CHICAGO | General Developments [Archive] - Page 69

BVictor1

Apr 18, 2009, 8:58 PM

ENRIQUE'S COMMUNITY UPDATES

Chicago Central Area Plan Presentation

South Loop Building Heights & Parking Lots to be Affected

Thursday, April 23 at 7 PM

Ald. Bob Fioretti will host a public presentation on the current draft of the Chicago Central Area Plan for 2nd Ward constituents. The presentation will be held at Robert Morris College, in the auditorium (Room 803), at 401 S. State St. Featured will be Mr. Benet Haller, director of Urban Design and Planning for the City's Department of Community Development, who will give an overview of the plan's goals and directions. The current Chicago Central Area Plan draft builds on recommendations of the 2003 Central Area Plan. This new plan takes the transportation and urban design projects from the earlier plan and estimates the costs of each proposed project and prioritizes each based on the cost and perceived benefit. The plan also updates sector growth projections and makes specific urban design recommendations for areas within the study area that may undergo change in the future. This draft of the plan was created under the guidance of a steering committee and three taskforces of community leaders and City officials.

honte

Apr 18, 2009, 10:42 PM

^ Affected up, or down? Does anyone know? Is this the deal that Bob was flipping out about recently, that might permit a more suitable density in the South Loop?

________

Wrabbit, thanks for the heads up on the lecture. I'm going to see if I can attend. I think this is an important issue that isn't being discussed enough.

Jibba

Apr 19, 2009, 1:49 AM

At one point there was a midrise proposed for the vacant lot on the NW corner of Grand and Lasalle. Now, apparently, there's going to be a drive-thru on two of the busiest streets in River North. Brilliant.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3402/3452923537_b12a20f289_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/3452923537/)
Photo by me.

What a joke. I wonder what the price of that real estate is? Does it really drop so dramatically westward from the lake that "Fresco Express" can open up their stupid shop and accompanying drive-through with no problem in this lending environment?

the urban politician

Apr 19, 2009, 4:40 AM

Nowhereman1280

Apr 19, 2009, 5:09 AM

^^^ Completely agree with you TUP, River North is not an enjoyable place to walk right now anyhow, once the next boom comes it will eat up all of these little places and allow once cohesive, attractive, built environment.

Also I am becoming increasingly against tearing down the Rease campus. I think they should at least find a way to reuse some of the larger potentially Gropius buildings as housing or maybe a central meeting space or something that can be turned into a community center or something after the games...

Jibba

Apr 19, 2009, 6:22 AM

^ I see no reason to get concerned about these small drive thru joints. They are small, easy to tear down placeholders that contribute to the city's tax coffers until the market rebounds and somebody can build a real development on the land that they occupy

I've heard this argument before, but unfortunately I have seen no evidence thus-far that substantiates this idea. As long as these establishments are successful, they remain there. It's not as if these plots can be taken over by eminent domain (unfortunately, the plots that the city considers to be "blight" and in need of being taken over by force are more often than not those that are historic and highly urban but in a state of "disrepair"). If these types of developments were the sole path of least resistance for developers wanting to put up something of reasonable height and density, then yeah, they are transient (relatively speaking) placeholders that would be eradicated once another development boom comes around. However, River North being what it is, there are countless other plots that pose an equally opportunistic development prospect, and these other areas are often historic blocks of three-story buildings that cost just as much (possibly marginally more, but I doubt it) to demolish, which the members of the community are all too happy to have gone (not enough open space! too dense! too Manhattan-like!). So what we get is wholesale demolition of "blighted", far-too-dense-with-far-too-little-parking building stock and the endurance of shit developments like Fresco Express, McDonald's, Walgreen's, et al. that serve the lazy and coddled who live in the 40-story high-rise two blocks to the east that has three parking spaces per unit. One could argue that "market forces" create the type of development in question, but what kind of rationalization is that? Isn't that what zoning is for? What is the zoning that produced this BS? I'm sure Reilly or whatever crap alderman whose ward this is in was all too happy to provide establishments that serve the wealthy sloths that patronize this kind of crap at the expense of everyone else who still gives a damn what the public well-being of the city is like.

the urban politician

Apr 19, 2009, 2:41 PM

^ Manhattan has drive thru joints.

It's not a big deal

Nowhereman1280

Apr 19, 2009, 3:06 PM

Companies like McDonalds actually make more money off of reselling real estate that they sit on than they do off of selling burgers. It is part of the reason why McDonalds has seen its first quarterly losses in this recession. You don't need eminent domain to get these properties demolished, you just need market economics. People aren't going to refuse to sell a property they bought for 500k 5 years ago if a developer comes along and offers them 1.5 million today...

Of course there are exceptions where people refuse to sell, but those are largely due to some sort of emotional attachment and that generally only lasts as long as the person operating the building is alive. For some reason I don't think the people who own all the schlock in River North are emotionally attached to their properties...

I can't think of specific examples downtown, but if you want to see one in the neighborhoods just look at North Broadway in Edgewater and Rogers park. Yeah there are a ton of placeholder drive throughs and boxes with parking lots, but they are gradually being destroyed and replaced with nice TOD midrises. I would rather have a McDonalds for 10 years than an empty lot.

Mr Downtown

Apr 19, 2009, 4:10 PM

Companies like McDonalds actually make more money off of reselling real estate that they sit on than they do off of selling burgers.

