CHICAGO | Wolf Point | 950 FT | 80 FLOORS | 750 FT | 60 FLOORS | 525 FT | 50 FLOORS

[jarta]

Originally Posted by Standpoor

I don't mean that all subsections don't apply, I mean that all of the subsections except A are vague. They are not specific instructions. For instance, subsection B does not require certain types of walk ways or require certain width or pavers or anything. It just says provide public waterfront paths. Yes the developer must put in a path but the location, style, etc. are not mandated by the law. It says that a developer stabilize the river bank but does not say how. It says that safety precautions must be made but does not say what safety precautions. And the most important point, subsection H states that a pd only has to comply with the general goals set forth in the Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines not must follow the exact recommendations found within the Guidelines. Law makers don't put general goals when they mean must follow to the letter.

The zoning ordinance has a comma in front of design guidelines meaning refer back to the beginning of subsection H. The 2005 Chicago River Plan Design Guidelines (adopted by the Plan Commission in 2005) specify in pictures and specifications types of benches, street lamps, garbage cans, flower boxes and all sorts of other stuff (along with recommended vendors and phone numbers). I know because I lived in a PD development (not at Riverbend) along the River for 10 years and had to deal with the 2005 Guidelines.

I'm not saying it makes all that much sense. I am saying it says what it says - and the City's position is it means what it says.

See, for example, Appendix C "Site Furnishings" at this link to the Guidelines (scroll down about 1/5):

http://www.cityofchicago.org/dam/cit...idelines_b.pdf

"It says that a developer stabilize the river bank but does not say how."

It has already been posted in this thread by you (post 544) that there are several types of stabilization that are set forth in the Guidelines. "the Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines", which outlines 7 different river edge types and 5 different slope types." Don't you remember posting that.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by clark wellington

Ok, I'll bite. Anybody in the know have information on this? Is the developer really in talks trying to convince the city to remove a very prominent and well-used piece of cycling infrastructure (for I'm not sure what purpose...)?

I'm trying to figure out if I should actually be worried and start advocating, or if this is just another boogieman from those afraid of their views being blocked...

CK thinks that the problem is the bike lanes, not massive traffic in general or the narrow Kinzie Street Bridge, and removing the dedicated and protected bike lanes from Kinzie gives a better chance of success in saying traffic will now be all A-OK to build a Sears Tower-sized development on Wolf Point. His traffic study firm, KLOA, said all that is needed to make the traffic problems go away is a stop light at Kinzie and Canal and another at Kinzie and Kingsbury. ROFL!

He's asked lots of people to help him on this.

I'd be worried! Very worried!

[Standpoor]

I finally understand your posts.

17-8-0912-H comply with the general goals set forth in the Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines – Downtown Corridor "," and any other inland waterway design guidelines adopted by the Plan Commission or City Council.

I assume you mean the comma in quotes and consequently you read the ordinance as requiring both that the developer

1. Comply with the general goals set forth in the Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines – Downtown Corridor
and
2. Comply with any other inland waterway design guidelines adopted by the Plan Commission or City Council

While I read it as this
1. comply with the general goals set forth in the Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines – Downtown Corridor
and
2.comply with the general goals set forth in any other inland waterway design guidelines adopted by the Plan Commission or City Council

Now that comma is a tricky little guy because that section of the ordinance uses commas in a multitude of ways but I base my reading on section 1.2 of the Chicago River Corridor Design Guidelines and Standards which states:

The Chicago Zoning Ordinance (Municipal Code of Chicago, Title 17 Section 8-0912) requires that all new development within one hundred (100) feet ofChicago waterways, with the exception of single family homes, two flats and three flats, be processed as planned developments, subject to review and approval by the City of Chicago Department of Planning and Development, the Chicago Plan Commission, and the Chicago City Council. The ordinance further requires new developments to provide a thirty (30) foot setback from the river and comply [sic] with with general goals of the waterway design guidelines established by the Chicago Plan Commission. Those development projects not subject to the Chicago Plan Commission approval are urged to voluntarily comply with these guidelines. The Design Guidelines and Standards provide the basis for review for riverside planned developments by the Department of Planning and Development. Upon completion of review, a description of the applicant’s proposal and obligations will be incorporated into the planned development ordinance, subject to approval by the Chicago Plan Commission and the Chicago City Council, and enforceable through the Zoning Administrator.

