CHICAGO | General Developments [Archive] - Page 261

SamInTheLoop

Oct 8, 2014, 5:50 PM

There's a group of LSE residents now who are upset about the tennis courts intended to be built in Peanut Park once Maggie Daley Park is finished.

The story goes that the president of NEAR really wanted his tennis courts, and he knew that nobody else in the community does, so he left them out of the newsletter and never mentioned them again, telling the Parks District that the whole community wanted them. Now a bunch of community members realized that the park would be junked up with pointless tennis courts, so they're trying to mobilize a grassroots movement quickly to demonstrate to the parks district a wide opposition to the courts. There was a stand set up on Randolph street to try to get written statements, guy said they had over 400 of them already. They have a website at www.savepeanutpark.com

What do you guys think? Personally I think tennis courts are a dumb 90's throwback but I assumed there must have been significant demand for them since they were shoehorned into the new park plan, and I don't have a hard time believing that a neighborhood group's leader would try to slip something like that past the neighborhood.

I don't have a specific problem with tennis courts at all. Is this the right place for them? I suppose if they are going to be included within the new NE grant park, it's probably as good a place as any. I'm more concerned I guess with the surrounding landscaping, and how well they fit into the overall plan for this corner.

All that said, the one thing I definitely do have a problem with is that these are 'pay to play' courts. Huh? I think that is BS. They should most definitely be open and free to and for everyone.....

SamInTheLoop

Oct 8, 2014, 5:52 PM

^^ Bill Davies: "No thank you!" "And no, I don't think I'll sell to you for $150 mil, either, thank you very much." "I'll sell 12 years from now for $75 million.!" "Now, off I go to the cricket oval...."

Rizzo

Oct 8, 2014, 7:33 PM

I've read that the retail center at 3301 N Ashland is under construction and has financing. (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/realestate/20141007/CRED03/141009851/rooftop-farm-coming-to-new-pullman-factory) Does anybody have a rendering of this?

That's about a block from me. Should pretty much be totally done on the exterior in a week or two and I'll upload pics.

Meanwhile, the Art Deco building a block away on Belmont /Ashland / Lincoln is demolished and the old bank will probably come down too. They still had electrical service as of 2 days ago from what I could tell.

wierdaaron

Oct 8, 2014, 8:19 PM

There's a group of LSE residents now who are upset about the tennis courts intended to be built in Peanut Park once Maggie Daley Park is finished.

The story goes that the president of NEAR really wanted his tennis courts, and he knew that nobody else in the community does, so he left them out of the newsletter and never mentioned them again, telling the Parks District that the whole community wanted them. Now a bunch of community members realized that the park would be junked up with pointless tennis courts, so they're trying to mobilize a grassroots movement quickly to demonstrate to the parks district a wide opposition to the courts. There was a stand set up on Randolph street to try to get written statements, guy said they had over 400 of them already. They have a website at www.savepeanutpark.com

What do you guys think? Personally I think tennis courts are a dumb 90's throwback but I assumed there must have been significant demand for them since they were shoehorned into the new park plan, and I don't have a hard time believing that a neighborhood group's leader would try to slip something like that past the neighborhood.
Wrote this thing up here: http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/08/community-group-says-ditch-the-tennis-courts-to-save-peanut-park.php

The guy I spoke to was trying to play down the homeless people claims, I think he realized they were unpopular. A few homeless would use the area around the Daley Bicentennial tennis courts for sleeping, so he thought that if they re-built them in Peanut Park the homeless might return. The stronger message, I think, is just about how many people actually play tennis vs how many would be able to enjoy the land without it.

Bonus fact, the main guy for the campaign is the former Copper Cowboy (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/The_Copper_Cowboy_living_statue.JPG) street performer.

aaron38

Oct 8, 2014, 9:46 PM

Meanwhile, the Art Deco building a block away on Belmont /Ashland / Lincoln is demolished and the old bank will probably come down too. They still had electrical service as of 2 days ago from what I could tell.

Are you talking about the Lakeview Collection Lofts? Are those finally moving forward? I thought that was long dead for as long as I've seen that sign up.
But the website is dead, so what is going there?

Or are you talking about the Central Savings bank?

Rizzo

Oct 9, 2014, 12:10 AM

Lakeview collection. But I've heard no word as to what is to replace it.

BrinChi

Oct 9, 2014, 12:37 AM

ACE Hotel Going in Across the Street from Google on Fulton

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2014/10/08/ultratrendy-ace-hotel-chain-finally-coming-to-chicago.php

Anyone know if it means the existing building will be demolished? I would hope for at least a facadectomy.

streetline

Oct 9, 2014, 1:07 AM

Has anyone looked at the designs submitted for reusing old Cook County Hospital?
http://www.cookcountyil.gov/cook-county-hospital-strategic-redevelopment/

Some of these look pretty horrible, especially the one from the Chicago Central Area Committee. I'd be more worried if they weren't also so bizarrely overambitious I can hardly imagine them happening (decking over not only the expressway but Ogden, Harrison, Wood, and Wolcott as well; adding underground streets and tunnel networks; and adding thousands of slots of underground parking beneath existing buildings while removing existing parking structures).

ardecila

Oct 9, 2014, 1:44 AM

streetline

Oct 9, 2014, 2:12 AM

Isn't that the point of a vision, though? Crazy ideas can get scaled back and you still get a lot of benefit. I like the idea of filling in the angle between Harrison and Ogden with a deck park as a gateway feature for the IMD, especially since the Ogden CTA entrance will soon become the primary one, with elevators and everything.

Decking over the expressway is one thing, destroying or burying what's left of the street grid in that area is entirely another. This kind of park over surface street over highway and underground street and parking scheme doesn't produce continuous walkable areas (at best you get islands in a sea of highways like Lakeshore East). And that's not even getting into the expense (there are so many places that money could be better spent, even if you only consider decking over highways), and the maintenance costs.

UrbanLibertine

Oct 9, 2014, 3:12 AM

I have no problem with ambitious design projects, but the devil's in the details with those proposals and I really didn't like any of them. They all had major drawbacks to me.

Isn't that the point of a vision, though? Crazy ideas can get scaled back and you still get a lot of benefit. I like the idea of filling in the angle between Harrison and Ogden with a deck park as a gateway feature for the IMD, especially since the Ogden CTA entrance will soon become the primary one, with elevators and everything.

BVictor1

Oct 9, 2014, 4:24 AM

market forces drive height. if the city can support density of that level, trust me it will be built.

arbitrarily mandating height limits dosent help anything.

