CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Emanuel proposes expansion of transit-oriented development to bus routes

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...622-story.html

Any chance that the CTA will take another stab at proposing full-blown BRT (or maybe even LRT) along Western and/or Ashland if the TOD expansion proves successful?

[Busy Bee]

Would love to see LRT on some of the heaviest routes, but my gut tells me if we ever see that it's 20+ years away unfortunately. I think it's gonna be a Cta culture change that introduces serious entertaining of that level of ambition.

[west-town-brad]

Just drop/lower the parking minimums altogether... NIMBYs won’t notice until it’s right next door and by then it will be too late.

[10023]

There should never be artificial parking minimums anywhere. Americans don’t need more convincing to rely on their cars to get around, and developers will provide as much parking as is needed in order to meet real demand.

Parking limits might make sense in areas where city planners want to actively discourage driving by non-residents (i.e., where roads are congested but transit access is good). Parking minimums never make sense.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

Just drop/lower the parking minimums altogether... NIMBYs won’t notice until it’s right next door and by then it will be too late.

The 1-1 ratio is a product of the 70s and one of the biggest mistakes we've made.
The ratios of the 50's were much more realistic and still seem to conform to vehicle ownership patterns today.
It was 1-1 for sfrs & 2 flats, then was .75 for apts, .5 for studios and .6 for apts & .4 for studios as densities got higher.

[Mr Downtown]

Sometimes it's worthwhile to ponder how and why such requirements arose in the first place. If you just throw out all off-street parking requirements, you've given neighbors a huge reason to oppose any new development. Now you might also say that neighbors should have no influence over what gets developed, or that free on-street parking should never be allowed—but that's simply not the world we live in.

[Rizzo]

My condo building has 1 parking stall for 9 two bedroom units. All the other multi-family buildings on my street have 6-20 units and 0-1 spaces. Street parking is still easy. For larger buildings, it should be up to the developer.

You’ll always here complaints about parking from neighbors who generally have off street parking. I’ve never understood how any of those complaints have merit. No one is stealing your private garage.

[aaron38]

On street parking really should be for visitors, friends and family. Senior citizen parents from out of town want to come visit, where are they supposed to park? Or should they not come?

[J_M_Tungsten]

Train, bus, cab, uber, etc... depending on how long they stay and where they are in the city, these options are probably cheaper than street parking. Also, they don’t need to worry about their car.

[the urban politician]

I actually think ride share services and automated cars are quickly going to make it completely unnecessary to own an automobile

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by aaron38

On street parking really should be for visitors, friends and family. Senior citizen parents from out of town want to come visit, where are they supposed to park? Or should they not come?

They can take the bus, train, taxi or carshare. Heck those are ultimately the best options for seniors.

Density exists where there is transit...use it.

In realty, parking is only scarce along the lakefront areas. The stigma of hard to find parking will cause prospective buyers and renters to choose a different neighborhood if that is their principal concern.

I realize people want it all. Big city living close to transit and space for the car. But you can’t have everything. The argument for more density for more residents and its benefit to the local economy far outweighs the benefits of convenient parking.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Mister Uptempo

Any chance that the CTA will take another stab at proposing full-blown BRT (or maybe even LRT) along Western and/or Ashland if the TOD expansion proves successful?

I think both Ashland and Western are prime for BRT or even light rail routes. They would have excellent connectivity to existing CTA infrastructure as well, as both BRT/LRT routes would be able to connect to the Brown (Ashland is only a 2 block walk from the Paulina stop) and O'Hare Blue. The Western route has a station on the Forest Park Blue and Pink line, and is only 2 blocks from the 35th/Archer Orange, while the Ashland route has the Pink/Green transfer station and a station on the Orange line.

The city wouldn't even need to eliminate a lane of traffic for the ROW, they can simply use the parking lane for the dedicated route. Figure doing it that way would be an easier pill to swallow for politicians, since I'm sure voters would scream bloody murder if either of those two pivotal corridors were given a road diet.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Sometimes it's worthwhile to ponder how and why such requirements arose in the first place. If you just throw out all off-street parking requirements, you've given neighbors a huge reason to oppose any new development. Now you might also say that neighbors should have no influence over what gets developed, or that free on-street parking should never be allowed—but that's simply not the world we live in.

This is a fair point. But the parking that we end up with at the end is negotiated with Aldermen anyway—regardless of what the rules are. I like to think of underlying zoning as simply the opening position for the developer; the less restrictive, the greater the bargaining power to get what the ultimately want.

And what eliminating these minimums may accomplish is providing greater flexibility so that, in those cases where the community would not mind less parking, it is easier to develop with less parking. Otherwise, the community can reinsert parking that meets or exceeds the old minimum through the Alderman.

[KWillChicago]

Are there any functional rail tracks left in chicago aside from those that run through lower rivernorth? Those ones that start around wolf point and go to, i believe navy pier?

[harryc]

Originally Posted by aaron38

On street parking really should be for visitors, friends and family. Senior citizen parents from out of town want to come visit, where are they supposed to park? Or should they not come?

Doesn't work that way in the hoods - e.g. Dakin / Sheridan - take a streetview tour - note the total lack of garages .

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Are there any functional rail tracks left in chicago aside from those that run through lower rivernorth? Those ones that start around wolf point and go to, i believe navy pier?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Those tracks are no longer in service, though they have not yet been formally abandoned.

Of course, Chicago has many hundreds of miles of active railroad tracks.

[KWillChicago]

My bad. I was referring to railcars like sanfran. Those tracks I was previously referring to were railcars, right?

[Busy Bee]

Does he mean streetcar?

[KWillChicago]

Yes I was. Sorry, idiot moment.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by harryc

Doesn't work that way in the hoods - e.g. Dakin / Sheridan - take a streetview tour - note the total lack of garages .

What I’m saying is, for any redevelopment in those neighborhoods, a market based analysis of the parking required should not be allowed to count on street parking at all.
I agree with eliminating minimums. But if a developer thinks he needs 10 spots to sell his units, he has to build those 10 spots.