That means that it is not necessary to comply with all of the guidelines and standards but just the general goals which are determined by the Planning Commission and City Council. I have no doubt that you had to follow the specifications laid out in the guidelines but I am saying that the city council does not have to follow every recommendation in the guidelines. If the planning commission or city council wanted to allow you to overlook certain sections of the guidelines they could.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jarta

His traffic study firm, KLOA, said all that is needed to make the traffic problems go away is a stop light at Kinzie and Canal and another at Kinzie and Kingsbury. ROFL!

This would alleviate much of the problem as it exists currently. Right now, traffic backs up equally on all legs of these intersections because everybody has to take turns. A stoplight can clear Canal quickly and often to avoid traffic backing up over the grade crossing, while the drivers on Kinzie will have to wait at a red light (but traffic backing up on Kinzie is safe and acceptable).

I don't know whether the stoplights will prevent further problems from forming after Wolf Point is built; this depends entirely on how much traffic the development generates and what routes the new drivers use, and that's not something I'm qualified to answer. I do know that the development will generate almost no peak-hour traffic if there's no parking provided.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This would alleviate much of the problem as it exists currently. Right now, traffic backs up equally on all legs of these intersections because everybody has to take turns. A stoplight can clear Canal quickly and often to avoid traffic backing up over the grade crossing, while the drivers on Kinzie will have to wait at a red light (but traffic backing up on Kinzie is safe and acceptable).

I don't know whether the stoplights will prevent further problems from forming after Wolf Point is built; this depends entirely on how much traffic the development generates and what routes the new drivers use, and that's not something I'm qualified to answer. I do know that the development will generate almost no peak-hour traffic if there's no parking provided.

Which brings us back to the application filed the day after the development plan was released - 565 residential units at the West Tower and the 600 residential units at the South Tower and the "TBD" residential units at the East Tower and the additional 1,285 parking spaces in addition to the 1,500 existing permitted parking spaces reallocated to the Apparel Center portion of PD-98.

The KLOA study projects most new traffic (cars only; KLOA did not account for walkers and bikers in its study) from the west will come from Milwaukee and down Kinzie and use ground level access along Kinzie at the old railroad bridge and under the Merchandise Mart and (lol!) the rest will continue to Wells, make a right turn and double back on the Merchandise Mart Drive to arrive at Wolf Point.

But the independent traffic study people say (and most people living in River North and Fulton River firmly believe) there is no way for 2 stoplights to clear current traffic on Kinzie and Canal and Kingsbury. KLOA was projecting based on woefully inadequate car traffic counts. If you use correct counts, there is already too much traffic (walkers, bikers and cars) for those streets to clear with the 2 lights. Both are "T" intersections and there will be no place to go on Kinzie when the N-S lights turn green.

Here's a video before (and after) the dedicated and protected bike lanes were installed. Note the car traffic. Now it's even worse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqmz7W5ow5w

But the City has committed to dedicated, protected bike lanes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJPZEfmdlMc

The bike lanes are not universally appreciated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezlEEp4mgII But, IMO, they are here to stay.

[Hayward]

I clearly understand what you are saying and what the study is explaining, but really who cares. Roads are there to support conveyance safely. They are not expected to be efficient. Even if traffic gets tangled up (like the bike video suggests) the vehicles are still moving at a slow enough speed that the chances of fatalities are extremely low. The bike issue could probably be resolved by making the cycle track a two-way and sliding it up against the Mart to eliminate the crossings. I use it myself, and still think Chicago has a ways to go before they perfect the design of these.

If the congestion really bothers people enough, they'll stop going that route. Maybe they'll park in a garage a few blocks away (we do have plenty of garages)

When I owned a car, I hated parking around Rush and Oak. Rush was at 100% standstill because taxis would triple park creating an obstruction and backups into the intersection. The cops did nothing to manage it. So I changed my habits. I switched from parking in 900 North Michigan to Chicago Place about 5 blocks away.

After awhile, common sense hit me. Owning a car while living downtown was pointless and I sold it. Even if I didn't, I'd be driving less.

We can probably make a lot of predictions whether new residents and workers in the proposed complex will drive, walk, or bike but we can't say with 100% accuracy. We might be able to average out the numbers from neighboring buildings, but proximity to transit can have dramatic effects on numbers, even when it's a block or two.