Can you offer a source for that astonishing claim? Fewer than a quarter of McDonald's locations worldwide are company-owned to begin with, and McDonald's locations virtually never close. In fact, in all Chicago, I can only think of three that have ever closed: one on Clybourn near Cabrini, 700 North Michigan, and its Chicago Place replacement.

spyguy

Apr 19, 2009, 6:20 PM

At one point there was a midrise proposed for the vacant lot on the NW corner of Grand and Lasalle. Now, apparently, there's going to be a drive-thru on two of the busiest streets in River North. Brilliant.

Ugh. Should go well with the bank across the street.

^^^ Completely agree with you TUP, River North is not an enjoyable place to walk right now anyhow, once the next boom comes it will eat up all of these little places and allow once cohesive, attractive, built environment.

The area around McDonald's and all those theme restaurants sucks for sure, but other parts of River North are nice. Unfortunately, these one story drive-thru restaurants/banks and Loewenberg towers ruin whatever character River North has left. Hopefully those two JDL towers never come to fruition.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 19, 2009, 9:04 PM

Can you offer a source for that astonishing claim? Fewer than a quarter of McDonald's locations worldwide are company-owned to begin with, and McDonald's locations virtually never close. In fact, in all Chicago, I can only think of three that have ever closed: one on Clybourn near Cabrini, 700 North Michigan, and its Chicago Place replacement.

Thats probably because there haven't been a whole lot of stand alone McDonalds built downtown where McDonalds actually owns the land instead of leasing in the bottom of a parking garage. Also, they typically don't "close" McDonalds when they replace them, they just upgrade to a new bigger building which is usually still owned by McDonald's Franchise Realty Corp. So if there is a drive through and someone says "hey I'll rent the top if you build a 5 story building" then McDonalds does it and gets even more money...

Also, 37% of McDonalds franchises in the US are owned by McDonalds. I imagine that number is much higher in the stand-alone stores we are talking about. Almost all McDonalds that aren't owned are leased by McD's and subleased to the franchiser.

Here is a history of how McDonalds didn't make any real profit until they started buying up real estate, building stores, then leasing them out to franchises.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/mcdonalds2.htm

What they don't talk about in that article is how much money McDonalds makes when it sells properties or trades properties, which is another huge source of money other than their leasing back to their franchises. Like the article says, even if they don't own it, often the McDonalds corporation leases it and then subleases it to a franchise and skims a profit off the top. This is crucial to their business model because McDonalds then has to make sure the franchise does well or they lose money because they own the property or hold the lease and are the ones who lose the money if the property goes vacant.

Then there is always the famous Ray Kroc quote:

"We are in the real estate business, not the hamburger business,"

This is not very common knowledge to most people, but its a frequently talked about case in business schools because of the ingeniousness of the scheme.

Best quote on the issue, from a Hedge Fund Manager who owns a large stake in McDonalds:

"Ackman said that despite the "fundamental misperception" that McDonald's is a restaurant company that owns a lot of real estate, "the truth is actually slightly different." Nearly 90% of its economic earnings — excluding rent, fees and other items — come from real estate, he said." -USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2005-11-15-mcdonalds_x.htm

BWChicago

Apr 19, 2009, 11:08 PM

Mr Downtown

Apr 19, 2009, 11:35 PM

I'm not questioning that McDonald's makes money by leasing properties to franchisees. But Nowhereman's original claim was that
McDonalds actually make more money off of reselling real estate that they sit on than they do off of selling burgers.
But it appears to be a rare event for McDonald's to sell real estate (at least former store locations) for redevelopment. 700 North Michigan is the only Chicago example I can think of.

VivaLFuego

Apr 20, 2009, 12:30 AM

At one point there was a midrise proposed for the vacant lot on the NW corner of Grand and Lasalle. Now, apparently, there's going to be a drive-thru on two of the busiest streets in River North. Brilliant.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3402/3452923537_b12a20f289_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericmathiasen/3452923537/)
Photo by me.

Are drive-throughs even allowed as of right in DX zoning districts?

VivaLFuego

Apr 20, 2009, 12:33 AM

Nowhereman1280

Apr 20, 2009, 12:47 AM

I'm not questioning that McDonald's makes money by leasing properties to franchisees. But Nowhereman's original claim was that

But it appears to be a rare event for McDonald's to sell real estate (at least former store locations) for redevelopment. 700 North Michigan is the only Chicago example I can think of.

To quote the USA Today article:

"Nearly 90% of its economic earnings — excluding rent, fees and other items — come from real estate, he said."

Economic earnings is a business term of art referring to pre-reinvestment profits. In other words its how much the company would be paying in dividends to its shareholders if it weren't reinvesting any of its money. They say "economic earnings - excluding rent" which would imply that they are not including the money they make renting out properties. The only other source of these profits would have to be development and sales for a profit.

As far as specific locations in Chicago where McDonalds has sold and it has been replaced with a new development, I can't say since I've only been here 4 years or so, but I can show you a few places where a McDonalds has been replaced with a nice new development in Milwaukee...

