HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41861  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 8:45 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tcmetro View Post
As much as I like TOD, the bus routes are horrifically slow and unreliable even if service levels are decent. I can't imagine there are as many choice riders on the crosstown bus lines and that people living in new developments in these areas would be more likely to drive.
The city is supposed to finish installing transit signal priority on Ashland and Western this year so those make some sense. One would hope that this would provide some incentive (or even a funding mechanism) for additional deployments and other improvements that would reduce travel time and increase reliability.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41862  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 8:50 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 14,573
What having TOD zoning on major bus routes does is dramatically increase density through the city, instead of huddling it around L stops. I mean, this is really exciting, I can see this leading to a major transformation of the cityscape.

In addition, the city is looking at providing low interest loans for investors to acquire property in high income areas as long as they provide affordable units in at least 20% of their units for 15 years. I may look into taking advantage of this.

Both of these items could go a long way toward keeping the city affordable.
__________________
Stop villainizing market-rate housing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41863  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 10:16 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
Emanuel proposes expansion of transit-oriented development to bus routes

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...622-story.html
[low whistle] That sounds amazing. TOD within 600' of an Ashland bus stop is basically a block east and west of Ashland and pretty much continuously. It's incredible to think how much nicer the entire west side of the city could be in just six or seven years, with parking lots and auto parts stores turning into neighbors and customers for local businesses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41864  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 10:23 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 14,573
Is like to see the city move beyond simple TOD and have various levels of TOD. Example:

TOD-A: near major transit nodes, such as where multiple L and major bus routes intersect. Minimal parking and basically downtown-level density permitted

TOD-B: near L stops and major bus routes. Basically the same TOD zoning already in practice

TOD-C: near Divvy stations and along lesser bus routes. No boost in density, but decreased parking requirements.
__________________
Stop villainizing market-rate housing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41865  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 10:43 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum View Post
[low whistle] That sounds amazing. TOD within 600' of an Ashland bus stop is basically a block east and west of Ashland and pretty much continuously. It's incredible to think how much nicer the entire west side of the city could be in just six or seven years, with parking lots and auto parts stores turning into neighbors and customers for local businesses.
Chicago's TOD actually expands to 1320' for most streets (2640' for Pedestrian streets). If Western or Ashland is selected, a large stretch of the city can be covered. I can see the Near West Side and West Town in particular benefit from this change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41866  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 11:29 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,503
The expansion of TOD to the major bus routes (Western, Ashland, Chicago, 79th) is awesome news! Especially for Ashland and Western since, as two lane streets, they do not provide a great pedestrian experience and promote a more auto-sewer feel as drivers tend to feel more comfortable on those wider streets and drive faster and more aggressively. Increased density will help with this by allowing for more retail serving pedestrians. The city should also take steps to make the pedestrian experience on those streets more attractive as well, such as curb extensions. The city has been doing a good job of adding concrete islands for pedestrian crossings on Western and Ashland, and should expand on that as well.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41867  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2018, 11:53 PM
pip's Avatar
pip pip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,330
Wow! I am really for this.
__________________
Only 4 years to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41868  
Old Posted Yesterday, 3:25 AM
Mister Uptempo's Avatar
Mister Uptempo Mister Uptempo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41869  
Old Posted Yesterday, 3:56 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 5,005
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.
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener. <><><><><><>IMPEACHMENT NOW!

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41870  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:02 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 105
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41871  
Old Posted Yesterday, 2:56 PM
10023's Avatar
10023 10023 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 16,014
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.
__________________
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Isaac Asimov
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41872  
Old Posted Yesterday, 3:32 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41873  
Old Posted Yesterday, 4:40 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,769
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #41874  
Old Posted Today, 6:36 AM
Rizzo Rizzo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,781
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:34 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.