That's why I take whatever evidence you present with a grain of salt. It's definitely a concern but congestion is an inalienable truth when it comes to downtown growth and density. I'm really more concerned about the site planning aspect and how the driveways meet the street with proper gates, warning lights, turn lanes, etc.

[jarta]

Hayward, ...

"I clearly understand what you are saying and what the study is explaining, but really who cares. Roads are there to support conveyance safely. They are not expected to be efficient. ... I'm really more concerned about the site planning aspect and how the driveways meet the street with proper gates, warning lights, turn lanes, etc."

All those things are matters of concern - but whatever they are designed to obviate (inefficient, congested traffic) isn't?????

There is no relationship between safety and efficiency? Try getting a heart attack victim or a biker who goes over the handlebars out of or through the Kingsbury or Canal stretch of Kinzie from 5-7 pm. I guess you couldn't care less because you are young and invincible and don't live or work there.

How in the world will first responders get to Wolf Point itself during an emergency? Ever try to have a hook and ladder navigate the service drive in front of the Holiday Inn? (That's a rhetorical question.) Even the cabs have to jockey back and forth to make the U-turn and get back out to Orleans after picking up fares.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by jarta

Hayward, ...

All those things are matters of concern - but whatever they are designed to obviate (inefficient, congested traffic) isn't?????

There is no relationship between safety and efficiency? Try getting a heart attack victim or a biker who goes over the handlebars out of or through the Kingsbury or Canal stretch of Kinzie from 5-7 pm. I guess you couldn't care less because you are young and invincible and don't live or work there.

How in the world will first responders get to Wolf Point itself during an emergency? Ever try to have a hook and ladder navigate the service drive in front of the Holiday Inn? (That's a rhetorical question.) Even the cabs have to jockey back and forth to make the U-turn and get back out to Orleans after picking up fares.

We're a modern society, we have solutions to improve life safety. We've invented emergency response vehicles with sirens and lights to clear the way. We also have an extensive review process for towers to small office renovations that require approval from the fire marshall.

I'm still not convinced Wolf Point is an impossible development site. There will be plenty of people with the proper credentials to assure the public and area residents they will be safe.

Again, you present typical urban issues that you've observed in that area and can be found anywhere.

[jarta]

... We've invented emergency response vehicles with sirens and lights to clear the way ... I'm still not convinced Wolf Point is an impossible development site.

Something big and beautiful will be built on Wolf Point. Nobody's advocating that nothing ever be built there.

But, it's a matter of how much more density can be added to the neighborhood (even assuming Orleans is made 2-way or the viaduct from lower Kinzie up to Orleans is re-opened or the bike lanes are removed or traffic lights are installed) before the project becomes unsustainable.

As for the emergency vehicles, sirens and lights can clear the way in most areas. But can they clear the way through the Kinzie mess shown in the 2 videos I posted of the before and after protected bike lanes?

Or, can sirens and lights get emergency equipment into the proposed Wolf Point development when cabs now have to jockey back and forth to exit back to Orleans after picking up fares in front of the Holiday Inn/Sun-Times building and no widening of the dead-end service drive is proposed?

All these things and others like the setback for the Riverwalk, the parking spaces, the docking space for water taxis and tour boats, the absolute necessity of widening and rebuilding the Kinzie Street Bridge (the wooden planks on the sidewalk portion are now popping up due to all the stress and vibration) before anything is built, the number of the residential units, the configuration and use of the open space and the six issues Blair Kamin mentioned in his article can be worked out - and will be worked out to the City's satisfaction - before final approval of the project is given by the Plan Commission and the City Council. It's just a matter of time.

[le_brew]

The traffic snarls bring to mind the proposals to sink those rails into tunnels (W. Loop Transportation center). Far-fetched as that may be, the city possibly has future solutions to accommodate all the new development. Perhaps street decking will eventually win out.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by le_brew

The traffic snarls bring to mind the proposals to sink those rails into tunnels (W. Loop Transportation center). Far-fetched as that may be, the city possibly has future solutions to accommodate all the new development. Perhaps street decking will eventually win out.

Future solutions for right now problems? What comes first, the chicken or the egg?