Mr Downtown

Apr 20, 2009, 2:56 AM

If you read a little further about Vornado and the investors who wanted McDonald's to spin off its real estate operations, it's primarily because the way the company was valuing the properties leased to franchisees was well below cap rates on other commercial property at the time. (Today, I think, not so much). Spinning the assets out would have produced a one-time bonus for the new shareholders. It's not because McDonald's is a big dirt investor or flipper.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 20, 2009, 3:13 AM

BWChicago

Apr 20, 2009, 4:17 AM

Well, some of the articles say that they also buy spec real estate that they project to be hot regardless of if they build on it, so that's probably a significant chunk. But this is getting rather off topic.

lawfin

Apr 20, 2009, 6:41 AM

the urban politician

Apr 20, 2009, 6:42 PM

Midway privatization deal is dead (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=33750)
By: Greg Hinz April 20, 2009
(Crain’s) — The city’s $2.52-billion deal to privatize Midway Airport is dead, a victim of poor credit market conditions.
The city announced Monday that it has terminated its contract with the consortium, led by a division of Citibank, that had agreed to run the airport and instead will pocket the $126 million in earnest money that the group had put up.

nomarandlee

Apr 20, 2009, 10:05 PM

:previous: 126 million plus the recapture of the asset doesn't sound like a bad deal.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 21, 2009, 2:02 AM

bnk

Apr 21, 2009, 3:52 AM

:previous: 126 million plus the recapture of the asset doesn't sound like a bad deal.

Great news in my opinon. Chicago needs to retain some assest at least, and an 126M payout in these times is nothing to sneeze at.

Perhaps in 10 years it may make sense, and they could even get a bigger deal] to do this at some point but after everthing else they have sold off, lets keep some assets for petes sake

Abner

Apr 21, 2009, 6:33 AM

^^^ I was upset at first when I heard that because I am all for Chicago dumping assets in exchange for cash, but then I heard about the $126 million freebie they got out of it. I'm sure they'll find another buyer and its great they'll get to use that $126 million to pad any budget losses or maybe secure some federal dollars for capital investments. Its things like this that are exactly why I love how Daley runs the city. The more like a company he runs it, the more efficient government will get.

So you would applaud if a company decided to sell an asset for less than its present value in order to disguise long-run insolvency by generating cash up front? And you would credit the CEO for trying to close a deal, failing, and incidentally picking up a chunk of the money?

Every time something gets sold or leased to a company in the private sector here, the costs that we pay stay the same and the level of service goes down. Parking meters have only become more of a headache since the sale (and I realize the price increase is not related to the privatization).

jpIllInoIs

Apr 21, 2009, 2:55 PM

^ Not only that Abner, it totally disguises a bloated work force and pension system.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 21, 2009, 4:50 PM

So you would applaud if a company decided to sell an asset for less than its present value in order to disguise long-run insolvency by generating cash up front? And you would credit the CEO for trying to close a deal, failing, and incidentally picking up a chunk of the money?

Ok, so offer one shred of evidence that the 2.5 billion dollar price tag is under priced. As far as the bloated pensions go, its the fact that the public sector is running so many businesses like Midway that has caused the pension problem. If the private sector had been dealing with the unions at Midway and other city services I can guarantee you they would be paying a hell of a lot less in the way of pensions.

Every time something gets sold or leased to a company in the private sector here, the costs that we pay stay the same and the level of service goes down. Parking meters have only become more of a headache since the sale (and I realize the price increase is not related to the privatization).

Oh you are so right! Just like how the Skyway bridge is in a greater state of disrepair now. Except not. You only have one example of that happening and that is the parking meters. The meters have been in private hands for what? A month? The problems we're having with those right now are probably just transition problems. Don't you think it would make a little sense that there would be transition problems when changing the prices and stickers on 36,000 parking meters? If there are still problems this summer, then you'll have a legitimate example, but to expect everything to transition perfectly within one or two months on such a large project is insane...

Rilestone75

Apr 21, 2009, 6:25 PM

^^^ I know what Vornado and others wanted them to do, but that is not what that quote is referencing. That quote said that 90% of McDonalds profits outside of fees and rent came from real estate activities. If they aren't making that 90% from rent, then what are they making it from? The only other thing you can do with real estate that makes money is sell it for more than you paid for it...

Absolutely! McD's has historically purchased large lots of land that it places a "franchised" store on. Using the "anchor" factor that each McDonald's has (customer traffic, etc...) they then develop the surrounding lots and sell them at a profit to other businesses that can profit as well. This may not be as evident in the city of Chicago, but look at almost every major bypass along our interstates. If you travel them frequently, you'll eventually see a new McD's pop up and shortly followed by other businesses. McD's owns or owned all that land at some point in time.

FWIW, I heard a related quote from Ray Crock, that the only reason McDonalds still sells hamburgers is because it is the easiest product for their franchises to sell, in order to pay rent...

Via Chicago

Apr 22, 2009, 1:15 AM

Its things like this that are exactly why I love how Daley runs the city.

Pass me some of whatever it is you're smoking

nomarandlee

Apr 22, 2009, 5:30 AM

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/chi-wed-solar-powerapr22,0,5438800.story

Exelon plans to build solar power plant on Chicago's South Side
Company would rely on Energy Department loan guarantees for $60 million project

By Joshua Boak | Tribune reporter
April 22, 2009

Exelon Corp. will unveil on Wednesday plans to build a $60 million solar power plant on Chicago's South Side, a small step to fighting climate change that leans heavily on government funding due to the high cost of turning sunlight into electricity..............

