CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

^ What you are proposing is very similar to my T zoning plan that I had brought to this forum perhaps a year and a half ago.

Zone all parcels within 100 ft of every rail station in the city as T zoning, allowing for significantly higher density and requiring less off street parking. Landmarked buildings retain their protection, but everything else is fair game.

It's a concept that would work in most cities, but probably would never happen in Chicago. Makes too much sense, after all, and it gets rid of a huge income generator for the Alder-criminals.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

it gets rid of a huge income generator for the Alder-criminals.

What would that be? Most land in the city is not within 100 feet of a transit station. Hell, a good portion of downtown is not within 100 feet of a transit station.

Aldermen would still have all the spot zoning changes, and any PDs not within 100 feet of an L stop, to line their pocketbooks.

100 feet is a rather arbitrary distance, too. It would exempt most of the highway-median stations, since 100 feet barely gets you across the travel lanes and the grassy edges. That's 3/4 of the Blue Line and 1/3 of the Red Line that would see no change from this rule. Most of the Orange Line is also awkwardly situated for TOD with its large bus depots, so even with TOD, the pedestrian environment would be pretty unpleasant. What you're left with are stations that are either already in dense, relatively healthy neighborhoods or stations in crime-ridden areas that are emptying out. The former doesn't really need additional density and the latter isn't feasible from a marketing perspective - who's lining up to live in an expensive new condo at 63rd/Ashland?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ardecila

...
100 feet is a rather arbitrary distance, too. It would exempt most of the highway-median stations, since 100 feet barely gets you across the travel lanes and the grassy edges. ...

Yeah, my objection to the T-zones he described (I remember the original post) was that 100 feet isn't even remotely big enough. 1,000 feet would be acceptable, although I think my 2 blocks - which ends up being about 1320 feet - is better. If one were doing feet-based distance, 1,500 feet would probably be ideal in the long run.

The exterior of City Hall is 100 feet from the exterior of the buildings across Lasalle from it for crying out loud.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by emathias

Yeah, my objection to the T-zones he described (I remember the original post) was that 100 feet isn't even remotely big enough. 1,000 feet would be acceptable, although I think my 2 blocks - which ends up being about 1320 feet - is better. If one were doing feet-based distance, 1,500 feet would probably be ideal in the long run.

The exterior of City Hall is 100 feet from the exterior of the buildings across Lasalle from it for crying out loud.

I agree the 100 ft limit is entirely unsatisfactory; it was interesting in principle but your 1/4 mile makes more sense. I would extend it to include the intersections of major arterials that have intersecting bus routes ....maybe reduce it to 1 block (1/8 mile around these perhaps). An example might be Western and Irving or Pulaski and Belmont etc.

Can we get you to run for mayor.? Perhaps the increased tax revenue from increased property values due to increased density could help pay for CTA expansion?

[the urban politician]

Well, 100 ft was probably a poor choice, but again it's the principle more than the exact numbers at this conceptual point. Increase that distance to perhaps 1000 ft, the principle of T zoning is still the same

[denizen467]

What happened to the BMX / motocross track that was supposed to be built in the dirt lot along Harrison? Wasn't that supposed to take place this month?

[the urban politician]

^ Foiled by NIMBY's

[Mr Downtown]

^I don't think that's really correct. I think it was more that the alderman—worried that he might make the second edition of Profiles in Courage—thought to himself "a few of my constituents might be upset if this happens; none of my constituents will be delighted to see this happen. Why risk it?" There's also some dramatic city paranoia about traffic this summer because of the construction on Congress. Printer's Row LitFest was restricted to south of Harrison this year; not even allowed to have events at University Center.

[the urban politician]

According to this week's Crains, NIMBY's are cracking down hard on the Lincoln Park Hospital redevelopment.

My guess: the site will eventually be torn down and redeveloped with something "more appropriate", like those charming featureless townhomes that face Lincoln Ave from that wonderfully oblique angle with their lovely wooden fences... (see here for example) After seeing such beautiful homes, one can't help but support the cause to preserve such a neighborhood's character

[ChicagoChicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

According to this week's Crains, NIMBY's are cracking down hard on the Lincoln Park Hospital redevelopment.

My guess: the site will eventually be torn down and redeveloped with something "more appropriate", like those charming featureless townhomes that face Lincoln Ave from that wonderfully oblique angle with their lovely wooden fences... (see here for example) After seeing such beautiful homes, one can't help but support the cause to preserve such a neighborhood's character

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-b...rticleId=33449

[emathias]

Originally Posted by lawfin

...
Can we get you to run for mayor.? ...

Among other problems with that idea, I think I've pissed off too many officials with sharply-worded phone calls, emails and faxes to have much hope of winning elected office in this town ...

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^I don't think that's really correct. I think it was more that the alderman—worried that he might make the second edition of Profiles in Courage—thought to himself "a few of my constituents might be upset if this happens; none of my constituents will be delighted to see this happen. Why risk it?" There's also some dramatic city paranoia about traffic this summer because of the construction on Congress. Printer's Row LitFest was restricted to south of Harrison this year; not even allowed to have events at University Center.

This is most disturbing.