Logically, how about right now solutions and future development being allowed after the solutions are in place? Promises sometimes get broken in Chicago and circumstances change - like getting then appropriate, for the time, dense PD zoning to develop Wolf Point 39 years ago and building nothing. Where were you and what were you doing 39 years ago?

To put things in perspective: In 1973, Richie Daley had just been elected a State Senator. In 1973, Rahm Emanuel was a freshman at New Trier, HS. In 1973, Chris Kennedy turned 10 years old. Ald. Reilly would celebrate his first birthday during 1973.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by le_brew

The traffic snarls bring to mind the proposals to sink those rails into tunnels (W. Loop Transportation center). Far-fetched as that may be, the city possibly has future solutions to accommodate all the new development. Perhaps street decking will eventually win out.

The tunnel isn't a replacement for the Union Station approach but a supplement. The current jams, I believe, were to be alleviated with a Clinton underpass and a closure at Canal, but these were part of older plans and haven't been discussed in recent years.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by jarta

Something big and beautiful will be built on Wolf Point. Nobody's advocating that nothing ever be built there.

But, it's a matter of how much more density can be added to the neighborhood (even assuming Orleans is made 2-way or the viaduct from lower Kinzie up to Orleans is re-opened or the bike lanes are removed or traffic lights are installed) before the project becomes unsustainable.

As for the emergency vehicles, sirens and lights can clear the way in most areas. But can they clear the way through the Kinzie mess shown in the 2 videos I posted of the before and after protected bike lanes?

Or, can sirens and lights get emergency equipment into the proposed Wolf Point development when cabs now have to jockey back and forth to exit back to Orleans after picking up fares in front of the Holiday Inn/Sun-Times building and no widening of the dead-end service drive is proposed?

All these things and others like the setback for the Riverwalk, the parking spaces, the docking space for water taxis and tour boats, the absolute necessity of widening and rebuilding the Kinzie Street Bridge (the wooden planks on the sidewalk portion are now popping up due to all the stress and vibration) before anything is built, the number of the residential units, the configuration and use of the open space and the six issues Blair Kamin mentioned in his article can be worked out - and will be worked out to the City's satisfaction - before final approval of the project is given by the Plan Commission and the City Council. It's just a matter of time.

The entire width of Kinzie is a driveable surface with any vehicle. So in an emergency, the fire engine or ambulance can technically drive in the cycle track. The bollards are hinged.

As for the Kinzie bridge, it doesn't need widening. What would that do? If the decking is not part of the bridge's historic nature, the grating and sidewalks planks can be upgraded to the newest standards the city is using on other bridges.

As for cabs, they can limit numbers through the turnaround drive like they do in front of all the other hotels in the city....especially around Gold Coast. Motorcourts are no stranger to Chicago serving office and hotel highrises. River North has a couple already. I bike past one of them everyday during rush hour when several dozen cabs are pulling in and out. No problems.

[xXSkyscraperDudeXx]

Any updates about this project..?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jarta

Or, can sirens and lights get emergency equipment into the proposed Wolf Point development when cabs now have to jockey back and forth to exit back to Orleans after picking up fares in front of the Holiday Inn/Sun-Times building and no widening of the dead-end service drive is proposed?

Are you talking about the access along the North Branch, or the upper-level turnaround for the Holiday Inn? The upper-level drive will be expanded with a larger turnaround and dropoff zone for the offices and residential tower.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Are you talking about the access along the North Branch, or the upper-level turnaround for the Holiday Inn? The upper-level drive will be expanded with a larger turnaround and dropoff zone for the offices and residential tower.

First responders want access from at least 3 sides of a building. The big fireboat will take about 15-20 minutes to get to Tower 1 after an alarm.

I was posting about the service drive in front of the Holiday Inn. The latest idea is to re-open the port cochere bypass from Kinzie up to Orleans and and make Orleans two-way (maybe all the way from the Ohio Street off-ramp instead of ending at Hubbard). I assume this is being done, in part, because the Wells St. bridge will close for a year starting this December. (What will a two-way Orleans Street and Wells being closed do to traffic in the neighborhood, especially on LaSalle?)