The advantage of solar power is panels do not have to be clustered in one location, unlike a nuclear, gas or coal plant. Exelon would install 32,800 panels on a 39-acre former industrial site in Chicago's West Pullman neighborhood, the largest project in a U.S. urban center.

The SunPower Corp.-made panels would track the sun's path, maximizing exposure. Gray Chicago skies should not be an obstacle, said Julie Blunden, vice president of public policy for SunPower.

"Chicago has better sun than Germany," Blunden said. "And Germany is the largest solar market in the world today."...........

From Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2009-04/46428191.png
An aerial-view rendering of the proposed Exelon Chicago Solar Power Plant. (Exelon)

denizen467

Apr 22, 2009, 6:00 AM

^ Holy cow, now there's some news out of left field.

But as far as geographic suitability goes, I would kind of have expected wind turbines (not necessarily at this site - the shoreline is usually better) before solar power in Chicago.

lawfin

Apr 22, 2009, 6:28 AM

^^^ANy idea on how many jobs something like this might entail??

denizen467

Apr 22, 2009, 6:31 AM

^^ Also I wonder what happens if down the road the land becomes desirable for residential or other uses - I wonder how (in)expensive it is to relocate swaths of the panels to another location.

ardecila

Apr 22, 2009, 9:05 AM

Probably expensive. Power plants need beefed-up connections to the grid, and the lines radiating outward must also be beefed-up. Relocation elsewhere would require that money to be spent again in a different place.

The site is set back one block from 119th, so the intervening block allows for consistent redevelopment along that street. IIRC, those intervening blocks are slated for a Ray and Joan Kroc Salvation Army Center designed by Helmut Jahn. I doubt development pressure will be a factor in this neighborhood for the forseeable future and even if it is, these panels will be sited to pose minimal disruption to the cityscape.

Helmut Jahn Community Center
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3123/kroccenterfv4.jpg

The only thing I'm concerned about is that Exelon provides a pathway allowing access to the Racine Avenue Metra station. This isn't shown in the rendering, however. Perhaps Metra plans to close/consolidate this station?

VivaLFuego

Apr 22, 2009, 2:41 PM

the urban politician

Apr 22, 2009, 3:02 PM

Frankly, turning the vast wastelands of southside industrial skeletons into electricity generators sounds like a pretty decent land use to me. Urban farming is iffy because I have to assume all that soil is comically contaminated, which isn't much of an issue to deal with on a single Chicago lot, but is a big frickin deal once you're talking dozens/hundreds of acres.

Now the trick is, would economies of scale eventually be achieved so solar and/or wind installations wouldn't require government subsidy?

^ Couldn't agree more. Factories aren't coming back, and we can't expect all of the land to turn into residential. Nor do we want to see giant strip centers go up everywhere.

Might as well make better use of land like this on the south and west sides, and reduce the city's carbon footprint (even if by a small amount) by using such entities to feed into the grid. I'd love to see some sites converted into wind farms as well. It would be great to see Daley really get behind this.

brian_b

Apr 22, 2009, 3:05 PM

It would be great if the solar plant could provide enough electricity for the coal-powered plant in Pilsen to be torn down.

ChicagoHiRiser

Apr 22, 2009, 8:58 PM

Bubbly Creek: Environmental advocates want to transform waterway on Chicago's South Side
Current sewage drain was a stockyards waterway bubbling with rotting animal entrails, and some see it as a wetland with walking trails
In the 1906 novel "The Jungle" that documents the perils of Chicago's Union Stock Yards, Upton Sinclair famously called a waterway in Bridgeport "a great open sewer." He was not far off.

Thirty-eight years after the stockyards closed, the days when a foul odor fills the air or bubbles ripple across the creek's surface are reminders that Bubbly Creek used to serve as a repository for stockyard waste—animal entrails and blood scraped off the killing floor.

"It's stinky, bubbling, unattractive and physically out of reach to most people," said Donald Hey, executive director of the Wetlands Initiative, a non-profit advocacy group."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-bubbly-creek-city-zoneapr22,0,384435.story

Doubt we'll see walking trails and wetlands and a swimmable creek, but this capping remediation could drastically improve air quality if it becomes reality.

whyhuhwhy

Apr 23, 2009, 11:25 AM

Frankly, turning the vast wastelands of southside industrial skeletons into electricity generators sounds like a pretty decent land use to me. Urban farming is iffy because I have to assume all that soil is comically contaminated, which isn't much of an issue to deal with on a single Chicago lot, but is a big frickin deal once you're talking dozens/hundreds of acres.

Now the trick is, would economies of scale eventually be achieved so solar and/or wind installations wouldn't require government subsidy?

Problem is that solar stations are the most expensive way to generate electricity. And that vast swath of land for that powerplant generates power for only 1200 homes according to the Tribune. Solar is just not there yet. And we happen to live in cloud city.

whyhuhwhy

Apr 23, 2009, 11:29 AM

It would be great if the solar plant could provide enough electricity for the coal-powered plant in Pilsen to be torn down.

I'm all for getting rid of the coal-powered plants, but in order to generate the same amount of electricty with solar we are talking about taking up all of Lakeview with panels!