The last thing that needs to happen in Chicago during is a recession is to develop a reputation as "The City That Won't"

[Rizzo]

For those of you who previously enjoyed photographing the skyline from the North Avenue Collection at North Ave, the composition has changed yet again, with the demolition of the old Jukebox factory.

Kind of sucks


Me

[ardecila]

Just to recap a March discussion, this is the 4-story common brick building in the left foreground. That's a real shame... back in March, spyguy mentioned a plan to convert that building into a boutique hotel. I guess that fell through!


Hayward

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Do we know what the plans are for the site?

[denizen467]

^^ I don't see any big deal with this. It doesn't appear to be a building worth saving, and given the likely future (next decade and onwards) of this neighborhood, it would end up being knocked down anyway. This just accelerates the future redevelopment of the site.

I would think a boutique hotel would be a stretch here - both from a location point of view and a structure point of view (too much interior space, too few perimeter rooms). Something like an extended stay or discount hotel would have been more practical. Then consider how many strip-bar revelers would be patrons, etc.

Yeah, chances are in the meantime it'll be a surface lot for the shopping/nightlife around there, but long-term this will probably end up with some positive new construction.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

^ You've been to this area, right? The branded big box retail architecture propagating along North has turned those few blocks into a suburbanized shitbox. If there are no plans for new construction on the site (I'm assuming there aren't), isn't it just as likely this becomes a surface lot for a Best Buy?

And how can you tell from the above picture whether it's "worth saving"?

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

isn't it just as likely this becomes a surface lot for a Best Buy?

Right. That's what I said.
And if it stays so for the long-term, well being hidden back there is better than having a parking lot fronting North Ave. In fact, ending up with a parking lot there at least might (1) encourage more density in the area and (2) reduce the possibility of parking ending up along arteries. For this area, I just think it's a step towards densification and increasing land values. I mean, it's better than an abandoned building.
In any event, the land values here will not support a surface lot for long - if there must be parking long-term it likely will end up multistorey or above a retail base.
(If you want to fight society's propensity to use cars, that's a fine discussion for another day.)

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

^ You've been to this area, right?
...
And how can you tell from the above picture whether it's "worth saving"?

You already answered your own question, in the first sentence of your post.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Chef hopes to change Chicago laws barring gourmet food trucks

By Monica Eng, Tribune reporter
June 1, 2010

...In the last couple of years, a gourmet food truck craze has swept cities from Los Angeles and Austin, Texas, to New York and Minneapolis. High-end chefs and talented amateurs have hopped in mobile kitchens to serve kimchi tacos, grilled cheese sandwiches and Latin-Asian chow to foodies who follow them on Twitter and line up in convivial droves.

But while Chicago is home to some of the nation's most innovative restaurants, its food truck scene has largely been left in the dust. Only "pre-prepared and packaged foods" — like the kind sold from silver lunch wagons — can be offered on the street, not the freshly made delicacies fueling the trend...

Determined to change that, Maroni has drafted a city ordinance that Ald. Scott Waguespack (32nd) plans to introduce in the City Council this month.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...,4036863.story

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by denizen467

Right. That's what I said.
And if it stays so for the long-term, well being hidden back there is better than having a parking lot fronting North Ave. In fact, ending up with a parking lot there at least might (1) encourage more density in the area and (2) reduce the possibility of parking ending up along arteries. For this area, I just think it's a step towards densification and increasing land values. I mean, it's better than an abandoned building.
In any event, the land values here will not support a surface lot for long - if there must be parking long-term it likely will end up multistorey or above a retail base. (If you want to fight society's propensity to use cars, that's a fine discussion for another day.)

Guh? Half the properties along North between Kingsbury and Clybourn are already surface lots-- for Best Buy, the Container Store, that little strip mall with the CB2. That fact alone nullifies your arguments, unless you honestly believe those retailers are going to give up their parking anytime in the foreseeable future.

Originally Posted by denizen467

You already answered your own question, in the first sentence of your post.

Right, because I was obviously referring to a historic five story brick building when I wrote: "The branded big box retail architecture propagating along North has turned those few blocks into a suburbanized shitbox."

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

^ You've been to this area, right? The branded big box retail architecture propagating along North has turned those few blocks into a suburbanized shitbox. If there are no plans for new construction on the site (I'm assuming there aren't), isn't it just as likely this becomes a surface lot for a Best Buy?

And how can you tell from the above picture whether it's "worth saving"?

^ I can tell you that, once the economy eventually rebounds and actual financing & construction begins again, this area of town will kick off.

I see no reason why Denizen's prediction won't come true. It has mass transit connections, it's very close to downtown, it's in a very stable, wealthy area, and there already plans on the boards for several development sites in the area that are simply waiting for the market to turn around. I too believe that, eventually, multilevel garages will eventually replace much of the surface parking.

You've got the second part of SoNo, you've got that massive redevelopment of the club districts into retail stores, you have the redevelopment plans for that vacant land across from the British Schools, etc. Add to that the Apple Store and whatever else may have developers hungrily waiting around, and I can't imagine this area's parking needs not becoming ever greater. They are gonna eventually have to build upward, imho.