CHICAGO | General Developments

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Journey to work is only 18% of auto trips. And most development is done by people who want to actually sell or lease the units, not make a statement. If you want to sell to the upper half of the market—as you'll have to with these kinds of renovation costs—you give some of them a place to store the car.

I live in a 250-unit highrise built in 1980 with no parking at all because of the great location and transit. It was a noble experiment, but I don't think anyone would make that same decision today.

The trouble with parking is that it really does destroy the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood because people with cars will use them to drive outside of the area to less-dense areas to pick up even simple things they could normally walk to get. This reduces the local demand, reduces the walkable businesses in even dense areas, and hurts everyone - and slowly erodes the livability that likely attracted people to live in a dense area anyway. It's a hard balance between individual liberty and the very real impact on the entire community when there is excess parking. People lived for tens of thousands of years without cars, and while they are great for a lot of things, they're on of those things where their impact on the community at large is very much a mixed bag and no city that values dense, walkable areas should ever encourage, much less require, developers to build a single parking space.

Just what do you think would have happened to all those Loop surface lots that got built on in the last boom if they hadn't been prevented from building garages on them? I don't think I can be convinced the Loop would have been better off and the same idea does apply to other dense parts of the city, in fact it may be more important in the more residential dense areas because they're where people live and not just commute to.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Journey to work is only 18% of auto trips. And most development is done by people who want to actually sell or lease the units, not make a statement. If you want to sell to the upper half of the market—as you'll have to with these kinds of renovation costs—you give some of them a place to store the car.

I live in a 250-unit highrise built in 1980 with no parking at all because of the great location and transit. It was a noble experiment, but I don't think anyone would make that same decision today.

Perhaps but many of those non-work trips could quite easily be handled via transit; not all but many. Since those non-commute trips tend to be under 2 miles. And looking around at many Americans in general and Chicagoans in particular they could use the walk

In census tract 8330 there were 1630 workers: 349 (21% used transit) , 308 walked (19%) , 83 (5%) car pooled , 693 (42.5%) drove alone, 131 ( 8%) biked or other, balance worked at home.

In census tract 8331 4268 total workers: 1128 (26.5%) used transit, 486 (11.4%) walked, 315 (7.4%) car pooled, 1841 ( 43.6 %) drove alone, 216 (5%) biked, balance worked at home.

Granted the numbers for property owners may be different than the general population but I could not find those numbers. In both census tracts more people traveled not by car than by car let alone their own car.

There are plenty of census tracks in this city where transit modal share is greater than 50%. There are plenty of owners and renters in this town who do not own a car and who travel by transit.

I am not denying that it is likely that most people looking to by / rent would view accessory parking as an asset. I am just trying to suggest that sans regulatory interference it would not be necessary to include it in every development as you have on more than this occasion seemed to intimate it should be.

[aic4ever]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Perhaps but many of those non-work trips could quite easily be handled via transit; not all but many. Since those non-commute trips tend to be under 2 miles. And looking around at many Americans in general and Chicagoans in particular they could use the walk

In census tract 8330 there were 1630 workers: 349 (21% used transit) , 308 walked (19%) , 83 (5%) car pooled , 693 (42.5%) drove alone, 131 ( 8%) biked or other, balance worked at home.

In census tract 8331 4268 total workers: 1128 (26.5%) used transit, 486 (11.4%) walked, 315 (7.4%) car pooled, 1841 ( 43.6 %) drove alone, 216 (5%) biked, balance worked at home.

Granted the numbers for property owners may be different than the general population but I could not find those numbers. In both census tracts more people traveled not by car than by car let alone their own car.

There are plenty of census tracks in this city where transit modal share is greater than 50%. There are plenty of owners and renters in this town who do not own a car and who travel by transit.

I am not denying that it is likely that most people looking to by / rent would view accessory parking as an asset. I am just trying to suggest that sans regulatory interference it would not be necessary to include it in every development as you have on more than this occasion seemed to intimate it should be.

Which is why when buildings get built they don't need to provide 1:1 parking.

That said, from a purely financial standpoint, parking spots in a high-rise condo building, for instance, are a gold mine for developers. In a lot of (most?) cases, you're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the condo, and then maybe another $40-$60K for the parking spot on top of it. Cost-wise, that was the cheapest space the developer built, and he's selling it for a huge $/SF.