Do people just look at "solar" and say, gee that's awesome, let's keep doing it? I'm all for new tech but just read about it. I'm also all for being "green" but I think people are acting a little nuts lately and not exactly using their brains. "Green" and "carbon footprint" are the new buzzwords to push through things that just don't make sense yet. And solar especially doesn't make any sense for Chicago especially if you are anti-sprawl. Wind farms and especially nuclear are far, far more practical and take up far less space. And they are cheaper. Nuclear is far cheaper per megawatt and takes up far less land. I don't think it's practical to take up a vast area of land of the equivalent of 500 homes just to create enough electricity for 1000! If Chicago was all solar we would need a plant that stretches well past Rockford. :jester:

harryc

Apr 23, 2009, 12:39 PM

BVictor1

Apr 23, 2009, 1:49 PM

the urban politician

Apr 23, 2009, 2:26 PM

Problem is that solar stations are the most expensive way to generate electricity. And that vast swath of land for that powerplant generates power for only 1200 homes according to the Tribune. Solar is just not there yet. And we happen to live in cloud city.

^ I see your point, but the article discusses that if an entire solar industry develops over time, those costs could decline.

Secondly, I highly doubt anybody will want to live next to a nuclear plant and perhaps even the thought of living next door to large swinging windmill arms may turn a lot of people off.

Finally, I believe that on its south and west sides Chicago has so much post-industrial land that may never see development ever again, that we might as well put it to use in this way. This may serve to 1) generate some power, and 2) reduce the amount of developable land which may ultimately have the effect of propping up land values and promote development in other more desirable areas.

BVictor1

Apr 23, 2009, 2:32 PM

VivaLFuego

Apr 23, 2009, 3:06 PM

Finally, I believe that on its south and west sides Chicago has so much post-industrial land that may never see development ever again, that we might as well put it to use in this way.

Bingo. Might as well get something out of the land. Of course solar is a relatively inefficient use of real estate, but substantially less so than vast acres of contaminated brownfield. Of course solar is less efficient at generating electricity than nuclear or even wind - but no one would want to live next to those. The demand for housing on these sites is decades away if ever - ditto industry, which will play an ever smaller role in the US economy as we continue to clamp down on pollutants and move such industry to the countries that will take it. Why not get a little juice for our lights in the meantime, particularly if economies of scale allow it to be done with minimal subsidy (certainly less subsidy than would be pissed away using TIF districts to turn the site into a strip mall?)

lawfin

Apr 23, 2009, 3:23 PM

I always envisioned solar as something you put on the roof of a building, dedicating a large swath of land to nothing but power generation is a step back. Does anyone know if ComEd is into this green grid tech that puts real time meters on each home and provides easy interfaces to small time generators, I think it is being put in in Florida now. An urban policy that buildings over a certain limit must have green or generating rooftops ?
I agree... i think...with your sentiment....it would seem that decentralized power generation would be a way to go, but obviously the power companies would be against this move

on a side not just for shits and grins any GIS experts out there who could calculate the total roof area in Chicago, both commerical and residential...imagine if we could use only 20% of the entire roof area for solar generation...I am no solar expert but it would seem to offer great potential for power generation

Rilestone75

Apr 23, 2009, 4:53 PM

I agree... i think...with your sentiment....it would seem that decentralized power generation would be a way to go, but obviously the power companies would be against this move

I agree too. :tup:

While Solar power generation has a long way to go to be comparable to Wind, Coal or Nuclear, the real problem with "Solar Farms" is one that all the other power generators deal with as well.... Transmission. The current power transmission infrastructure is so bad, that a huge percentage of the power generated at a "central" facility is lost before it reaches its destination. Decentralizing the power generation greatly reduces this problem, making the "apples to apples" comparison between solar vs. other, more equal.

My vote is to build fewer power plants and concentrate on "rewiring" our transmission grid. Although the aluminum and steel company lobbyists will never let that happen....

Abner

Apr 23, 2009, 6:22 PM

^ I see your point, but the article discusses that if an entire solar industry develops over time, those costs could decline.

There is a whole lot of room for research into better and cheaper ways to collect and store solar power. It is unfortunate that the political environment today is one in which it is considered preferable to promote this research in highly indirect ways (subsidizing industries that produce photovoltaic panels with current technology) than by simply funding the research.

There are a few operational wind farms that were built before wind technology really matured. They still work, but they're kind of a problem because the older wind turbines were more expensive and far less efficient than the current ones, so there are these farms with acres and acres of obsolete technology. I worry that subsidizing a solar plant that uses current technology would be sort of like the government giving a tax credit for buying a laserdisc player or a carphone.

Decentralized power generation is definitely the way to go in the future. The amount of energy that hits our buildings as solar energy or flows around them as wind is enormous. It will probably take quite a while for it to become commonplace because it will require architects, engineers, and construction companies to acquire new skills, but the potential payoff is huge. Does anybody know how those wind turbines on Jahn's SRO have performed?

lawfin

Apr 23, 2009, 7:41 PM

I agree too. :tup:

While Solar power generation has a long way to go to be comparable to Wind, Coal or Nuclear, the real problem with "Solar Farms" is one that all the other power generators deal with as well.... Transmission. The current power transmission infrastructure is so bad, that a huge percentage of the power generated at a "central" facility is lost before it reaches its destination. Decentralizing the power generation greatly reduces this problem, making the "apples to apples" comparison between solar vs. other, more equal.

