CHICAGO | General Developments

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Hayward

The law is the way it is because people did not know how to ride bicycles on sidewalks responsibly. Cities where it hasn't been an issue (like Detroit) allow people to ride on the street or sidewalk but must yield to pedestrians. As pedestrians densities go up and more accidents occur, the laws get more specific.

Young children are on smaller bikes and possess less inertia to cause great physical harm to an adult. If children or elderly are in fact at more risk of collision, then they are only worse off if in the streets and more likely to die in a fatality if they get hit.

A healthy young adult on the other hand may be more adept at navigating a busy sidewalk, but speeds tends to increase and bikes are larger, which is why they belong on the street.

I understand that, but those people shouldn't be riding a bike in a public ROW in general if they can't do it safely on a road. This isn't some small town or suburb we are talking about. This is a crowded, busy, metropolis. Tell me, why does a child or elderly person NEED to ride a bike along a street in Chicago? There is no need. Neither of these groups are commuting. It's not as if these people are riding their bikes around for a purpose. If a child or elderly person is riding their bike they are likely doing it for leisure in which case they have absolutely no reason to be riding on streets that are designed for transportation, you know, actually going somewhere, not just for hanging out and relaxing. If they want a leisurely place to ride their bikes they can go to the lake front or the boulevards or a park or some other public place that is designated for recreation.

As I said before, I don't care about "fairness" or whatever justification you can come up with, if you can't ride safely in a bike lane or side street, then you shouldn't be biking in a public ROW. Period. It's unsafe to others and probably unsafe to you as well because if you are really incapable of keeping to the right on a street then you are probably going to crash your bike into a parking meter, tree, or streetlamp if you really have such limited control over your bike.

[intrepidDesign]

Taken today (great day for pics, get out there with ya cameras!)



Man this site is big



1027 W Madison Street & CA23 phase 2

[J_M_Tungsten]

CA23 phase 2? Renders?

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

CA23 phase 2? Renders?

It's the same as phase 1, just mirrored. Mid rise, 5 stories, I think all the units are 3 bedrooms and there are only 12 per building. Relatively nice design but nothing terribly dense.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Ah ok, got it, thanks

[J_M_Tungsten]

I don't remember seeing this rendering of East-West university yet.


Pic from: http://www.chicagojournal.com

[ardecila]

So one of the big news items this week is that Fisk and Crawford Generating Stations will be shutting down.

Most of the news coverage has focused on the political maneuvering and the economics of the decision, but there's only been a little mentioned about what happens to the buildings themselves. Both power plants are National Engineering Landmarks and the older parts are quite beautiful architecturally as well. Fisk was designed by Daniel Burnham and Crawford by his successors at Graham Anderson Probst & White.

It's unclear what still remains on the site, though. ComEd felt free to tear down whatever parts of the original buildings were in the way, so preservation might not be realistic. It should definitely be considered, though. The industrial-ruins park might be getting cliche now, but that's an option too.

Originally Posted by Chicago Journal, 2-29-2012

Going forward, the biggest challenge will be to deal with the empty plant and the contamination it’ll leave behind at the site. Once it closes, Midwest Generation said they’ll maintain it “in a safe and prudent manner as redevelopment opportunities and funding are explored.”

[Alderman Danny] Solis said he’d like to see it turned into a park or bring in some new industry to replace the jobs that’ll be lost.

“We’ve got some responsibilities there for the plant,” Solis said. “How do we clean it up, what are some options that make sense for the community, whether it’s green space or a light industrial company coming in and creating some jobs and paying some taxes.”

[Community activist Jerry] Mead-Lucero agreed.

“As huge of a victory as this is, there’s another phase,” he said. “We need to make sure the site gets remediated and whatever replaces it doesn’t pollute.”

Fisk




Crawford

[intrepidDesign]

Originally Posted by ardecila

So one of the big news items this week is that Fisk and Crawford Generating Stations will be shutting down.

Most of the news coverage has focused on the political maneuvering and the economics of the decision, but there's only been a little mentioned about what happens to the buildings themselves. Both power plants are National Engineering Landmarks and the older parts are quite beautiful architecturally as well.

Isn't a new coal plant being built on the south side? One that will supply energy to the east coast while the money goes back to the west coast? I saw a bunch of Greenpeace members protesting on Michigan a week or so ago, almost picked up a sign and joined them.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

I don't remember seeing this rendering of East-West university yet.