MLA (minimum lot area) and overly restrictive zoning help to drive height as well.

denizen467

Oct 9, 2014, 7:24 AM

Out of nowhere, the Staples on Elston has shuttered, and the entire 2-parcel big box mini center (the Tiger Direct has been vacant for a long time) is fenced off and heavy machinery is at work, at least on the parking lots. Does anyone know what's going on?

Meanwhile, right across the street, Fox Ford already has a long precast monolith up several stories and growing.

Down the street at D/E/F though, there are no overt signs of relocation by existing businesses yet. The Whirlyball replacement on Webster is nearly done so hopefully the old building on Fullerton will be razed soon. Do people know how far along the Vienna south side relocation has proceeded - it was last summer that the City approved a $5 million relocation subsidy for them.

chris08876

Oct 9, 2014, 12:42 PM

Project: The Wabash Lights

http://40.media.tumblr.com/8f1a8493dd7d96f32abcbc85bbba3847/tumblr_mx8zymv47s1shuymto1_r3_1280.png

+ Revitalize a historic Chicago district
+ Highlight the unique and authentic character
of Chicago
+ Beautify the “L”
+ Create a new destination in the Chicago Loop
+ Broaden the profile of annual visitors to Chicago and boost tourism
+ Attract new and retain existing businesses
+ Inspire people
+ Promote Chicago as a global destination
+ Boost civic pride
+ Redefine public art
+ Foster a safe, well lit downtown

We have partnered with Intelligent Lighting Creations (ILC) to execute the installation,logistics and cost associated with transforming the downtown Wabash corridor.Parts for this art installation consist of LED light tubes,programmable light controllers, power supplies, cables, and clips for attaching the lights to the “L” structure. Custom clips from Color Kinetics will secure the light tubes to the flange of the steel beams on the undercarriage of the “L” tracks. This method has the advantage of being quickly installed
and easily removed without requiring drilling or damaging the “L” structure. There are no moving parts in the system. Once installed they are part of the “L”.

=============================
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lkhjn0cfsqpm73l/Wabash-Lights_Web-Deck-WBC_05.pdf (Renderings, info on the project)

Skyguy_7

Oct 9, 2014, 1:27 PM

^This would be great, but how serious is the proposal? They've apparently got a contractor to execute it? ...but where's the money coming from? :shrug:

Skyguy_7

Oct 9, 2014, 1:48 PM

Riverwalk between Dearborn and Clark

One big pour to go
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-SSTM7viitM4/VDaRHppyOUI/AAAAAAAABgo/vSbn3GizggM/w735-h551-no/14%2B-%2B2

lu9

Oct 9, 2014, 2:17 PM

Riverwalk between Dearborn and Clark

One big pour to go
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-SSTM7viitM4/VDaRHppyOUI/AAAAAAAABgo/vSbn3GizggM/w735-h551-no/14%2B-%2B2

Now that's looking legit! Boom.. new land.

Jibba

Oct 9, 2014, 2:58 PM

Project: The Wabash Lights

=============================
PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/lkhjn0cfsqpm73l/Wabash-Lights_Web-Deck-WBC_05.pdf (Renderings, info on the project)

This would be great if it were white light a la the Bay Bridge in SF. But that colored shit is nasty.

There has been talk about 'revitalizing' Wabash in the Loop for some time. I always thought a hanging garden-type thing would be great, if only from just the columns (hanging from track would probably violate code for having stuff hang above the roadway). Rather than try to counteract the dark, secluded feeling the track creates, why not augment it? You could create a lush, cozy, forest-like environment if you do it right.

Via Chicago

Oct 9, 2014, 3:36 PM

yup looks tacky as hell. this whole "customizable colored LED" trend is the lava lamp of the 2010s.

we have beautiful industrial architecture in this city. it dosent need cheap gimmicks to somehow be validated.

Via Chicago

Oct 9, 2014, 4:33 PM

Anyone know if it means the existing building will be demolished? I would hope for at least a facadectomy.

im pretty confused by the article since it mentions a 6 story height limit for the hotel develpment. but Ace seems to be the kind of brand that prefers to rehab old buildings and maintain most of their integrity :shrug:

HomrQT

Oct 9, 2014, 4:58 PM

This would be great if it were white light a la the Bay Bridge in SF. But that colored shit is nasty.

There has been talk about 'revitalizing' Wabash in the Loop for some time. I always thought a hanging garden-type thing would be great, if only from just the columns (hanging from track would probably violate code for having stuff hang above the roadway). Rather than try to counteract the dark, secluded feeling the track creates, why not augment it? You could create a lush, cozy, forest-like environment if you do it right.

Wow, couldn't agree more. There are much more tasteful ways to demonstrate our city.

wierdaaron

Oct 9, 2014, 5:04 PM

Since they're going to be trashing 2 stations on Wabash and building a brand new one, now is probably the time to start thinking about work that can be done to improve the experience since the red tape is already being cut. The nice thing about configurable LEDs is that the designs/patterns/colors could be changed as style tastes change. Maybe we get sick of colors, so they just make them all white lights. Better than nothing.

It would be nice if they could get ivy or some kind of climbing plant to grow all under there, like a canopy of green, but I don't know if they could get enough sunlight, and whatever goop drips off the train tracks probably isn't plant-friendly.

LouisVanDerWright

Oct 9, 2014, 5:06 PM

I would prefer to keep the L from having plants on it. It's probably a maintenance nightmare (ivy will grow into any crack it can and retains water, probably a worst case scenario for rust). Also, the exposed iron of Chicago's L is probably one of the most identifiable traits of the city. It's one placemaking feature of the city that I knew about before I had ever even stepped foot here or contemplated this place:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rSlxFxRxthU/hqdefault.jpg
ytimg.com

yup looks tacky as hell. this whole "customizable colored LED" trend is the lava lamp of the 2010s.

we have beautiful industrial architecture in this city. it dosent need cheap gimmicks to somehow be validated.

I disagree. I think LED lighting is the neon of our era. Remember, neon signs were also generally disliked and considered obnoxious during their heyday, but are now cherished. I see absolutely nothing wrong with tastefully using LED's to highlight our city's best assets today. The LED is a miracle technology and can be used to do some pretty amazing things.

im pretty confused by the article since it mentions a 6 story height limit for the hotel develpment. but Ace seems to be the kind of brand that prefers to rehab old buildings and maintain most of their integrity :shrug:

Maybe they plan to build on top of it. A lot of old industrial buildings in this style were designed to take significant additional loads because, in the past, you couldn't expand outwards if your business grew, so you expanded upwards. There is no way the current building could effectively house an ACE hotel so they must be expanding or building new.