That said, however, I would find it particularly untenable to believe that something like Central Station, for instance, would have been possible without each building providing self-contained parking. Say what you want about that parking limiting the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood, but a friend of mine moved there before it got built up and was mugged walking home from work a few times before the neighborhood got better. I'd call it a good pedestrian neighborhood now, and when I lived there I walked more than I drove, but I don't believe it would have expanded as quickly as it did without the ability to sell to drivers.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

... Say what you want about that parking limiting the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood, but a friend of mine moved there before it got built up and was mugged walking home from work a few times before the neighborhood got better. I'd call it a good pedestrian neighborhood now, and when I lived there I walked more than I drove, but I don't believe it would have expanded as quickly as it did without the ability to sell to drivers.

I was referring to existing neighborhoods. If you suddenly gave everyone in Lakeview parking spaces, it would destroy it. Central Station was nothing - rail yards and warehouses - so it's more akin to a new suburban subdivision than Lincoln Park. A very dense subdivision, granted, but it didn't have restaurants and shops that lost out when local residents in existing housing started driving elsewhere.

[Mr Downtown]

It seems like we're mixing together three separate issues here.

First, the question of whether people will own cars. I don't see much point in even discussing this. A large number of people in affluent societies will always want to own individual vehicles. The fuel source or the form may change, but the freedom to travel where and when one wants will never be willingly given up. Car-free experiments such as Vauban (Germany) have been hopeless failures; the residents just keep cars outside the restricted district.

Second, the question of whether developers will make parking available for potential residents. I think the market is very unlikely to give any answer but yes. Near downtown, the ratio might be as low as .5 for small units; but it's a pretty rare developer who will immediately declare that the only market he seeks is undergraduates and rabid car-haters. As I've noted, I live in such a noble experiment. It causes offsite impacts and limits resale values.

Third, there's the question of whether off-street parking should be required. That's a complex and thorny question, both sides of which were debated at length when the zoning ordinance was last revised. The problem is that demand for parking will not go away even if parking is not provided. Check any European city for proof. So every new development proposal—especially one that might bring a dozen new families—strikes fear into the neighbors. That's how off-street parking requirements arose in the first place: to reduce the damage done to the city by redevelopment. Obviously, some of these requirements did more damage than good, and others (surface lots fronting sidewalks; parking podiums) need better design solutions, but I think it would be foolhardy to wipe them out altogether and rely on wishful thinking.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by emathias

I was referring to existing neighborhoods. If you suddenly gave everyone in Lakeview parking spaces, it would destroy it. Central Station was nothing - rail yards and warehouses - so it's more akin to a new suburban subdivision than Lincoln Park. A very dense subdivision, granted, but it didn't have restaurants and shops that lost out when local residents in existing housing started driving elsewhere.

Absolutely, and I have on many occasions referred to it as a vertical subdivision. Central station is an atrocious environment from pedestrian perspective.....it goes to show how low our expectations have become.

In fact I know at least two on air tv personalities..they have been to my house for several bbq's.... who have sold out of central station.....one for Uptown....because of the suburban quality of the development. And by the way sans car..and happy for it.....shout out to Mr Dt.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It seems like we're mixing together three separate issues here.

First, the question of whether people will own cars. I don't see much point in even discussing this. A large number of people in affluent societies will always want to own individual vehicles. The fuel source or the form may change, but the freedom to travel where and when one wants will never be willingly given up. Car-free experiments such as Vauban (Germany) have been hopeless failures; the residents just keep cars outside the restricted district.

Second, the question of whether developers will make parking available for potential residents. I think the market is very unlikely to give any answer but yes. Near downtown, the ratio might be as low as .5 for small units; but it's a pretty rare developer who will immediately declare that the only market he seeks is undergraduates and rabid car-haters. As I've noted, I live in such a noble experiment. It causes offsite impacts and limits resale values.