Looks better than I remember.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by intrepidDesign

Isn't a new coal plant being built on the south side? One that will supply energy to the east coast while the money goes back to the west coast? I saw a bunch of Greenpeace members protesting on Michigan a week or so ago, almost picked up a sign and joined them.

I believe they were protesting the Leucadia coal gasification plant in Calumet (far from Pilsen or Little Village where Fisk/Crawford are). It's not an electric plant.

The production of fake natural gas doesn't make much sense at a time when real natural gas is at an all-time low price... it only makes sense in Illinois where we're sitting on tons of dirty bituminous coal that nobody else will buy, and tons of polluted land in Calumet that nobody else will use.

Leucadia (the builders) tried to force Nicor, Peoples, North Shore, and Ameren to buy its fake gas at prices higher than the market rate for real natural gas. Peoples and North Shore balked, but Nicor and Ameren are still going to purchase it (probably leading to rate hikes).

I'm fine with the plant itself and not terribly concerned about the pollution, but Illinois consumers shouldn't be forced to subsidize Leucadia when we can get real natural gas at a fraction of the price.

[untitledreality]

Stumbled across this two week old post on Sloopin'

Rumors Around the Sloop: Multi-Purpose Building on Jewel Land?

...anyone know if there is any traction to this rumor? It at least seems plausible given the recent 'Tower of Jewel' proposal on a nearly identically situated Jewel store up North.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ I'm not certain Jewel would be hot to trot on redeveloping such a relatively new store. Maybe in 5-10 years though?

[J_M_Tungsten]

That would be beyond amazing. Talk about an underutilized lot of land. Literally next to a major L station (with the one taking you to an airport), on 2 major streets, and near stadiums, museums, and major parks! What were they thinking when they first developed this land?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^ I'm not certain Jewel would be hot to trot on redeveloping such a relatively new store.

Possibly, but I would imagine that the influx of capital from selling off the property to a developer for a mixed use high rise would more than offset those costs. You're Mr. RE Economics, what does a typical tilt panel structure cost plus build out compared to the financial gain from selling a site like this?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

Talk about an underutilized lot of land.

Two underutilized lots now that I think about it. If I remember right the Jewel surface lot runs underneath the L, essentially giving you a lot at the corner of State and Roosevelt and the larger lot, including the Jewel itself, at Wabash and Roosevelt.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

If you are too incompetent at biking to ride on the street then you DEFINITELY should not be riding on the sidewalk. How does it make any sense to think that allowing shaky children or elderly bikers to ride on the sidewalk will make things safer? If anything those people are 10x more likely to crash into a pedestrian. If you can't control your bike well enough to use the street, then you shouldn't be biking on sidewalks either. That's why we have dozens of miles of nice, wide, recreational trails.

This is opposite from reality so it can't be what you're actually trying to say. Riding in a street takes way more effort and alertness than on a sidewalk. If you're talking about business districts, maybe, but the discussion has to be about the whole city, the vast majority of which is neighborhood side streets. The law shouldn't needlessly force people into the option more dangerous to them. Even taking that random number of "10", fine, I would rather have 10 bicycle-pedestrian incidents than 1 vehicle-bicycle incident.

Originally Posted by aic4ever

You guys make it seem like every sidewalk everywhere in the city is filled with families with kids that I or anyone else would be rocketing through at 20 mph and diving out into the middle of traffic if they were in my way. Give me a break.

Right. On side streets pedestrians are typically few and far between. What is this chicken little paranoia lots of people seem to have about bikes slaughtering pedestrians? So there will be some crashes. "Deal with it, it's a city." How about comparing that to a truck slaughtering a bicyclist? That happened in a widely publicized death of a 20-something around Damen and Wellington just a couple years ago.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Tell me, why does a child or elderly person NEED to ride a bike along a street in Chicago? There is no need. Neither of these groups are commuting. It's not as if these people are riding their bikes around for a purpose. If a child or elderly person is riding their bike they are likely doing it for leisure in which case they have absolutely no reason to be riding on streets that are designed for transportation, you know, actually going somewhere, not just for hanging out and relaxing.

This is so extreme and absurd that if it were mentioned in a public hearing it would fortunately end up shutting out groups with this position. The law already acknowledges the reality of children riding on sidewalks. It's as if the city spends decades building up and touting itself as increasingly the most "bicycle-friendly" city, and then all of a sudden, "Sorry! We only meant bicycle-friendly for well-conditioned, serious commuters! Everybody else is an idle fool and should move to Nebraska!" What you are describing is more like martial law. I mean it's a world where it's harder to ride a bicycle than to have a gun.

