CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Walgreens? McDonald's[?] What gives with these companies?

Some sort of perverse shortsighted focus on their own profitability.

[the urban politician]

^. Snide remarks don't work here. Explain to me, how is the expense of building parking, in densely populated River North, profitable for a dime a dozen places like Walgreens or McDonalds? Let's see your data.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Some sort of perverse shortsighted focus on their own profitability.

While we're at it, you complain a lot about the lack of a decent pedestrian connectivity on the north end of Roosevelt Collection. Well, perhaps the developers did the same for their....."profitability" was the word you used?

So perhaps you should stop complaining..

[wierdaaron]

Maggie Daley Park earlier this week.

Click for huge.



You can see some of the more distinctive features, like the skating ribbon, the climing walls, and the sunken ship and lighthouse from the play area.

Some more shots here: http://maggiedaleyparkconstruction.org/news.php?id=34

Same time last year:

[LouisVanDerWright]

When will Maggie Daley park be open? Any chance that the skating ribbon will be open this winter? I can't wait to try out that feature...

[wierdaaron]

It's supposed to partially open this winter. I'm guessing the skating part will be the first to open.

[Rizzo]

The skating ribbon kind of reminds me of that ice road level in Mario Kart. I'll be prepared with bananas

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

how is the expense of building parking, in densely populated River North, profitable for a dime a dozen places like Walgreens or McDonalds? Let's see your data.

It's not my data; it's their data. They've made the calculation that some significant number of their customers will be attracted by convenient parking, just as they've calculated that some will be attracted by air conditioning, background music, free WiFi, clean bathrooms, or being wished "stay well" by cashiers.

If the parking degrades the public pedestrian experience, that's a matter for regulation that balances the profitability of business with urban design considerations. Such a bargain was struck with Roosevelt Collection, but the developer later reneged on it. That justifies a complaint that doesn't arise merely from businesses making business decisions.

[wierdaaron]

I think it's just that when those places were built, land was cheap and parking lots made sense, and in the years since nobody has come along with a "turn your parking lot into a profitable building" kit yet.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^. Snide remarks don't work here. Explain to me, how is the expense of building parking, in densely populated River North, profitable for a dime a dozen places like Walgreens or McDonalds? Let's see your data.

The problem is that River North is not all that dense.
There are some big buildings alright, but overall,b the density is about the same as Albany Park.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html...da44f31aa9db43

[Notyrview]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Maggie Daley Park earlier this week.

Click for huge.



You can see some of the more distinctive features, like the skating ribbon, the climing walls, and the sunken ship and lighthouse from the play area.

Some more shots here: http://maggiedaleyparkconstruction.org/news.php?id=34

Same time last year:

Amazing! I can't wait to see this in person in a couple weeks!

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

The problem is that River North is not all that dense.
There are some big buildings alright, but overall,b the density is about the same as Albany Park.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html...da44f31aa9db43

True but that doesn't measure employment density. The less-dense parts of River North are still jam-packed with offices.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The puzzling geometry of the bridge aside, I don't think they can build a fixed bridge there. The new fixed Halsted bridge is over the canal, not the river.

Sorry to dig up an oldish post... But the new proposed bridge at Chicago and both bridges at Division will be fixed spans. Apparently the city believes it is cheaper to simply redevelop the sailboat yard instead of spending extra on operable bridges.

The remaining industrial users on the river are using barges that can easily fit below the fixed bridges anyway, and the South Branch bridges remain fully operational so this may encourage additional boatyard growth down in Pilsen/Bridgeport.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

True but that doesn't measure employment density. The less-dense parts of River North are still jam-packed with offices.

Fair enough, but that is a transient occupancy and creates little disincentive to maintain existing parking.

Some percentile of the the work force will be drivers, and if the retail businesses expect any trade during nights or weekends, they will need to entice customers from outside the district.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

The problem is that River North is not all that dense.
There are some big buildings alright, but overall,b the density is about the same as Albany Park.
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html...da44f31aa9db43

Ironic you should mention Albany Park with all the resistance Wallgreens has run into there trying to drop a suburban store with a corner parking lot at Lawrence/Kimball.

With development back in full swing I suspect plans may change for that river north store though.

[Vlajos]

Albany Park is quite densely populated. It's like 27K/Square Mile.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Albany Park is quite densely populated. It's like 27K/Square Mile.

That was my point.
River North is zoned for a density of 200,000 per sq mile.(figuring standard 8x16 street grid w/66 rows an 16ft alleys, average occupancy 2/du)
But it only has the density of a mature RS-3 district.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

That was my point.
River North is zoned for a density of 200,000 per sq mile.(figuring standard 8x16 street grid w/66 rows an 16ft alleys, average occupancy 2/du)
But it only has the density of a mature RS-3 district.

Wow, that's quite the density! How many cities are that densely populated?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by k1052

Ironic you should mention Albany Park with all the resistance Wallgreens has run into there trying to drop a suburban store with a corner parking lot at Lawrence/Kimball.

With development back in full swing I suspect plans may change for that river north store though.

Yeah, Ald. Mell killed that development, which is great.

[SamInTheLoop]

Something surely missing from this conversation is relative growth rates. River North is comparatively growing like a weed. It's conceivable in 10 years it might have twice the population density of Albany Park, and in 20 years it might even have from 3x-4x........