CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 1339

Rizzo · #**26761** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 6:22 AM**

Widening wouldn't help the traffic situation. Look at north Ave. If additional traffic is created so be it. People will adjust. They'll take the train instead. Or they will leave earlier. Or they will take other routes.

As long as a street is safe....and that's rarely the case with four lane roads....zero consideration will be made to increase auto capacity. If anything, on street parking would most likely be removed for bikes

Vlajos · #**26762** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 1:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hayward

Wow this proposal looks great!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Wow, I'm impressed. It looks like we're going to expect even more than 1,500 new units in Logan Square in the coming years. Milwaukee is going to truly be different in 5-10 years.

I agree, this seems like a great proposal!

the urban politician · #**26763** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 2:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

www.sierraus.com

Really not a fan of how much traffic this will create. The city should really consider removing street parking between Logan and Division and expanding it to 4 lanes across. The traffic along Milwaukee is already absurd.

Worst idea ever.

More street parking and fewer lanes are the way to go.

PKDickman · #**26764** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Really not a fan of how much traffic this will create. The city should really consider removing street parking between Logan and Division and expanding it to 4 lanes across. The traffic along Milwaukee is already absurd.

Never gonna happen.
People don't understand that there is a code for streets just like there is for buildings. And in it traveled lanes, parking lanes and bicycle lanes all have different widths and the city already plays fast and loose with the code to get us to where we are today.

The bottom line is that 4 traveled lanes, 2 bike lanes and 2 1ft gutters would need a curb to curb distance of 54 ft. With a 66 ft ROW that only leaves 6 ft on a side for sidewalks.
Technically possible, but at odds with the city's goal of walkable streets.

SamInTheLoop · #**26765** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 5:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I agree, this seems like a great proposal!

No doubt, this is one of the more solid proposals for out in da wards we've seen in some time.....

Chi-Sky21 · #**26766** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 9:21 PM**

17 million CAISH MONEY for the Trump penthouse?! Sheesh....good to see some people are not having trouble making ends meet.

Skyguy_7 · #**26767** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 9:33 PM**

^The buyer is an immigrant from India. He founded Vistex, in Hoffman Estates. Just goes to show the American dream is still alive. He should be your inspiration rather than your envy.

wierdaaron · #**26768** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 10:34 PM**

I thought the penthouse was in the 30-millions.

Vlajos · #**26769** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I thought the penthouse was in the 30-millions.

That was the list price.

Rizzo · #**26770** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 10:38 PM**

I've noticed as the months pass, Trump Tower has more windows lit up. I have photos from a couple years ago where probably 5% of the tower's residences were illuminated. Now it's more like 50% which is comparable to most buildings downtown.

wierdaaron · #**26771** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 10:48 PM**

If I'd have known they would be willing to go down as far as 15 million on the price, I would have started gathering my bottlecaps and tried to make an offer.

LouisVanDerWright · #**26772** Posted **Dec 8, 2014, 11:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Really not a fan of how much traffic this will create. The city should really consider removing street parking between Logan and Division and expanding it to 4 lanes across. The traffic along Milwaukee is already absurd.

I agree, this project is bad because it will make it more difficult to rip Milwaukee Ave out in a few years to replace it with a new, 8 lane, freeway. Surely the 10 lane superhighway that runs NW/SE a few blocks from here is insufficient space for the automobile. We apparently need another NW highway for some reason.

Seriously dude? What traffic? The 5 min long traffic jam that pops up between Fullerton and California for 2 hours a day on the weekends?

Ryanrule · #**26773** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 12:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^The buyer is an immigrant from India. He founded Vistex, in Hoffman Estates. Just goes to show the American dream is still alive. He should be your inspiration rather than your envy.

did he arrive here poor or as the son of some rich guy?

Tom Servo · #**26774** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 12:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Seriously dude? What traffic? The 5 min long traffic jam that pops up between Fullerton and California for 2 hours a day on the weekends?

Uh, wrong. Traffic is absurd along Milwaukee from Division to Logan. It's especially bad between Division and North and then also between Armitage and Fullerton. On any given day that 2 mile stretch will take up to 30 minutes to pass! It is a serious problem as it is now, much less after MORE development along Milwaukee.

How do you guys not understand the fact that these big, high density projects like this will bring MORE people and therefore MORE cars, thus making an already terrible traffic problem that much worse??? I'm all for development and growth, but at what cost? I simply think the city needs to be smart about these kind of density increasing developments. We need solutions to our traffic problem, not additions to the problem. It seems logical that the elimination of street parking and dedicated bike lanes would allow for four lanes of free flowing traffic. Our arterial streets should facilitate vehicle flow, not hinder it.

If there are no viable solutions to the Milwaukee traffic problem, then I am most definitely opposed to any and all projects that will add density and thus more cars. 10 years ago, Milwaukee ave was fine. Today it's one of the more traffic prone streets on the north side. I blame over-development.

the urban politician · #**26775** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 12:47 AM**

^ St. Louis called, it wants you back.

Friggin A', I own 2 SUVs and a sedan, and I'm telling you that widening that road is the stupidest, most hare-brained idea ever.

Accommodating large volumes of cars should not be the purpose of a city. I WANT to be inconvenienced when I drive to Chicago! Don't create more lanes for me.

Tom Servo · #**26776** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 12:59 AM**

Hah, says the guy who lives 40 miles outside Chicago. Please, spare me your comments about inconvenience and traffic. You don't even live here. I, however, experience this city's traffic problem daily. And that stretch of Milwaukee is, needlessly, one of the worst around. It's nearly as bad as North between Halsted and Damen. This city isn't a fun, weekend destination for everybody. It's a place that many people have to work in daily. In their cars. And traffic is a serious hindrance to the daily working life of many people. It's not something that's a romantic or cool aspect of the big city. It's a serious problem. And developments like this one are ADDING to the problem. Like I said, density and growth is all great and wonderful, but at what cost? We need smart growth and better solutions to the problems affecting our arterial streets.

the urban politician · #**26777** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 1:04 AM**

^ Right, and your solutions are shitty.

The solution to traffic is not to keep adding capacity, but to encourage walkability and alternative forms of transportation. A kindergartner can understand that.

Hell no to widening lanes. We did that for 50 years, all that did was destroy our cities and encourage driving. Seriously, man, you are like a human anachronism. You belong in 1960, or better yet, just move to Missouri.

PKDickman · #**26778** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 1:25 AM**

Of course it sucks, it's a diagonal street.
The great fallacy is that they should be faster.
This seems reasonable because a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, but it isn't the fastest.
Because it crosses the grid, it crosses just as many streets as driving the two right angle legs of the triangle.
Except that instead of the signalized intersections coming every quarter mile you hit a light every .17 miles. Too short to allow reasonable queueing.
Traffic on Milw is about the same as it has been for the last thirty years.
Get over it and drive around.

untitledreality · #**26779** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 1:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

If there are no viable solutions to the Milwaukee traffic problem...

Three solutions already exist, and tens of thousands of people within the Milwaukee Avenue corridor choose them everyday.

1. The Blue Line.
2. Walking.
3. Alternate routes when driving.

Is it really that hard to comprehend?

Vlajos · #**26780** Posted **Dec 9, 2014, 1:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Three solutions already exist, and tens of thousands of people within the Milwaukee Avenue corridor choose them everyday.

1. The Blue Line.
2. Walking.
3. Alternate routes when driving.

Is it really that hard to comprehend?

For some apparently. I'm not sure why Tom still lives in Chicago. He complains a lot about traffic. Chicago is a large city. Large cities have bad traffic.