Via Chicago

Oct 9, 2014, 5:21 PM

Maybe they plan to build on top of it. A lot of old industrial buildings in this style were designed to take significant additional loads because, in the past, you couldn't expand outwards if your business grew, so you expanded upwards. There is no way the current building could effectively house an ACE hotel so they must be expanding or building new.

yeah im not too worried, theyre pretty design conscious. if they can do a rehab and match the brick to add some floors it could look really handsome.

as far as the LED thing, it just seems like its trying to turn something thats already timeless into some sort of whiz-bang attraction. if you go for trendy its going to look trendy for a short period of time...and then its going to look tired and outdated very quickly. and it just dosent feel very unique or creative as costs are coming down and more and more bridges/buildings are incorporating it.

i guess im a purist at heart though.

Chicago Shawn

Oct 9, 2014, 5:22 PM

Chicago greenhouse to be largest rooftop installation

http://media.produceretailer.com/images/gotham-greens-method.jpg

================================
http://www.thepacker.com/fruit-vegetable-news/Chicago-greenhouse-to-be-largest-rooftop-installation-278438911.html#sthash.kuzmCbSA.dpuf

Awesome! If urban agriculture continues to be a bigger part of city life (and I sincerely hope it is) we need more projects just like this to prove its viable in this format: multiple floors and rooftops. Enough with the stupid ground-level urban gardens, city real estate is far too valuable and we collectively have invested far too much into urban infrastructure for this type of low-intensity land use. Especially so in a 4 season climate and likely heavy soil contamination. Reusing obsolete multi-story warehouses with hydroponics and rooftop greenhouses are absolutely the way to go. Indoor farming can provide for 3 growing seasons per year, is far less water intensive and is protected from disease and insect infestations. I'd like to see someone take a crack a agricultural high-rise as has been often proposed conceptually, but not seriously (yet).

wierdaaron

Oct 9, 2014, 5:54 PM

To keep the iconic look under the L tracks maybe the best bet would to light that sucker up like Wrigley building at night. Huge white lights illuminating the structure itself. Make it glow.

Rizzo

Oct 9, 2014, 6:20 PM

ardecila

Oct 9, 2014, 6:53 PM

Maybe they plan to build on top of it. A lot of old industrial buildings in this style were designed to take significant additional loads because, in the past, you couldn't expand outwards if your business grew, so you expanded upwards. There is no way the current building could effectively house an ACE hotel so they must be expanding or building new.

Also, the floor loading from industrial activities is huge, so these buildings can often accommodate extra floors after they are converted to residential, office, or hotel. 565 W. Quincy added 11 floors on top of 7 existing, with almost no added structure.

Ace Hotel's original location in Seattle is a pretty small 2-story building. I'd be shocked if it had 30 rooms. Possibly that same kind of boutique size hotel is planned for Fulton Market. Ace Hotel in London is new construction - it's a pretty boring stucco box. Their business model is to keep things affordable and stylish using stuff that's funky and cheap. Flashy architecture doesn't really play into that, so I wouldn't expect anything exciting if Ace does decide to expand the building in Chicago.

k1052

Oct 9, 2014, 6:56 PM

Kind of OT but I was inspired after having lunch at water tower place looking across the street at topshop and uniqlo. Awhile back there was some rumors of apple scouting out that location. If that turns out to be true, can you image if apple built some all glass store on the top level of that building? Panoramic views of north michigan at 7-8 stories up. Some interesting entrance included that take you up to the top floor. Just an idea I had to spill out. Apple is always doing something new and fresh for their store. A "penthouse" store would be noticeable in all the water tower views and be an attraction

For urban stores (unless inside some major historic structure like GCT) they generally want street level presence and are willing to spend almost limitless amounts of money to get it in a form they desire. I would be extremely surprised if they shifted so radically and nothing they've done lately indicates that's coming.

Via Chicago

Oct 9, 2014, 8:59 PM

Chicago Shawn

Oct 9, 2014, 9:02 PM

Wait! That was a Burnham building! That's 2 Burnham Buildings in a month (State Line Generating Station being the other).

I always loved that building and have been taking demo photos of it almost daily.

Via Chicago

Oct 9, 2014, 9:10 PM

yup. the burnham connection was unknown to me, but i had always liked it on its own merits. that little tucked away corner of the city looking south always felt like a edward hopper painting to me. quiet and a little desolate, but dignified.

there are the predictable comments on that thread but this one in particular really gets me:

It was a warehouse not the Parthenon.

these buildings ARE chicago's parhenon. we will never have structures like that built again.

dropdeaded209

Oct 10, 2014, 11:33 AM

the colored light idea would be cool if you tied the color of the lights and their illumination to the train lines running up and down it. that might look pretty kickass.

Kenmore

Oct 10, 2014, 11:46 AM

the colored light idea would be cool if you tied the color of the lights and their illumination to the train lines running up and down it. that might look pretty kickass.

yeah, that would be kind of cool

harryc

Oct 10, 2014, 12:55 PM

had no idea this had occurred. apparently few others did either

Demolished Burnham Building 'Slipped Through Cracks,' Preservationist Says (http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20141009/chinatown/demolished-burnham-building-slipped-through-cracks-preservationist-says)

http://assets.dnainfo.com/generated/chicago_photo/2014/10/allied-metal-1412796102.jpg/extralarge.jpg

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ORETXd9nNd4/VDfWmEom_cI/AAAAAAACDPA/dW1odTd9v8c/w958-h719-no/P1120194.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-WgoiZKJzgjI/VDfWmvfbrlI/AAAAAAACDPI/wZSxVxC2Lu0/w958-h598-no/P1120187.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-As6PqJ-fDdY/VDfWnKBt-SI/AAAAAAACDPQ/cxCjJsRzMCk/w958-h719-no/P1120193.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-lvazHVb0Hc8/VDfWoCakhdI/AAAAAAACDPY/VYcI5l_O-Kw/w958-h719-no/P1000345.JPG

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1UntUlFrcMw/VDfWoi6A6-I/AAAAAAACDPg/KYR_sqP51v0/w958-h719-no/P1000346.JPG

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-1Ra5GkuiPZ0/VDfWpH0rxrI/AAAAAAACDPo/UlsykmBXUZ4/w958-h719-no/P1000349.JPG

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-YulraXoxHuk/VDfWpnxOwCI/AAAAAAACDPw/V9J7BUFckTw/w958-h719-no/P1000353.JPG

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-aC48Mux7OOE/VDfWqbjAWlI/AAAAAAACDP0/d0aSWKc14m4/w958-h719-no/P1000360.JPG

joeg1985

Oct 10, 2014, 3:22 PM

the colored light idea would be cool if you tied the color of the lights and their illumination to the train lines running up and down it. that might look pretty kickass.

