CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Is there really that much developer (and thus aldermen) resistance with zoning to require underground parking garages? I know it's expensive, but it would seem to be popular with residents and voters.

Better bet would be to dramatically lower the parking minimums throughout the city and even impose parking maximums for sites within 1/4 mile of rail stations. Then combine that with a design guideline that calls for garages to be pulled from the streetwall so new developments actually have apartments facing the street on floors 2-8 instead of lifeless garage walls.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^I don't think you have any idea how expensive it is to dig and dewater more than 20 feet below ground in most lakefront areas.

Certainly not more expensive than it is to do the same thing here in an earthquake zone.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Better bet would be to dramatically lower the parking minimums throughout the city and even impose parking maximums for sites within 1/4 mile of rail stations. Then combine that with a design guideline that calls for garages to be pulled from the streetwall so new developments actually have apartments facing the street on floors 2-8 instead of lifeless garage walls.

Agreed. We have strictly enforced parking maximums, few podiums and development is definitely encouraged along transportation routes, including around transit stations. An even stricter rule downtown is that parking must be valet, not self serve, in order not to overly encourage residents to drive everywhere.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Better bet would be to dramatically lower the parking minimums throughout the city and even impose parking maximums for sites within 1/4 mile of rail stations.

That's fine for student housing, but most developers are selling condos to people who are middle class, wealthy enough to be able to own a car. Those cars have to be stored somewhere. If you forbid onsite parking, you instantly turn everyone who's already in the neighborhood against any new development, because they know those cars have to go somewhere.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Certainly not more expensive than it is to do the same thing here in an earthquake zone.

Maybe that's why San Francisco builds so few highrises while Chicago builds scores of them.

Point being: the more barriers to development you set, the less development.

There has to be some sort of solution, perhaps an incentive to put parking below ground. But to simply ban developers from putting their parking above ground just doesn't seem like a wise course of action for Chicago.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

That's fine for student housing, but most developers are selling condos to people who are middle class, wealthy enough to be able to own a car. Those cars have to be stored somewhere. If you forbid onsite parking, you instantly turn everyone who's already in the neighborhood against any new development, because they know those cars have to go somewhere.

Did I say forbid? Nope, sure didn't.

[Mr Downtown]

^Not sure how else to interpret your term parking maximums.

As for the comparison with building in a seismic zone, I don't really see how that affects underground parking. The columns have to be stiffened, but that's required to hold up the building above. You don't have to use slurry wall construction and pump water out for the entire life of the building. On Russian Hill or Twin Peaks, you're just taking out rock, and the resulting hole will stay dry. Do you ever see any garages that go deeper than -20 in the Marina or Mission Bay, areas of extensive watery landfill?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

That's fine for student housing, but most developers are selling condos to people who are middle class, wealthy enough to be able to own a car. Those cars have to be stored somewhere. If you forbid onsite parking, you instantly turn everyone who's already in the neighborhood against any new development, because they know those cars have to go somewhere.

Then make the streets permit parking (if they aren't already) and refuse to issue parking permits for the new developments.

[Mr Downtown]

Hmmm. 300 voters in the new highrise; 120 voters on the rest of the block. How long do you think that restriction would last?

[ardecila]

Shouldn't parking policy be based on data instead of rhetoric and anecdotes? Survey parking podiums to see how many spaces are occupied, and index the results based on wealth level, neighborhood density, and proximity to transit.

Numerous articles have claimed parking podiums have a substantial portion of their spaces that go unused; if this is really the case, it should be relatively easy to quantify and set a new parking ratio or set of ratios.

Donald Shoup has pointed out numerous times that parking ratios for virtually every type of land use are often based on arcane, outdated and one-size-fits-all formulas. Why not collect the data and get a real sense of how much parking is needed? It's now pretty well understood that an excess of parking will make driving too easy and convert pedestrian and transit trips into unnecessary driving trips.

To be honest, I'm surprised ULI hasn't done something like this. Developers have a lot to gain from eliminating excess parking capacity. Maybe they figure it's not worth it since capacity is so political.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Is there really that much developer (and thus aldermen) resistance with zoning to require underground parking garages? I know it's expensive, but it would seem to be popular with residents and voters.

Depends. At the lowest, 50% more expensive to go underground. I know people are talking about costs in Earthquake zones, lakefront proximity, etc.......really it's negligible. The cost will depend more on the labor, cost of materials, and the design complexity of the building above it. If it's a large building, and you have an ideal height, the increased number of units that would otherwise be parking may offset the costs of underground parking in return. Developers fight to get buildings of a certain height, yet they dedicate so much of it to parking.

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

As for the comparison with building in a seismic zone, I don't really see how that affects underground parking. The columns have to be stiffened, but that's required to hold up the building above. You don't have to use slurry wall construction and pump water out for the entire life of the building. On Russian Hill or Twin Peaks, you're just taking out rock, and the resulting hole will stay dry. Do you ever see any garages that go deeper than -20 in the Marina or Mission Bay, areas of extensive watery landfill?