My vote is to build fewer power plants and concentrate on "rewiring" our transmission grid. Although the aluminum and steel company lobbyists will never let that happen....

The power attenuation caused by long distant transmission is one of my arguments against sprawl / low density development as well

I mean the density in Chicago is ~~13,000/sq mile....not densities in the City vary greatly from some of the more dense urban environments in the country Near North, Lakefront Neighborhoods of North Side, to suburban style densities in areas like Sauganash , Edgebrook, Wildwood, Edision PArk, Mount Greenwood, Beverly, to quasi-rural environments in parts of Hegewish (sp??).

If the 9.5 million people could live in that style of development our metro would be 9.5million / 13,000 = 730 sq miles. Essentially we could all fit in Cook County with 250 sq miles (bigger than the city itself) to spare.

How much would that save in transmission costs, let alone road, sewer, other, infrastructure??

whyhuhwhy

Apr 23, 2009, 9:59 PM

^ I see your point, but the article discusses that if an entire solar industry develops over time, those costs could decline.

Secondly, I highly doubt anybody will want to live next to a nuclear plant and perhaps even the thought of living next door to large swinging windmill arms may turn a lot of people off.

Finally, I believe that on its south and west sides Chicago has so much post-industrial land that may never see development ever again, that we might as well put it to use in this way. This may serve to 1) generate some power, and 2) reduce the amount of developable land which may ultimately have the effect of propping up land values and promote development in other more desirable areas.

I see your point, but I think the better use of these panels would be on existing rooftops of homes, offices, warehouses, etc., rather than just dedicating land specifically for just panels. The major problem with solar is it is not practical. There are really bad limitations that are inherently physical which may never allow it to compete with nuclear or other forms of energy. In the meantime I'm all for solar but I just don't think we should dedicate actual LAND to it yet. The idea of panels on rooftops makes total sense though because that surface area is just sitting there unused anyways. Personally I'd rather have Chicago's industrial wastelands dedicated to wind farms or homes or buildings. I think wind farms can be very pretty, and they are cheaper and generate more electricity especially in a windy region of the country versus a not-very-sunny one. There are some fantastic looking wind farms that are very peaceful and in fact beautiful in Wisconsin.

the urban politician

Apr 24, 2009, 1:58 AM

Aldermen propose Chicago stimulus plan to give downtown businesses a boost (http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/1539178,chicago-stimulus-plan-downtown-businesses-042209.article)

April 22, 2009
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter
Arguing that downtown restaurants, retailers and theaters desperately need a shot in the arm, a group of aldermen today proposed their very own Chicago stimulus plan.

Like the federal plan, Chicago's version includes tax breaks.

Specifically, ten City Council members led by Aldermen Brendan Reilly (42nd) and Tom Tunney (44th) want to:

* Waive the $3-per-car city parking tax on Saturdays and Sundays in the Central Business District.

* Phase out the $4-a-month employee head tax by lopping $1 off the hated tax in each of the next four years.

* Declare a moratorium on parking meter rate hikes tied to the 75-year lease of Chicago's 36,000 parking meters until "pay-and-display" boxes are installed. Pay-and-display boxes take credit cards and are relatively free from the mechanical problems that have plagued the transition to a private contractor.

* Streamline licenses, permits and fees to the point where businesses receive "one itemized bill" each year for all the city fees they need to pay.

* Repeal the entire one percentage point increase in the Cook County sales tax pushed through last year by embattled Board President Todd Stroger. Stroger has agreed to roll back one-quarter of one percent.

"None of this is gonna be a panacea. ... It's a small change -- not a sea change," Tunney said.

"But, the federal [government] has a stimulus plan. The state has a stimulus plan. We need to do our fair share to jump-start this economy ... and stimulate consumers to shop in the Central Business District and use the parking garages, which are mostly half-occupied."

Reilly, who represents the downtown area, said the weekend parking tax waiver at garages will help lure people downtown to dine, shop and patronize Chicago's theater district.

"Downtown retailers are in very difficult times. And they need a hand up," he said.

Reilly called repeal of the Stroger sales tax increase imperative.

"We need people to come back downtown and start spending their hard-earned dollars and not fleeing to the suburbs on the weekends, which provides no benefit to city taxpayers," Reilly said.

The proposal to phase out the head tax would cost Chicago $21 million in annual revenue over a four-year period at a time when a $300 million budget gap threatens to force up to 1,600 layoffs.

But, Tunney said the tax break is worth it if it helps to slow down the avalanche of private sector layoffs.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 24, 2009, 4:26 PM

^^^ What a stupid plan, first of all its way too late to do any "stimulating" the economy is already bottoming out, second TAX CUTS DO NOTHING TO HELP THE ECONOMY WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING A DEFICIT.

There are some fantastic looking wind farms that are very peaceful and in fact beautiful in Wisconsin.

