

Actually, New York is already pushing for this.

Since when were Crown Vics the cheapest cars out there?

[aaron38]

does a cab count as public transportation? just wondering

I count it, for the sole reason that a taxi doesn't take a parking spot after it drops you off. It enables high density urbanism.
And whereas car ownership is basically 1:1, there may only be 1 taxi for 100-200 people.

[Jaroslaw]

Do any of you guys know shorpy.com? Some great photography there. A few amazing color photos of Chicago from the 1940s, I just got a mod nod to post these links to some wonderful big color pics:

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/1a34784u.jpg

http://www.shorpy.com/images/photos/1a34787u.jpg

Here are some rare, tantalizing hints of the buildings that lined the east side of MichAve before the Illinois Center misfortune.

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/1a34786u.jpg

The old Crerar library is on the far right here, Smurfit Stone is there now.

http://www.shorpy.com/files/images/1a34780u.jpg

The Wabash El in 1907:

http://www.shorpy.com/node/499?size=_original

[harryc]

Do any of you guys know shorpy.com? Some great photography there. A few amazing color photos of Chicago from the 1940s, I just got a mod nod to post these links to some wonderful big color pics:

Here are some rare, tantalizing hints of the buildings that lined the east side of MichAve before the Illinois Center misfortune.

The Wabash El in 1907:



Way cool