Yes, in the Financial District, both north and south. Much of that area was landfill from many years ago, with the original edge of the bay extending in many blocks from where it is now. But whatever the case, you have many buildings in Chicago with parking podiums that are not in areas like that.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Hmmm. 300 voters in the new highrise; 120 voters on the rest of the block. How long do you think that restriction would last?

Those 300 voters wouldn't have a car to begin with. It's not like they'd all of a sudden agitate for a parking space. The issue would never even be put up to a vote.

[Tom In Chicago]

This thread is veering way off course. . . but in the spirit of the conversation. . . PARKING = REVENUE. . . that is all. . .

. . .

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Yes, in the Financial District, both north and south. Much of that area was landfill from many years ago, with the original edge of the bay extending in many blocks from where it is now. But whatever the case, you have many buildings in Chicago with parking podiums that are not in areas like that.

Montgomery Street is 30 feet above sea level; Battery Street is about 12. What garages east of Montgomery extend more than two levels below grade?

None of the high-rise area of Chicago is more than 26 feet above the surface of Lake Michigan. That makes it incredibly expensive to put more than two levels of parking below grade. A $35 million earmark in a federal transportation bill was necessary to help pay for the subsurface garage at the Museum of Science and Industry.

Originally Posted by ardecila

Numerous articles have claimed parking podiums have a substantial portion of their spaces that go unused

Most of the projects I look at are downtown PDs, so the amount of parking is entirely the developer's choice. They build what they think they can sell (or, more specifically, what they think they need to sell units). In the South Loop, we've tried to convince them to make some of the parking in those new podiums nonaccessory so it could be used as visitor parking by the general public, but they're extremely resistant.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Montgomery Street is 30 feet above sea level; Battery Street is about 12. What garages east of Montgomery extend more than two levels below grade?

None of the high-rise area of Chicago is more than 26 feet above the surface of Lake Michigan. That makes it incredibly expensive to put more than two levels of parking below grade. A $35 million earmark in a federal transportation bill was necessary to help pay for the subsurface garage at the Museum of Science and Industry.



Most of the projects I look at are downtown PDs, so the amount of parking is entirely the developer's choice. They build what they think they can sell (or, more specifically, what they think they need to sell units). In the South Loop, we've tried to convince them to make some of the parking in those new podiums nonaccessory so it could be used as visitor parking by the general public, but they're extremely resistant.

Though I don't know all that much about the construction of the museum garage, I'm curious how much fill was put on top to act as a weight. The biggest issue is pressure from the water table. If it's merely an underground garage with no building atop, you'll face some problems with uplift and stress on the retaining walls, and they're usually bulked up to resist those forces. The beauty of highrise structures is they have lots of columns and parking floorplates to act as bracing against sidewall pressure. So there's different structural considerations than the museum garage.

Again, the average cost of building underground parking in Chicago isn't substantially more than most other cities. SF and NYC are the most expensive.

[BVictor1]

WHAT: 350 E. South Water Street, GEMS School Project

WHO: Hosted by the New Eastside Association of Residents
(NEAR) and Alderman Reilly

WHEN: Wednesday, July 25th at 5:30 P.M.

WHERE: Radisson Blu Aqua Chicago Hotel
Red & Black Sea Meeting Rooms, 3rd Floor
221 N. Columbus Drive




Area E of Residential Business Planned Development #70 to allow for two private school buildings. Phase I of the project is proposed as a 153 foot tall, 9-story building containing 82,000 square feet for grades Kindergarten through 4th Grade. Phase II of the project is proposed as a 240 foot tall, 13-story structure containing 320,000 square feet for grades 5-12 and 105 parking stalls.

[ChiPhi]

7/21

K-stuff from a loft on Ontario:

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

WHAT: 350 E. South Water Street, GEMS School Project

Sort of on the same topic, I came across this little tidbit in Michigan Avenue magazine. Anyone know what this is about?

http://michiganavemag.com/living/art...er-renaissance

River North's Renaissance
BY DAWN REISS

...As Chicago's "It" neighborhood, River North has nothing for sale anymore, Lasky says. Still, there are pockets of construction, including the massive 43-story, 450-unit luxury multifamily high-rise—a joint venture between The Habitat Company and Multi-Employer Property Trust (MEPT) at 360 West Hubbard, across from the East Bank Club. Other spots include the 20-story high-rise being built for American KidZ Academy on Kingsbury Street near Erie Park.

"River North is still a work in progress," Friedman says. "I have plans [for the next decade] far more significant than what we see today. I never even consider that I've arrived. I'm always thinking about what I can do better."

[emathias]

Originally Posted by viewguysf

Agreed. We have strictly enforced parking maximums, few podiums and development is definitely encouraged along transportation routes, including around transit stations. An even stricter rule downtown is that parking must be valet, not self serve, in order not to overly encourage residents to drive everywhere.

How does valet parking impact car-sharing services like, for example, Zip Car?