Yes! They could take it a step further by coordinating the color of the light with the color of the line that was passing by. At rush hour that would be such a sight to see. Purple, orange, brown, and pink all flying by in each direction. That would really liven things up.

Jibba

Oct 10, 2014, 9:06 PM

Yes! They could take it a step further by coordinating the color of the light with the color of the line that was passing by. At rush hour that would be such a sight to see. Purple, orange, brown, and pink all flying by in each direction. That would really liven things up.

I was thinking this too. It would be a nice synergy of aural and visual info.

Rizzo

Oct 11, 2014, 4:36 AM

Yes! They could take it a step further by coordinating the color of the light with the color of the line that was passing by. At rush hour that would be such a sight to see. Purple, orange, brown, and pink all flying by in each direction. That would really liven things up.

That would be bad. It would force me to run like mad for the train before the streak of light arrives.

streetline

Oct 11, 2014, 5:10 AM

That would be bad. It would force me to run like mad for the train before the streak of light arrives.

Yeah, I'm thinking it's probably not doable without adding sensors for finer grained train tracking either. But maybe they could show the same kind of information in a more practical, if slightly less slick, way.

They could try highlighting track sections in the color of approaching trains, and increasing the brightness or saturation until the train arrives (so the lights approximate the train as a fuzzy mile-long version of itself, both giving potential passengers extra forewarning and blurring away the data's inaccuracies)...

Rizzo

Oct 11, 2014, 5:46 AM

Yeah, I'm thinking it's probably not doable without adding sensors for finer grained train tracking either. But maybe they could show the same kind of information in a more practical, if slightly less slick, way.

They could try highlighting track sections in the color of approaching trains, and increasing the brightness or saturation until the train arrives (so the lights approximate the train as a fuzzy mile-long version of itself, both giving potential passengers extra forewarning and blurring away the data's inaccuracies)...

Who says the data isn't fine grain? They could probably extrapolate positions down to a foot if they wanted to based on signals passed, speed and onboard data.

What's shared with the public via train tracker apps is coarse grain because it's more efficient and reliable to display it that way

streetline

Oct 11, 2014, 6:00 AM

Who says the data isn't fine grain? They could probably extrapolate positions down to a foot if they wanted to based on signals passed, speed and onboard data.

What's shared with the public via train tracker apps is coarse grain because it's more efficient and reliable to display it that way

If you say so. I was thinking of the publicly available data.

denizen467

Oct 11, 2014, 6:22 AM

untitledreality

Oct 11, 2014, 6:16 PM

I'm guessing this isn't going to offer anything really new, just a solid product in a great location.
Food wise they are essentially apart of the Five Guys category. Design wise, they are vastly superior. Every location I have been by in NYC has a nice interior and great classic signage.

Tom Servo

Oct 12, 2014, 8:49 PM

Whatever's being built at Franklin and Chestnut is really fantastic. THIS should be the standard.

marothisu

Oct 13, 2014, 2:27 AM

Whatever's being built at Franklin and Chestnut is really fantastic. THIS should be the standard.

Yes, it's a good building. People forget though that there are many nice modernist buildings (usually just a few units or a SFH) in Chicago like this in neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Bucktown, Ukrainian Village, etc. There's a few larger unit buildings in that area like the Domus one. For some reason, I'm a fan of these on Damen: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9158034,-87.6775879,3a,75y,259.54h,105.96t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sefw9Jr-8NCPs0K5c9qMGRg!2e0

FYI this is what it is. It's 23 units:
http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/02/this-is-what-858-north-franklin-will-look-like.php

ChiTownWonder

Oct 13, 2014, 12:04 PM

does anybody know if the Wabash lights the only part of the city of lights project the city will be doing?
http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/78597#.VDu_Z_ldVc4
it says here that it was planned to light up the Chicago river as well as the L

lu9

Oct 13, 2014, 2:24 PM

Scaffolding/barricades are off of Shake Shack, and its chrome/stainless signage has been put up outside. Looking forward to it, although from Umami Burger to the rest of the gourmet burger boom going on I'm guessing this isn't going to offer anything really new, just a solid product in a great location.

Greatest trend around. And I think they all offer something a little different. Shake Shack is fantastic.

Been to Umami twice already. Maybe I have a burger problem?

LouisVanDerWright

Oct 13, 2014, 3:13 PM

lu9

Oct 13, 2014, 4:18 PM

I'm not particularly impressed by any of the gourmet burger chains out there and CERTAINLY not impressed by the likes of Five Guys or In-N-Out (ducks for cover).

Everyone hyped the shit out of Five Guys and it's one of the shittiest burgers I've ever had. I know a dozen greasy spoons with significantly better, similarly priced, burgers. Don't even get me started on In-N-Out because the first time I ate there I just about gagged. It's just a greasy mess that is nothing more than McDonalds with thousand island sauce on it.

If I want a grease bomb gourmet burger I'd rather wait in line at Kuma's. I'm sure I'll try Shake Shack and Umami, but I doubt I'll be impressed or go back a second time. I guess I'm just spoiled from living in a city that does fast food so well for too long. Why go pay $15 for a burger when I can pay $2.50 at the greasy spoon around the corner for virtually the same thing.

It appears, based on this, that you are into grilled burgers (open flame). The trend is the opposite.

Kuma's obviously does it well. In fact, they kill the open flame burger. But, everybody else is doing griddle burgers now and they have a completely different flavor profile. Based on your preference for the $2.50 greasy spoon burger, it is clear you don't like the flavor profile of the now popular griddle burger.

Nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out.

Off topic, i know.

i_am_hydrogen

Oct 13, 2014, 5:23 PM

Ground broke today on the Fullerton Revetment project, which includes the creation of a 6-acre park and additional pedestrian paths.

https://www.facebook.com/ChicagoMayorsOffice/posts/688554461221812

http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4905/FWtNQg.jpg

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2013/08/23/fullerton-beach-project.php

LouisVanDerWright

Oct 13, 2014, 5:35 PM

^^^ Good that's one of the more dangerous parts of the lakefront path around the Theater on the Lake. I've almost gotten clipped there more times than I can count.

It appears, based on this, that you are into grilled burgers (open flame). The trend is the opposite.