The problem is really not the the one-way turn around inside the development. It will help - if the fire trucks can get there. The problem is the service drive that leads from Orleans to the turn around. The bottlenecks are the turn from Orleans on to the two-way service drive and the turn to get from the service drive into the internal turn around. And, the turn from the turn around back into the two-way service drive. If cabs can't make it easily now, how will the much longer hook and ladders do it?

The service drive at the MM is one-way and is unobstructed. The service drive at the Holiday Inn has no exit and must be two-way. Also, both now and in the site plan there are obstructions (planters) down the middle. Both the MM service drive and the Holiday Inn service drive are reported by the developer to be the same width. But, they sure don't look to be the same width. The MM service drive seems much wider.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Hayward

...
Motorcourts are no stranger to Chicago serving office and hotel highrises. River North has a couple already. I bike past one of them everyday during rush hour when several dozen cabs are pulling in and out. No problems.

As a pedestrian I despise them, although the one at Wolf Point would be quite different from the typical ones.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by jarta

First responders want access from at least 3 sides of a building. The big fireboat will take about 15-20 minutes to get to Tower 1 after an alarm.

I was posting about the service drive in front of the Holiday Inn. The latest idea is to re-open the port cochere bypass from Kinzie up to Orleans and and make Orleans two-way (maybe all the way from the Ohio Street off-ramp instead of ending at Hubbard). I assume this is being done, in part, because the Wells St. bridge will close for a year starting this December. (What will a two-way Orleans Street and Wells being closed do to traffic in the neighborhood, especially on LaSalle?)

The problem is really not the the one-way turn around inside the development. It will help - if the fire trucks can get there. The problem is the service drive that leads from Orleans to the turn around. The bottlenecks are the turn from Orleans on to the two-way service drive and the turn to get from the service drive into the internal turn around. And, the turn from the turn around back into the two-way service drive. If cabs can't make it easily now, how will the much longer hook and ladders do it?

The service drive at the MM is one-way and is unobstructed. The service drive at the Holiday Inn has no exit and must be two-way. Also, both now and in the site plan there are obstructions (planters) down the middle. Both the MM service drive and the Holiday Inn service drive are reported by the developer to be the same width. But, they sure don't look to be the same width. The MM service drive seems much wider.

I'll agree with you for the moment that the turn-around seems inefficient. However, I would think the most prudent and efficient way of managing emergency (and possibly upper level service vehicles) is an additional means of access at entry level from the Northwest corner of the new site. I'd suggest an aerial concrete structure that would connect to Orleans and run above the Kinzie sidewalks, hugging the Apparel Mart. It would terminate in an elevated open concrete plaza that would be architecturally attractive and mainly for pedestrian use. During an emergency it could accommodate vehicles with large turning radii and provide sufficient space for staging if the emergency is severe.

In essence, I propose full traffic loops through and out of the site at both upper and lower levels. However, access would be restricted to emergency and service vehicles on the aerial structure. Cabs and passenger vehicles can have their fun navigating the central turnaround area if you say it's a problem. Everytime I've been by there it's a dead zone. I'm really not concerned about that at this point.

[jarta]

Originally Posted by Hayward

Cabs and passenger vehicles can have their fun navigating the central turnaround area if you say it's a problem. Everytime I've been by there it's a dead zone. I'm really not concerned about that at this point.

At what point should people be concerned about cabs not being able to turn around easily now? After the project is built and it becomes a "dead" zone when an emergency occurs and first responder equipment cannot get there?

IMO, full loops is not practical.

[Hayward]

Originally Posted by jarta

At what point should people be concerned about cabs not being able to turn around easily now? After the project is built and it becomes a "dead" zone when an emergency occurs and first responder equipment cannot get there?

IMO, full loops is not practical.

Full loop isn't practical? As opposed to a cul de sac or dead end? C'mon man, when does any option fall into reason with you? Of course a full loop is practical. It's above and beyond what is proposed, that's why I suggested it. It would be nice to circulate large vehicles through without having to back up.

Cab are extremely maneuverable. They can parallel park and backup with ease. I see nothing in the site plan to suggest difficulties maneuvering passenger vehicles. And I clearly stated that the elevated NW access along Kinzie could be allowed for service vehicles if necessary...like delivery trucks.

You've been complaining all along about congestion, but now you're complaining about dead zones. Fine. Build a bridge to Wacker over the beaver habitat if they'll have it. Sheesh....