Yes they look fantastic, but they are built right next to Horicon Marsh which is one of the largest migratory bird estuaries in the United States. So essentially they function as one gigantic meat grinder pulverizing whole flocks of migrating birds... I know they installed slower turbines that are supposed to kill less birds, but they have a whole crew of people dedicated to driving around with trucks and picking up the carcasses... The construction of that wind farm was as much of an environmental crime as the supposedly eco-friendly damming of the great rivers out West. I cringe at the idea of more implementation of turbines in the Chicago area since Lake Michigan's shores are a huge migration pathway for hundreds of species of birds. They use the lake as a source of guidance as they fly. Turbines near the shore or in the lake would devastate bird populations. For the record wind power in major bird migration routes is in no way environmentally friendly.

FlashingLights

Apr 24, 2009, 4:27 PM

nowhereman the psuedo economist

Nowhereman1280

Apr 24, 2009, 4:44 PM

^^^ I am an economist (well I have my degree in it completed and am studying Finance right now). Anyone who has taken a course in government monetary and fiscal policy would know that when the government is running a deficit they are taking out debt that has to be paid back in the future. So essentially the government is exchanging higher tax rates in the future for lower tax rates now. So they are transferring future wealth to present wealth. Not only do we have to pay it back, but we have to pay it back with interest and managerial costs. Do you really think a government that is already running 300 million dollar deficits can afford to cut taxes? There is no way we will be able to pay our debt and entitlements in the future unless the government either drastically cuts services (do you like having the streets plowed, the parks maintained, and the garbage picked up? I sure do) or drastically raises taxes, which would have the same negative effect on the economy that people are trying to avoid right now.

According to your subtitle thingy, you are a wealth manager or something. If you really are educated in Economics or Finance I would assume you have at least read some of Milton Friedman's works like A Monetary History of the United States which postulates that political intervention into monetary policy is almost invariably delayed (comes too late) and that it often causes greater problems in the future (in the Great Depression it caused a recession to turn into a depression).

Rilestone75

Apr 24, 2009, 5:01 PM

^^^ What a stupid plan, first of all its way too late to do any "stimulating" the economy is already bottoming out, second TAX CUTS DO NOTHING TO HELP THE ECONOMY WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING A DEFICIT.

Yes they look fantastic, but they are built right next to Horicon Marsh which is one of the largest migratory bird estuaries in the United States. So essentially they function as one gigantic meat grinder pulverizing whole flocks of migrating birds... I know they installed slower turbines that are supposed to kill less birds, but they have a whole crew of people dedicated to driving around with trucks and picking up the carcasses... The construction of that wind farm was as much of an environmental crime as the supposedly eco-friendly damming of the great rivers out West. I cringe at the idea of more implementation of turbines in the Chicago area since Lake Michigan's shores are a huge migration pathway for hundreds of species of birds. They use the lake as a source of guidance as they fly. Turbines near the shore or in the lake would devastate bird populations. For the record wind power in major bird migration routes is in no way environmentally friendly.

Evolution my friend! If birds are too stupid to change their flight path by a few hundred yards over the course of a few years, then they don't necessarily get much pitty from me. The turbines don't move from year to year, so again. Evolve.

FWIW, putting turbines on the shore line might help with our wonderful pidgeon and gull population. I don't know too many people who would complain about that.:banana:

lawfin

Apr 24, 2009, 5:06 PM

nowhereman the psuedo economist

FlashingLights the "psuedo" spelling bee champ:jester: :jester:

lawfin

Apr 24, 2009, 5:21 PM

Evolution my friend! If birds are too stupid to change their flight path by a few hundred yards over the course of a few years, then they don't necessarily get much pitty from me. The turbines don't move from year to year, so again. Evolve.

Wow I can barely comprehend the lack of comprehension in this comment. A short phrase comes to mind "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

I suppose the birds in Alaska that die by the thousands if not millions when oil spills occur should evolve to be able to survive those incidences. I mean they occur in the same general area. Or those damn elk that keep on trying to cross the road should learn not too cross the road....?

Yes environmental pressures can lead to selection within a population, but your comment seeem to indicate a simple-minded, mechanistic reading of evoutionary theory.
What this would be is an environmental shock. Such shocks are often extremely damaging to populations. Such damage could have untold effects. As we are learning our ecosystems while not static are more sensitive to changes than we commonly realize via armchair analysis. This is a characteristic of the environment being a complex dynamic system, these systems are nonlinear and small changes can lead to big effects.

Just a note....I am not necessarily against said turbines, but I would think it is possible to design then to reduce the ecological impact....instead of cavalierly dismissing those chopped up birds as unworthy of our consideration since they are too bird-brained

ChiMack

Apr 24, 2009, 5:58 PM

with all these condos going up i heard many are still empty whats up with that?
there was an article in the tribune about all the condos build in washington park and yet they werent selling and most of them are empty

Nowhereman1280

Apr 24, 2009, 5:59 PM

FlashingLights the "psuedo" spelling bee champ:jester: :jester:

Burn... I didn't even catch that...

FWIW, putting turbines on the shore line might help with our wonderful pidgeon and gull population. I don't know too many people who would complain about that.:banana:

I don't know about that, I've heard that Chicago actually has a relatively low population of pigeons(don't know about gulls) because we have a lot of raptors (falcons and hawks, not dinosaurs) living here. There is a Peregrine Falcon that lives on top of my building and I see it gliding all over all day long looking for pigeons to eat. Having predators around really helps keep the populations in check.