Kuma's obviously does it well. In fact, they kill the open flame burger. But, everybody else is doing griddle burgers now and they have a completely different flavor profile. Based on your preference for the $2.50 greasy spoon burger, it is clear you don't like the flavor profile of the now popular griddle burger.

Nothing wrong with that, just pointing it out.

Off topic, i know.

Haha, well I am pretty satisfied with Au Cheval, they are griddle burgers right? Even then though, I'm not sure Au Cheval is worth the money. I do like open flame better, but I'm not impressed by the brands I mentioned above either way.

Via Chicago

Oct 13, 2014, 6:18 PM

Au Cheval does things to me

:slob:

(although honestly having a 2,000 calorie lunch and napping the rest of the day away dosent hold the same appeal it once did)

DePaul Bunyan

Oct 13, 2014, 6:34 PM

I'm not particularly impressed by any of the gourmet burger chains out there and CERTAINLY not impressed by the likes of Five Guys or In-N-Out (ducks for cover).

Everyone hyped the shit out of Five Guys and it's one of the shittiest burgers I've ever had. I know a dozen greasy spoons with significantly better, similarly priced, burgers. Don't even get me started on In-N-Out because the first time I ate there I just about gagged. It's just a greasy mess that is nothing more than McDonalds with thousand island sauce on it.

If I want a grease bomb gourmet burger I'd rather wait in line at Kuma's. I'm sure I'll try Shake Shack and Umami, but I doubt I'll be impressed or go back a second time. I guess I'm just spoiled from living in a city that does fast food so well for too long. Why go pay $15 for a burger when I can pay $2.50 at the greasy spoon around the corner for virtually the same thing.

I couldn't agree more with Five Guys. I remember when they started popping up around here with a ton of hype. It was garbage. They couldn't even do the fries right, the Cajun fries were just a soggy, greasy mess with a bunch of cayenne and salt dumped on it.

http://www.tbjburgers.com/locations

I highly recommend this place if you're ever in the Western suburbs or Skokie. They have the best burgers I've ever had, bar none. The meat is incredible. And they have pretzel buns.

sentinel

Oct 13, 2014, 6:51 PM

One of the best burgers I've had is (sadly) from a place that isn't in the City: the Country House in Clarendon Hills, the old, haunted building from the 20s-30s is hands-down one of the best around Chicagoland..

..I guess what I'm sayin is that it would be nice if local/metro area business would open spots in the City, in addition to companies from outside of Chicagoland opening up here as well..

ChickeNES

Oct 13, 2014, 7:00 PM

Notyrview

Oct 13, 2014, 8:54 PM

If I want a grease bomb gourmet burger I'd rather wait in line at Kuma's. I'm sure I'll try Shake Shack and Umami, but I doubt I'll be impressed or go back a second time. I guess I'm just spoiled from living in a city that does fast food so well for too long. Why go pay $15 for a burger when I can pay $2.50 at the greasy spoon around the corner for virtually the same thing.

Shake Shack is superior. They also make a killer Shack-ago dog - perfect after a round of golf.

Notyrview

Oct 13, 2014, 8:58 PM

Can this please, please, PLEASE, happen at Promontory Point next?

Fantastic news! Can't wait to see the new vistas this will open up.

Via Chicago

Oct 13, 2014, 10:59 PM

The lakefront path will continue to be a disaster until they entirely separate runners from cyclists for the entire length

LouisVanDerWright

Oct 14, 2014, 2:00 AM

Wow, the newest Phase of the Cabrini Replacements on Division is significantly better than its predecessors:

http://archpaper.com/uploads/image/01-cabrini-green.jpg

http://archpaper.com/uploads/02-cabrini-green.jpg

http://archpaper.com/uploads/03-cabrini-green.jpg

From an Architects Newspaper article:

http://archpaper.com/news/articles.asp?id=7584#.VDyDmfldWvP

Chi-Sky21

Oct 14, 2014, 2:04 AM

The lakefront path will still come to a complete stop just south of this anyways. But i do like the added 5 acres of park. And it also should help push a lot of the congestion away from the Fullerton off ramp. This leads me to really hope when they do the next stretch of this they will also go big and fix the curve and make a lot more park....it makes no sense to redo that section WITHOUT fixing that.

Mr Downtown

Oct 14, 2014, 3:02 PM

Can [revetment reconstruction] please, please, PLEASE, happen at Promontory Point next?

Did you just parachute in? Have you completely missed all the SAVE THE POINT window signs and bumper stickers and the fierce battles (http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/off-the-deep-end/Content?oid=905118) that went into getting the Army Corps of Engineers to back down from ruining the Point in this way?

ChickeNES

Oct 14, 2014, 4:54 PM

Did you just parachute in? Have you completely missed all the SAVE THE POINT window signs and bumper stickers and the fierce battles (http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/off-the-deep-end/Content?oid=905118) that went into getting the Army Corps of Engineers to back down from ruining the Point in this way?

You mean the typical Hyde Park NIMBYism that has prevented so much progress in the past? I'm all for historical preservation, but at this point the limestone revetment is falling apart, and I'm not convinced that it would even be possible to save it after delaying work for over a decade. True, I wasn't here for the original discussion, having only moved to HP in 2007, but it's always the same old song and dance. Hell, morons here are still writing in to the Herald saying that Mesa needs to add "three or four hundred hundred parking spots" to Vue53, and "There’s a great site for a parking lot right where the Mobile station used to be." Piles of rubble instead of a new revetment, Doctor's Hospital a pile of rubble because of obstructionism (at least the University had the last laugh on that one), Vue53 almost a year behind schedule because of a frivolous lawsuit, it's always the same story here in Hyde Park.

I prefer this bumper sticker by the way:
http://i.imgur.com/znpfqEQ.jpg

streetline

Oct 14, 2014, 6:56 PM

Wow, the newest Phase of the Cabrini Replacements on Division is significantly better than its predecessors:
...
http://archpaper.com/uploads/02-cabrini-green.jpg
...
While I like the look of the new design, I'm not wild about the fact that it blocks the pedestrian path currently in place on both sides of it's footprint with a garage.

Building a one-block break in an otherwise finished four block pedestrian path with a little playground at the end is not very neighborly.

EDIT: On looking more carefully, I think I was wrong about the path being blocked. Sorry about that.

ardecila

Oct 15, 2014, 3:28 PM

wierdaaron

Oct 15, 2014, 3:42 PM

Looks like Chicago Ave is turning into a pretty hot corridor. Upper River North is going to need a name.

