CHICAGO | General Developments

[Rizzo]

Which freight tunnel system? The narrow gauge tunnels beneath most of downtown or the covered tracks that run parallel to the river along Carroll? The Chicago Freight tunnel system has very small tunnels. In some sense, they are about as useful as a big storm drain. But the Carroll street ROW could be perfectly useful. My friend did a study of this for a project following all standards of design. The stations would be expensive but there was nothing prohibitive of it happening since there's plenty of space. The Kinzie Rail bridge would need to be raised several feet to allow boat clearance in a permanent fixed position, but approach grades were entirely a non-issue with LRT vehicles.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Sounds interesting, when can we expect the announcement?

Hopefully next week, but delays seem to constantly come out of the woodwork on projects like that.

[Buckman821]

Ravenswood Marianos, taken today:

[the urban politician]

Has anybody read the new TOD ordinance submitted by Emanuel?

I"m not very good at deciphering zoning code, but my understanding is that it will allow higher densities & lower parking ratios within 600' of all L stations. Not sure if it's just L stations or L and Metra stations as well.

In addition, I hear that it also essentially enforces pedestrian street guidelines (ie all buildings must abut the sidewalk) within that radius as well. That would be nice to see, as I think the city should put a stop to strip mall development altogether near rail stops. I'm looking at you, North & Clybourn!

[harryc]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Which freight tunnel system? The narrow gauge tunnels beneath most of downtown or the covered tracks that run parallel to the river along Carroll? The Chicago Freight tunnel system has very small tunnels. In some sense, they are about as useful as a big storm drain. But the Carroll street ROW could be perfectly useful. My friend did a study of this for a project following all standards of design. The stations would be expensive but there was nothing prohibitive of it happening since there's plenty of space. The Kinzie Rail bridge would need to be raised several feet to allow boat clearance in a permanent fixed position, but approach grades were entirely a non-issue with LRT vehicles.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Has anybody read the new TOD ordinance submitted by Emanuel?

I"m not very good at deciphering zoning code, but my understanding is that it will allow higher densities & lower parking ratios within 600' of all L stations. Not sure if it's just L stations or L and Metra stations as well.

In addition, I hear that it also essentially enforces pedestrian street guidelines (ie all buildings must abut the sidewalk) within that radius as well. That would be nice to see, as I think the city should put a stop to strip mall development altogether near rail stops. I'm looking at you, North & Clybourn!

No. This does not change or expand pedestrian street designations; it just gives the property owners within existing pedestrian areas greater rights (more FAR, less required parking) if they happen to be within 1200' of a rail station. However, for non-residential uses it essentially eliminates parking requirements within the radius, so it should reduce strip malls, but it won't stop the scourge of drugstores and drive-thru banks that insist on off-street parking.

For example, that recent vague proposal at Clark/Belmont is within the 1200' radius on a pedestrian street and is zoned in a dash-3 district. The area is 18000 ft^2 and the frontage is 150'.

Clark/Belmont Site (NW Corner)

Existing Zoning Rights:
45 units OR 60 efficiency units
FAR 3.0
65' height limit (~6 stories)
1 parking space per dwelling unit
0.5 bike parking spaces per auto parking spaces

Future Zoning Rights:
60 units OR 90 efficiency units
FAR 3.5
75' height limit (~7 stories)
1 bike parking space per eliminated auto parking space
0.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit

There are some clever provisions in the plan; developers can't get the increased FAR without also decreasing parking, so this should cut back on garages, rear parking lots, and podiums. Since a lot of NIMBY opposition revolves around parking and traffic, this should placate them to some extent. The 600' or 1200' radius is measured from the station entrance to the primary building entrance, so in some cases this may cause architects to move building entrances and developers to fund auxiliary station entrances. To the extent that this reduces walking distances and makes neighborhoods more livable, that's a good thing.

Unfortunately any developer seeking to increase FAR must go through the PD process and any developer seeking to eliminate nonresidential parking must notify their alderman, so there are still plenty of opportunities for NIMBY influence to creep in.

[wierdaaron]

In case any other dummies like me are confused, FAR = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floor_Area_Ratio

[harryc]

Deluxe Burgers


Confused about this window thing ?


E walkway gone


to the W Nordstrum's work continues.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I"m not very good at deciphering zoning code, but my understanding is that it will allow higher densities & lower parking ratios within 600' of all L stations. Not sure if it's just L stations or L and Metra stations as well.

I know that much of the attention has gone to the effect this will have on the neighborhoods (rightly so), but has anyone stopped to consider the dramatic effect this ordinance should have on the downtown core? The 600' radius from each entry practically covers the entire Loop, a significant portion of River North, most of the South Loop between Congress and 13th, and a very dense pocket around Cermak and State. Boosting allowable densities while cutting parking minimums in half is a godsend for these areas.

[wierdaaron]

Has any kind of project been suppressed or prevented because of that limitation as it stands? Could the sears tower not have been built if there was an L station a block away?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I know that much of the attention has gone to the effect this will have on the neighborhoods (rightly so), but has anyone stopped to consider the dramatic effect this ordinance should have on the downtown core? The 600' radius from each entry practically covers the entire Loop, a significant portion of River North, most of the South Loop between Congress and 13th, and a very dense pocket around Cermak and State. Boosting allowable densities while cutting parking minimums in half is a godsend for these areas.