Third, there's the question of whether off-street parking should be required. That's a complex and thorny question, both sides of which were debated at length when the zoning ordinance was last revised. The problem is that demand for parking will not go away even if parking is not provided. Check any European city for proof. So every new development proposal—especially one that might bring a dozen new families—strikes fear into the neighbors. That's how off-street parking requirements arose in the first place: to reduce the damage done to the city by redevelopment. Obviously, some of these requirements did more damage than good, and others (surface lots fronting sidewalks; parking podiums) need better design solutions, but I think it would be foolhardy to wipe them out altogether and rely on wishful thinking.

Well I contest your first point. I am not so sure it holds as resolutely or will continue to hold as so resolutely as you contend. And my evidence are the neighborhoods in the city where a large portion if not an outright majority do not own cars or do not utilize the sole auto for their commute. And "car-free" experiment is an interesting rhetorical flourish and earns points for turning this into a Manichean drama; but it is not really that in reality; there are gradations and alternatives and they are increasingly available despite the fact that it may upset your world view. We disagree on this issue.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

Which is why when buildings get built they don't need to provide 1:1 parking.

That said, from a purely financial standpoint, parking spots in a high-rise condo building, for instance, are a gold mine for developers. In a lot of (most?) cases, you're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for the condo, and then maybe another $40-$60K for the parking spot on top of it. Cost-wise, that was the cheapest space the developer built, and he's selling it for a huge $/SF.

That said, however, I would find it particularly untenable to believe that something like Central Station, for instance, would have been possible without each building providing self-contained parking. Say what you want about that parking limiting the pedestrian nature of a neighborhood, but a friend of mine moved there before it got built up and was mugged walking home from work a few times before the neighborhood got better. I'd call it a good pedestrian neighborhood now, and when I lived there I walked more than I drove, but I don't believe it would have expanded as quickly as it did without the ability to sell to drivers.

That is exactly why I am against parking mins......It drives up the price for everyone


Central Station is really more akin to a higher end subdivision in Dupage County. They tried to create an urban environment and failed....my evidence is the talk on the street who actually live day to day in the city. Central station is a place apart.

[aic4ever]

Originally Posted by lawfin

That is exactly why I am against parking mins......It drives up the price for everyone


Central Station is really more akin to a higher end subdivision in Dupage County. They tried to create an urban environment and failed....my evidence is the talk on the street who actually live day to day in the city. Central station is a place apart.

I would contest whether or not it's a failure. I particularly enjoyed living there, and the only reason I didn't stay was because I was renting, and I couldn't possibly foresee any growth in property values there when I was looking to buy. It's close to everything, and it's easy to get out of the City from there in any direction. A few years have gone by since it was brand new and there's a lot more restaurant and retail creeping in along Michigan and Wabash, because it's supported by neighborhood now.

If you want to call it a "failure" from an "urban setting" point of view, perhaps you'd contest that they didn't put enough in the way of some kind of retail corridor down among all the residential south of 14th and east of Indiana.

Other than that, it was never going to be another Lakeview. A neighborhood like Lakeview isn't developed, it arises over a very long period of time over years and years of people moving there and settling in and bringing the economic impetus for businesses to spring up and be successful, which makes the neighborhood yet more attractive, and it goes on like this.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Just now

Jones college

[J_M_Tungsten]

Now

Clark hotels and amli

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Absolutely, and I have on many occasions referred to it as a vertical subdivision. Central station is an atrocious environment from pedestrian perspective.....it goes to show how low our expectations have become.

^ I have found Central Station to be very pleasant from a pedestrian's point of view, and it has only gotten better.

Once more retail appears I can only see it improve further.

Same goes for the West Loop--slowly retailers are moving in and I think that will only improve the pedestrian experience. I agree with AIC--great neighborhoods are not built overnight. It may take a generation or two, but I think the S Loop and W Loops will become very nice urban neighborhoods. It wasn't long ago that much of River North was a sea of parking lots, now look at how much more it has to offer pedestrians today.

The one exception to this is Dearborn Park, which said "fuck you" to the city long ago.

[lawfin]

Maybe. And I hope you and Aic are right and I am wrong. I would contest the notion that neighborhoods just don't happen. A truly pedestrian friendly neighborhood occurs because of a certain design; that design may have been unconscious and it may have been a product of the peculiarities of the time the design / development occurred. Much of the north lake front and parts of the south lake front and the intact portion of Chicago's more dense neighborhoods surely didn't develop overnight; but they are as they are because of a design perspective that I believe it nearly utterly absent in central station.