Ch.G, Ch.G

Oct 15, 2014, 4:25 PM

Crain's reporting that there are two apartment projects planned for the NW corner of Chicago and Wells, and a reuse of the landmarked Bush Temple of Music at the NW corner of Chicago/Clark.

http://e.ccialerts.com/a/hBUPm-SB8523UB87e7rAAAtbg26/ccb53

The Wells site is under contract to Loukas Development, which has been on a tear lately when it comes to design. It's a TOD site so we may get something modern and low-parking. The Bush Temple is Cedar Street, who will have to restore the building... maybe this is why Smithfield decided not to "Adopt-a-Landmark" as part of their rental tower next door.

IIRC (and I might not), the Bush Temple of Music was in worse condition than Smithfield had anticipated.

I do hope the scope of the Loukas Development is large enough to include that surface lot mid-block (north side of Chicago between Wells and Franklin), otherwise it's kind of a wash. And let's be honest: there should be no parking; it's freakin' across the street from an 'L' station!

emathias

Oct 15, 2014, 4:45 PM

I'm looking forward to both of those Chicago Ave developments, especially the Bush one.

On Monday I had one of the best burgers I've ever had at bopNgrill (http://bngrill.com/) in Rogers Park. Their umami burger is simply fantastic.

LouisVanDerWright

Oct 15, 2014, 5:29 PM

I do hope the scope of the Loukas Development is large enough to include that surface lot mid-block (north side of Chicago between Wells and Franklin), otherwise it's kind of a wash. And let's be honest: there should be no parking; it's freakin' across the street from an 'L' station!

The article mentions that Loukas plans to build on the surface lot and tear down some of the small commercial structures. They don't know for sure whether the nicer old commercial buildings along Chicago and on the corner will go yet.

ardecila

Oct 15, 2014, 5:38 PM

The red brick building on the Chicago/Wells corner could be nice but much of the historic detail was shredded off and replaced with a gross PoMo imitation. Single-lane windows instead of double-hung, a cartoonish metal cornice, etc

Jibba

Oct 15, 2014, 5:51 PM

The red brick building on the Chicago/Wells corner could be nice but much of the historic detail was shredded off and replaced with a gross PoMo imitation.

Yes, but the exposed girder with the rosettes is an uncommon detail that I would like to see preserved. The building that houses GT Fish & Oyster has the same element (sans rosettes, I think), and they did a bang-up job on that one.

I'd also like to see the old post office stay. Even though it's a not-so-sophisticated take on Neoclassic, the building has been put to use beautifully: A client of mine has their design office inside, and it's absolutely stunning. Lots of exposed steel columns and bright & airy volumes.

ardecila

Oct 15, 2014, 6:12 PM

Not so uncommon... Many Victorian commercial buildings in the city have a brick second floor supported on a steel lintel above a glass and metal storefront. Armitage has a bunch of them in Lincoln Park.

Mr Downtown

Oct 15, 2014, 6:18 PM

there should be no parking; it's freakin' across the street from an 'L' station!

That presumes that people who live in this building will never, ever, need to go any place that's not on a CTA rail line, or need to go at an hour when the Brown Line isn't running.

I doubt residents of a building at Chicago & Wells were planning to drive to Loop workplaces in the first place. Only 18% of trips are journeys-to-work. The point of parking in downtown buildings is auto storage for other kinds of trips that are inconvenient or impossible by transit or walking or cycling. You gotta have someplace for the Zipcars!

Ch.G, Ch.G

Oct 15, 2014, 6:22 PM

The article mentions that Loukas plans to build on the surface lot and tear down some of the small commercial structures. They don't know for sure whether the nicer old commercial buildings along Chicago and on the corner will go yet.

Gotcha, thanks. Which smaller ones, though? Like, the Paper Source building? (I don't have access. Womp.)

wierdaaron

Oct 15, 2014, 6:41 PM

So Windy City Real Estate tried to buy Bush Temple for 24 condos but was outbid (seemingly) by Cedar Street who wants it for apartments. I find that kind of unusual, the apartments bit. An old, short building probably limited in buildout by its historic landmark status seems better suited for condos in my amateur opinion. It seems like it'd be easier to attract buyers than renters, a more fickle and flightly customer who are generally more swayed by amenities and appliances than a building with "good bones." Not that they'll have problems renting the place out, but it seems like they'd have fewer problems selling it out.

Ch.G, Ch.G

Oct 15, 2014, 6:50 PM

That presumes that people who live in this building will never, ever, need to go any place that's not on a CTA rail line, or need to go at an inconvenient hour.

And that presumes people aren't resourceful enough to hail a cab, page a ridesharing service, subscribe to Zipcar, use a bike, or walk.

Is it really that difficult for you (among many others) to comprehend that a lot of people in Chicago and its peer cities manage to lead perfectly happy, functioning lives without owning a car? And do you not see the way in which automobile ownership has degraded the built environment (to say nothing of the actual environment)? I know you're not approaching this issue from a laissez-faire perspective; your recent defense of the single-use zoning district that stripped The Maxwell of its residential component makes it pretty clear that you don't have a problem dictating to property owners how their land should be used. Do you think there's some kind of 'greater good' I (and others who agree with me) am ignoring?

Ch.G, Ch.G

Oct 15, 2014, 7:04 PM

I doubt residents of a building at Chicago & Wells were planning to drive to Loop workplaces in the first place. Only 18% of trips are journeys-to-work. The point of parking in downtown buildings is auto storage for other kinds of trips that are inconvenient or impossible by transit or walking or cycling. You gotta have someplace for the Zipcars!

Parking infrastructure is pretty much the only thing American cities excel at. Chicago has enough auto storage to accommodate services like Zipcar to last for decades.

the urban politician

Oct 15, 2014, 7:47 PM

And that presumes people aren't resourceful enough to hail a cab, page a ridesharing service, subscribe to Zipcar, use a bike, or walk.

Is it really that difficult for you (among many others) to comprehend that a lot of people in Chicago and its peer cities manage to lead perfectly happy, functioning lives without owning a car? And do you not see the way in which automobile ownership has degraded the built environment (to say nothing of the actual environment)? I know you're not approaching this issue from a laissez-faire perspective; your recent defense of the single-use zoning district that stripped The Maxwell of its residential component makes it pretty clear that you don't have a problem dictating to property owners how their land should be used. Do you think there's some kind of 'greater good' I (and others who agree with me) am ignoring?

Clearly you don't think that at least a little bit of car storage is a bad idea? You do realize that a lot of people have to make daily trips out into the burbs, to sites not easy to access by transit.