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

As I said before, I don't care about "fairness" or whatever justification you can come up with, if you can't ride safely in a bike lane or side street, then you shouldn't be biking in a public ROW. Period. It's unsafe to others and probably unsafe to you as well because if you are really incapable of keeping to the right on a street then you are probably going to crash your bike into a parking meter, tree, or streetlamp if you really have such limited control over your bike.

You (and maybe others) seem stuck on this one aspect of the issue - ability and competence. That's missing the point. The dangers that some people feel riding in the street have zero to do with that. A sudden car door, a car running a light or stop sign, a bus swerving, a pothole, lifting one hand to wipe rain off your glasses, those are things that could kill you regardless. Just because some people are comfortable with those risks doesn't mean everybody has to be.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by J_M_Tungsten

What were they thinking when they first developed this land?

If you mean Jewel, they were thinking that if the city wrote down the land enough, they could maybe afford to open a supermarket in the South Loop.

If you mean the city, they were thinking that the kind of redevelopment they were hoping to see in Central Station, State Place, and the other South Loop redevelopment parcels needed a real supermarket.

In 2001, this supermarket won Friends of Downtown's award for Best New Building. There were pretty much no other nominees that year.

[ardecila]

Amazing how things can change in only 10 years. The potential of redevelopment gives me a lot of hope about other conspicuous parking lots that are being constructed. Nothing is immutable in the face of gentrification.

In all honesty, the Jewel development is pretty well-conceived. The two outbuildings (Starbucks and dry cleaners) hold the corner, and are linked with a public plaza. This, combined with the lack of curb cuts, preserved a pretty urban experience along Roosevelt.

If I had to guess, the State/Roosevelt site would probably be first to be developed. Building on the Wabash/Roosevelt lot would sever Jewel from its parking lot and eliminate their corner visibility.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by denizen467

This is opposite from reality so it can't be what you're actually trying to say. Riding in a street takes way more effort and alertness than on a sidewalk. If you're talking about business districts, maybe, but the discussion has to be about the whole city, the vast majority of which is neighborhood side streets. The law shouldn't needlessly force people into the option more dangerous to them. Even taking that random number of "10", fine, I would rather have 10 bicycle-pedestrian incidents than 1 vehicle-bicycle incident.


Right. On side streets pedestrians are typically few and far between. What is this chicken little paranoia lots of people seem to have about bikes slaughtering pedestrians? So there will be some crashes. "Deal with it, it's a city." How about comparing that to a truck slaughtering a bicyclist? That happened in a widely publicized death of a 20-something around Damen and Wellington just a couple years ago.

This is so extreme and absurd that if it were mentioned in a public hearing it would fortunately end up shutting out groups with this position. The law already acknowledges the reality of children riding on sidewalks. It's as if the city spends decades building up and touting itself as increasingly the most "bicycle-friendly" city, and then all of a sudden, "Sorry! We only meant bicycle-friendly for well-conditioned, serious commuters! Everybody else is an idle fool and should move to Nebraska!" What you are describing is more like martial law. I mean it's a world where it's harder to ride a bicycle than to have a gun.


You (and maybe others) seem stuck on this one aspect of the issue - ability and competence. That's missing the point. The dangers that some people feel riding in the street have zero to do with that. A sudden car door, a car running a light or stop sign, a bus swerving, a pothole, lifting one hand to wipe rain off your glasses, those are things that could kill you regardless. Just because some people are comfortable with those risks doesn't mean everybody has to be.

A point to end all this is I think people need to take responsibility and be more careful. And perhaps the police need to hand out more tickets to get some compliance out of people in this city. Today I saw bicyclists running red lights, cars driving in the Kinzie cycle track, pedestrians marching out diagonally onto Michigan Ave without looking, a girl on a cell phone walk in front of a blaring ambulance, a driver make a right hand turn from the 3rd lane over from the curb.

It's the way the city works I guess, but handing out some jaywalking tickets, some citations for sloppy driving, a few warnings and tickets to cyclists for ignoring traffic signals may drive the point. It's not like it's impossible to do with hundreds of cops walking the beat downtown or circling in patrol cars. These aren't petty infractions, it's a serious life safety issue.

[J_M_Tungsten]

In 5 years of living in Chicago, I've never seen police do anything they didn't have to. Maybe we should step up the police officers somehow to actually, o I don't know, police the people who are doing wrong? Rahm? Any help on that one?