Most downtown developments are already parked at less than a 1:1 ratio anyway, since they go through the PD process.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

I know that much of the attention has gone to the effect this will have on the neighborhoods (rightly so), but has anyone stopped to consider the dramatic effect this ordinance should have on the downtown core?

Not quite as dramatic as you might think, because downtown zoning already includes substantial reductions, including no minimums for office/retail in the core. True, this would reduce those minimums another 50-100%, but I don't know if a whole lot more parking-free residential buildings are in the pipeline due to marketing: empty-nesters are a significant target market for those buildings, and at least some will appreciate some parking. You might see a few parking-free microunit buildings, I suppose, but anyone who wants to do that is probably better off just reusing a landmark, of which there are plenty downtown.

Most of the ordinance only applies to B/C/D "dash 3"* areas, which are really limited in scope: 5-story mixed-use areas (one step more dense than the 4-story stuff that lines most of the old streetcar retail streets). I'm actually really hard pressed to think of a single street that's predominantly "dash 3." Examining the map shows a few blocks here and there: along Belmont around the "L", a scattering around Diversey & Broadway, several blocks of Clark around Wrightwood, blocks of North west of Wells... oh, but aha!** Most of the West Loop appears to be C/D-3. This move will surely make that zoning designation, and perhaps the West Loop, very popular with developers.

* e.g., B1-3, B2-3, C1-3, C3-3 zones. The B1/B2/C1/C3 there refers to the permitted uses; the number after the dash is the density standard.
** And in panning around, it turns out that a lot of South Side business areas are B3-3, like most of E. 43rd St., because why not? Unlike the North Side, nobody ever asked for a downzone. Surprised to see that a lot of Chinatown is C1-3, and yet it isn't overrun with teardowns and bars.

[ardecila]

You're forgetting the transit-adjacent part. Many of the areas around L stops have the dash-3 designation; re-establishing long continuous streetcar strips as dense corridors is not the goal here, except perhaps along BRT lines (the city is already planning an amendment to treat BRT stations like rail stations for zoning purposes).

The West Loop might see some investment but the transit lines run in the periphery of the neighborhood. Half of the Blue Line TOD circles are eaten up by UIC, while half of the Green Line's circles are eaten up by the Kinzie PMD. However, to the extent that the West Loop fills in with low-parking midrises, this is great. If it weren't for the crappy architecture, it might even be kinda European.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Has anyone ever looked at using the old freight tunnels for some kind of downtown link transit system, or is that a ridiculous idea?

Originally Posted by marothisu

What is the cost of BRT versus street cars

See the transit thread.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by ardecila

You're forgetting the transit-adjacent part. Many of the areas around L stops have the dash-3 designation

Yeah, I did neglect the one-block condition. Dash-3 is still only a few % of the city's land area. A couple of blocks of Milwaukee (1200-1300 N, 2600-2700 N) are pretty intact dash-3,* and there are a few dash-3 nodes along Ashland where future BRT stops could help spur TOD on several contiguous blocks, notably Madison and Belmont.

* But since Milwaukee in Wicker Park is already historic, it already gets parking reductions. The higher unit density is the only benefit.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by paytonc

Yeah, I did neglect the one-block condition. Dash-3 is still only a few % of the city's land area. A couple of blocks of Milwaukee (1200-1300 N, 2600-2700 N) are pretty intact dash-3,* and there are a few dash-3 nodes along Ashland where future BRT stops could help spur TOD on several contiguous blocks, notably Madison and Belmont.

* But since Milwaukee in Wicker Park is already historic, it already gets parking reductions. The higher unit density is the only benefit.

Only 4 blocks of Milw are landmarked and the landmark parking exemption only applies to existing contributing buildings. Existing TOD standards as well as Ped zone reductions currently apply and are additive. But the new TOD ordinance would apply to new construction.

The way the new ordinance is written the parking reduction is a freebie on any current -3 parcel.
If you opt for min 50% reduction you may be able to get density, FAR and height enhancements as well.
To get an FAR bump you have to go a PD process.
For height or density enhancement, you have to go through a Type 1 zoning process. Technically this only occurs with a map amendment.
It may just mean that the same procedures apply, but then why differeniate beyween Type 1 and PD.
It may be there to encourage upzoning applications.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

The way the new ordinance is written...

Does anyone have a link to the ordinance? Or a PDF for download?

[ardecila]

Certainly.

http://chicago.legistar.com/View.ash...D-134268D0576D

[J_M_Tungsten]

Not sure of the exact height on this Amli South Loop project, and again, sorry about the splotches on the lens (3rd different camera used this weekend!), but they are about 1 story up over the entirety of the proposed buildings on the work site. Pretty good progress so far.
Today

[wierdaaron]

^They're going to be midrises like their brother directly to the south. I haven't seen good art on this building. There are old drawings that look terrible, and in an interview the architect said they addressed criticisms by changing the color scheme to fit the area better, but there's been no drawings or renders of what that would be.

The good news is that there's lots of street-front retail and restaurant space, so the corner is likely to be changed a lot by the development. If they turn out to be ugly, I just won't look up.