There has to be some parking, although I of course feel that the ratio should be much lower than what is currently mandated

wierdaaron

Oct 15, 2014, 8:30 PM

Plus I think if you want rich people to move in, they need a place to park their weekend car. You're never going to get anywhere advocating no parking, but getting lower parking ratios to be a topic of discussion along with TOD and LEED certification is good for everyone.

Mr Downtown

Oct 15, 2014, 8:43 PM

Is it really that difficult for you (among many others) to comprehend that a lot of people in Chicago and its peer cities manage to lead perfectly happy, functioning lives without owning a car?

No; after all, I'm one of those people. Nowhere have I suggested that auto ownership be required.

But in an affluent society, people often find it convenient to own automobiles, just as they find it convenient to own their own computers rather than visit a nearby public library. Unlike Zipcars or taxis, private autos can be used to visit relatives in the suburbs for the day, to transport pets or work equipment, to reach jobs or shopping that isn't well-served by transit, or to reach weekend homes.

Saying there should be no parking at all is dictating to the developer that he must limit the market for his project to a small group people who live a particular kind of life.

ardecila

Oct 15, 2014, 8:46 PM

wierdaaron

Oct 15, 2014, 8:46 PM

Though perhaps the notion that parking is not strictly required might be liberating to some developers?

wierdaaron

Oct 15, 2014, 8:59 PM

Downtown Chicago is finally becoming a self-sufficient community. What kind of trips would the residents of this building make that require a car? All manner of services are available within a 5-block radius and even more by bus or train, including furniture and appliance shopping.

I've been thinking about this of late. How the idealized urban center is supposed to be a kind of self-contained oasis, where there's stuff to eat and buy and green space to sit down in, where it's easy to get around quickly from destination to destination... it's almost like we strive toward turning the cities into Disney World, where the experience is designed for the person on foot to be able to do as much as he/she wants and see all of the sights and sounds in a small area by exploring.

http://i.imgur.com/prvg9ykl.jpg

If Disney World is what we're striving for (in a non-derogatory way), imagine a universe where everywhere in Disney World is accessible via automobile, and the people who want to drive their cars through Disney World get upset (a la Tom Servo) when people propose that maybe Disney World would be better if they didn't have to accommodate everything toward drivers.

http://i.imgur.com/b6w3Vrq.jpg

It wouldn't be a very good Disney World.

You can still own a car and go to Disney World, you just park it somewhere outside and then use your feet (or maglev!) to move around once you're there.

That really kind of helps me frame my understanding of the human scale movement and bike/pedestrian advocacy. Not to paint either side of the argument as cartoonish, but I think when people talk about those things they aren't having the same conversation. There's one side who believes that if cars were removed from the equation or pushed way down the priority list we could be living in Outer Heaven, a promised land full of milk and honey. And there's another side, who just wants to get to work and back without being bothered.

I think this, along with the strong towns movement and new urbanism in general, kind of butts heads against the generally-American ideology of individualism. Smooth-paved 12-lane intersections and suburban tract-homes are kind of the ultimate expression of that mindset. "I've got my house and my car, leave me the hell alone!" The idea that we could forego individual conveniences in exchange for an communal good is kind of the opposite of the entire American post-war mindset up until now.

bcp

Oct 15, 2014, 10:18 PM

Though perhaps the notion that parking is not strictly required might be liberating to some developers?

absolutely...as a former developer, step one is planning around parking req's before anything else....no requirements leave the risk to the developer, and instill a real market-driven strategy...the implications on non-subsidized market affordability are huge too - units without parking are harder to sell typically, which lowers their price naturally to a point that people will buy and suck it up to have life without a car (or rent a space elsewhere...a third benefit!)

in the meantime, let's stick with parking minimums, gov't forced affordability, and queered market forces.

boom, out, peace!

LouisVanDerWright

Oct 15, 2014, 10:47 PM

^^^ Yes, the current parking minimums make it physically impossible to build more than 3 residential units on a city lot even if the FAR and MLA requirements would allow 6 units. Don't even get started on larger projects where the minimums require ramps which totally crap on any attempt to build a mid-market highrise for people who don't want to pay $5,000/Mo.

I think this, along with the strong towns movement and new urbanism in general, kind of butts heads against the generally-American ideology of individualism. Smooth-paved 12-lane intersections and suburban tract-homes are kind of the ultimate expression of that mindset. "I've got my house and my car, leave me the hell alone!" The idea that we could forego individual conveniences in exchange for an communal good is kind of the opposite of the entire American post-war mindset up until now.

I think it's a bit bizarre to associate the suburbs with American individualism. Perhaps with latent feelings of manifest destiny, but the story of the suburb is simply that of our short history and geography. If we had been around a few hundred more years before the automobile was invented and had ten times the population, then it wouldn't have happened. There is no other country on earth with the sheer scale and wealth and low density as the United States and suburbs are the logical result of that.

Also, remember that the ideals behind the suburb were also driven by a desire for a "communal good". The idea being that people needed to leave what were viewed as (and in reality) unhealthy, crowded, polluted, places for a refuge surrounded with nature. Of course, just as with the city, what you were seeking wasn't always what you got. Instead of FLW's Broadacre city populated by beautiful Coonley Houses, we got an awful lot of suburban tract housing on lots that were really not all that much bigger than what you find in the city.

If anything the attitudes you described were more of a result of the move to the suburbs than a cause. People never had that much of a "I've got my horse, I've got my house, leave me alone" mentality back when "small town america", the prototype of the suburb, still existed. It was the advent and implementation of the technology and wealth that caused those attitudes IMO.

UrbanLibertine

Oct 15, 2014, 10:56 PM

I vote for "RiNo,No"

Looks like Chicago Ave is turning into a pretty hot corridor. Upper River North is going to need a name.

wierdaaron

Oct 15, 2014, 11:10 PM

If anything the attitudes you described were more of a result of the move to the suburbs than a cause. People never had that much of a "I've got my horse, I've got my house, leave me alone" mentality back when "small town america", the prototype of the suburb, still existed. It was the advent and implementation of the technology and wealth that caused those attitudes IMO.

Could be. I wasn't around at the time and the book I recently bought about suburbanization has sat unread since purchase, but my feeling was that post-war when money was flowing and financing was cheap, the evacuation of the family from cities to suburbs was pushed as a way for everybody to "get theirs". You can have a house with a front yard and a patio and a driveway and make that your own dominion.