Yes it is better; but it couldn't have been much worse from what it was 10-20 years ago. I eat down there fairly frequently; yet it strikes me as sterile.

We disagree on the pedestrian friendliness of the area; I think that is commentary on the rather low expectations for designing for the human scale as oppossed to designing for the car.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Has KPMG finally moved into the Aon Center? The section of floors once occupied by Kirkland & Ellis appears to be lit up once again.

[aic4ever]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Maybe. And I hope you and Aic are right and I am wrong. I would contest the notion that neighborhoods just don't happen. A truly pedestrian friendly neighborhood occurs because of a certain design; that design may have been unconscious and it may have been a product of the peculiarities of the time the design / development occurred. Much of the north lake front and parts of the south lake front and the intact portion of Chicago's more dense neighborhoods surely didn't develop overnight; but they are as they are because of a design perspective that I believe it nearly utterly absent in central station.

Yes it is better; but it couldn't have been much worse from what it was 10-20 years ago. I eat down there fairly frequently; yet it strikes me as sterile.

We disagree on the pedestrian friendliness of the area; I think that is commentary on the rather low expectations for designing for the human scale as oppossed to designing for the car.

I think you incorrectly presuppose that designing for the human is for some reason opposed to designing for the car. Our lives would not be what they are without vehicles, and the little pedestrian friendly neighborhood you yearn for in particular would be impossible without vehicles to service the area.

As much disdain as there is around this board for them, it ought to be directed toward surface parking as an inelegant solution to storing the cars, not to the cars themselves.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

I think you incorrectly presuppose that designing for the human is for some reason opposed to designing for the car. Our lives would not be what they are without vehicles, and the little pedestrian friendly neighborhood you yearn for in particular would be impossible without vehicles to service the area.

As much disdain as there is around this board for them, it ought to be directed toward surface parking as an inelegant solution to storing the cars, not to the cars themselves.

I can't think of too many people that don't want to own a car....though I'm sure the number is growing. I personally haven't owned one for 3 years, but want to again in a year or two.

We should be smart and innovate about parking....even if it's costly. More elevator garages or perhaps shared parking garages for a couple blocks of residential and commercial development. Usually in this case, the city builds the garage and a developer most allocate so many dollars to the city per unit or per square foot to reimburse the city for the construction. I've seen this practice done for affordable housing, which is arguably more complicated. Doing this for parking should be a cakewalk.

Not everyone demands that their car be in the same building where they live. It should could come at high premiums. Rather, most people would want to have a car within reach...for infrequent or long trips, or perhaps a shopping run. Need to drop off a full load of groceries? Easy, that's why most highries buildings come with loading docks and freight elevators. Drop off your stuff, go park the car.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by i_am_hydrogen

Has KPMG finally moved into the Aon Center? The section of floors once occupied by Kirkland & Ellis appears to be lit up once again.

Not quite yet, but they will be soon - I think in something like 4-5 months......so assuming they are building out the space, or will be very shortly...

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

I think you incorrectly presuppose that designing for the human is for some reason opposed to designing for the car. Our lives would not be what they are without vehicles, and the little pedestrian friendly neighborhood you yearn for in particular would be impossible without vehicles to service the area.

As much disdain as there is around this board for them, it ought to be directed toward surface parking as an inelegant solution to storing the cars, not to the cars themselves.

Way to misconstrue what I have said. Nice job.

Incidentally nearly 30% of households in the city do not even own a car. And street parking does exist. Lets revisit what I spoke of. I am against parking required minimums....I'd essentially leave it up to the developer. And I do not believe that a development is doomed if it does not offer accessory parking.

Take your sardonic tone elsewhere.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by aic4ever

Which is why when buildings get built they don't need to provide 1:1 parking.

...so there are no minimum requirements?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Incidentally nearly 30% of households in the city do not even own a car. And street parking does exist. Lets revisit what I spoke of. I am against parking required minimums....I'd essentially leave it up to the developer. And I do not believe that a development is doomed if it does not offer accessory parking.

How is this a controversial position? Can anyone provide a defense for parking minimums that doesn't fall apart upon scrutiny?