There's obviously myriad of social and economic issues at work here, but I've been rolling around the idea of individualism in my head since I first heard about how the analog of that in Australia is the concept of "mateship" that's baked into their society -- this sense of "we're all in this together" that supposedly dates all the way back to the first boats of inmates sent to that land -- and how it conflicts with the mindset here that's always deified the potential and accomplishments of the individual. If you don't let me drive my Oldsmobile through Epcot then you're trampling on my liberties.

HomrQT

Oct 16, 2014, 12:12 AM

I've been thinking about this of late. How the idealized urban center is supposed to be a kind of self-contained oasis, where there's stuff to eat and buy and green space to sit down in, where it's easy to get around quickly from destination to destination... it's almost like we strive toward turning the cities into Disney World, where the experience is designed for the person on foot to be able to do as much as he/she wants and see all of the sights and sounds in a small area by exploring.

I tend to think/hope we're striving towards a level of local stability akin to that of European cities that were built more for pedestrians and horses than for cars.

SamInTheLoop

Oct 16, 2014, 2:43 PM

I still believe in a laissez-faire policy... Strip the parking restrictions and look at what developers choose to build. The structural elements required to mix parking and dense residential are not cheap, so we may see parking demand satisfied in freestanding garages instead of ugly podiums, where those with means can pay to store their vehicles. This is basically how Manhattan works.

Downtown Chicago is finally becoming a self-sufficient community. What kind of trips would the residents of this building make that require a car? All manner of services are available within a 5-block radius and even more by bus or train, including furniture and appliance shopping.

I definitely have a different philosophy......letting the market build however it wants results in individual actors doing everything in their own interests, with nobody to clean up the inevitable major externalities. We have Houston as the ultimate example - how do you like that result? I believe that we should have smart parking maximums, not parking minimums.

The back and forth between weirdarron and lvdw is interesting. There's definitely truth in both of your positions I think.

SamInTheLoop

Oct 16, 2014, 2:45 PM

Crain's reporting that there are two apartment projects planned for the NW corner of Chicago and Wells, and a reuse of the landmarked Bush Temple of Music at the NW corner of Chicago/Clark.

http://e.ccialerts.com/a/hBUPm-SB8523UB87e7rAAAtbg26/ccb53

The Wells site is under contract to Loukas Development, which has been on a tear lately when it comes to design. It's a TOD site so we may get something modern and low-parking. The Bush Temple is Cedar Street, who will have to restore the building... maybe this is why Smithfield decided not to "Adopt-a-Landmark" as part of their rental tower next door.

Looking forward to both of these. Glad to see that someone is taking on Bush after Smithfield abandoned it. Also very interested to see what Loukas comes up with for their site....

ardecila

Oct 16, 2014, 3:39 PM

OrdoSeclorum

Oct 16, 2014, 4:47 PM

Also, FYI: Houston has huge parking minimums despite its lack of zoning. Their excess of parking is not necessarily a market outcome. They even require parking for ALL retailers regardless of size, which is why they have no truly walkable commercial strips.

Most egregiously, for apartments I believe they require over one parking space per bedroom in Houston. 1.25 or something like that. Houston is ready for a 1000 year parking event.

Jibba

Oct 16, 2014, 6:19 PM

Interview with Gina Ford of Sasaki Assoc. about the riverwalk. Lots of insight into the development of the concepts. This could end up being a spectacular urban space given all of the thought put into it (as recounted in the interview).

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/October-2014/What-the-Chicago-Riverwalk-Will-Look-Like-and-What-That-Means/

bcp

Oct 16, 2014, 7:14 PM

I definitely have a different philosophy......letting the market build however it wants results in individual actors doing everything in their own interests, with nobody to clean up the inevitable major externalities. We have Houston as the ultimate example - how do you like that result? I believe that we should have smart parking maximums, not parking minimums.

The back and forth between weirdarron and lvdw is interesting. There's definitely truth in both of your positions I think.

we also have a zoning code in place to prevent that....and a process for changing zoning....houston is a great example of what can go wrong, but unshackling developers by NO WAY means chicago turns into houston.

parking maximums? aboslutely agree with you...how about no parking requirements if you are 1/4 mile from a metra or el station? would the world end in a decade? nah.

finally...what on earth does this mean? :)

"the inevitable major externalities"

SamInTheLoop

Oct 16, 2014, 7:19 PM

This ain't Houston - we have an extensive transit system, a huge core of transit accessible jobs and shopping, endless walkable blocks, and the density needed to support amenities within walking distance.

Also, FYI: Houston has huge parking minimums despite its lack of zoning. Their excess of parking is not necessarily a market outcome. They even require parking for ALL retailers regardless of size, which is why they have no truly walkable commercial strips.

I was just throwing Houston out there as an extreme example to make a broader point to those that get seduced by Ayn Rand/lassez faire/libertarian adolescent fever dream fantasies. Despite its parking minimums, that's your model.....how do you like it? Tastes a bit rancid. Of course Chicago is unique, as are all cities, and part of that is simply physical geography. However, never pretend that transit is in itself anything of a market outcome (ergo in part no useful transit in US cities that do it really lassez faire.....

Ryanrule

Oct 16, 2014, 8:09 PM

what we need are parking garage max prices, or requirements to include the parking space in the rent/sale. FAR too many garages 1/3 full at $300 a month with cars on the streets crammed in every damn hole available.

Mr Downtown

Oct 16, 2014, 8:42 PM

^That might tell us that street parking is underpriced rather than that garage spaces are overpriced.

But there are clumsy things about the parking market. The only method we have to price street parking currently is "meters," which are quite inefficient to administer and inconvenient for residential users. If we sell residential street parking permits, there needs to be an easy-to-use mechanism for visiting guests. The mayor's increase in parking taxes on garages also seems to send the wrong message: in my opinion, residents paying for garage spaces by the month should be exempted, as done in New York. Theirs is the behavior (living in dense parts of the city) we should be encouraging, not discouraging. For the most part, they're not the ones creating rush-hour congestion.

bcp

Oct 16, 2014, 10:32 PM

I was just throwing Houston out there as an extreme example to make a broader point to those that get seduced by Ayn Rand/lassez faire/libertarian adolescent fever dream fantasies. Despite its parking minimums, that's your model.....how do you like it? Tastes a bit rancid. Of course Chicago is unique, as are all cities, and part of that is simply physical geography. However, never pretend that transit is in itself anything of a market outcome (ergo in part no useful transit in US cities that do it really lassez faire.....

ignoring the silly name calling....how do you think great cities and old housing stock came about? demand, profit motive, and very limited oversight is what provided for massive amounts of dense, pedestrian-focused neighborhoods to develop quickly...not extra regulation on parking.