Rilestone75

Apr 24, 2009, 6:24 PM

Wow I can barely comprehend the lack of comprehension in this comment. A short phrase comes to mind "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

I suppose the birds in Alaska that die by the thousands if not millions when oil spills occur should evolve to be able to survive those incidences. I mean they occur in the same general area. Or those damn elk that keep on trying to cross the road should learn not too cross the road....?

Yes environmental pressures can lead to selection within a population, but your comment seeem to indicate a simple-minded, mechanistic reading of evoutionary theory.
What this would be is an environmental shock. Such shocks are often extremely damaging to populations. Such damage could have untold effects. As we are learning our ecosystems while not static are more sensitive to changes than we commonly realize via armchair analysis. This is a characteristic of the environment being a complex dynamic system, these systems are nonlinear and small changes can lead to big effects.

Just a note....I am not necessarily against said turbines, but I would think it is possible to design then to reduce the ecological impact....instead of cavalierly dismissing those chopped up birds as unworthy of our consideration since they are too bird-brained

I knew I would catch some crap for my comments, so please don't misunderstand me. I'm not against protecting animals and I don't have a shallow understanding of evolutionary theory (although my last post was very simple). My point is that can anyone determine the "real" impact of these turbines on the bird population? Sure we can count the number of birds that die each year as a result of these wind farms, but can we determine what percentage of that specific bird species is being affected? On a large scale? Is it single handedly causing the extinction of these birds? I doubt it.

The other point in my sarcasm, was that people need to get a clue. I get so frustrate when I hear someone complain about how bad the coal power plant is to the environment, but when I ask about wind, they say that it is bad too, because of the birds.... So what is the solution? Every single type of electrical production has some form of negative affect to our environment. SO I fall in the category of which is the LEAST damaging. If a few birds happen to get wacked because we are saving X tons of CO2 from being dumped into the atomsphere, I'm all for it.

Sorry to rant, it is a friday, 81 degrees outside, and I'm stuck at work on a computer....;)

VivaLFuego

Apr 24, 2009, 6:25 PM

snip

Rilestone75

Apr 24, 2009, 6:26 PM

Burn... I didn't even catch that...

I don't know about that, I've heard that Chicago actually has a relatively low population of pigeons(don't know about gulls) because we have a lot of raptors (falcons and hawks, not dinosaurs) living here. There is a Peregrine Falcon that lives on top of my building and I see it gliding all over all day long looking for pigeons to eat. Having predators around really helps keep the populations in check.

I agree, that the Falcons and Hawks are doing a good job. We too have one in our neighborhood and I like to watch it swoop down and grab pidgeons out of the sky:tup:

ardecila

Apr 24, 2009, 6:41 PM

I fall in the category of which is the LEAST damaging. If a few birds happen to get wacked because we are saving X tons of CO2 from being dumped into the atomsphere, I'm all for it.

Sorry to rant, it is a friday, 81 degrees outside, and I'm stuck at work on a computer....;)

At the same time, if the mosquito/flying insect population goes way up in my backyard because of a lack of birds to eat them, then I'm gonna be pissed. Everything has consequences, like you said.

Wind power is perfectly fine if it is sited properly in areas away from migration routes. ("Migration routes" can cover huge areas of the country; I'm referring to specific corridors here, not large swaths)

Chicago3rd

Apr 24, 2009, 7:31 PM

make disappear please.

Nowhereman1280

Apr 24, 2009, 10:03 PM

I get so frustrate when I hear someone complain about how bad the coal power plant is to the environment, but when I ask about wind, they say that it is bad too, because of the birds.... So what is the solution? Every single type of electrical production has some form of negative affect to our environment. SO I fall in the category of which is the LEAST damaging. If a few birds happen to get wacked because we are saving X tons of CO2 from being dumped into the atomsphere, I'm all for it.

Nuclear power is the answer! If the damn hippies would let us reprocess fuel we could recover 97% of spent fuel and recycle it back into the plants. The remaining 3% waste is much less radioactive than the 97% that they recover, and it decays at a faster rate. Nuclear waste isn't an issue if you can reprocess it and then bury the remaining waste for 500 years or so until it cools off...

wrab

Apr 25, 2009, 1:03 AM

Riverwalk progress 4/24

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3342/3472359880_da6c2ef300_b.jpg

harryc

Apr 25, 2009, 1:41 AM

:previous: Wrabbit nice pics all, I like the lighting in this one, sets Trib apart from Wrigley.

munda

Apr 25, 2009, 2:43 AM

where we were told that privatizing internet, water and electricity will make things run more efficiently.
Instead the quality remained almost the same and the price was increased until it became an unaffordable luxury.
Some corporations are more efficient than government, but their motivation is not the health or the well being of the people; it's only about profit, everything else: their image, their human resources, their public relations, only exist to protect the reality behind it.
companies that invested in us and so they privatized everything. Everything in our city was owned by people that had no connection to our culture, by those who never had our interests at heart, they didn't care about our survival or well being, they just wanted to turn a profit by raping our land, by exploiting our people, our industry and our resources.

so fu*k privatizing of the city

Nowhereman1280

Apr 25, 2009, 5:39 AM

^^^ So you are saying that the internet has A. Been privatized (what do you even mean by that? Do you know what the internet is? Its a series of networks that are all connected together, its not like its some machine the government build then turned over to private markets. Private markets built their own networks and linked them together) B. is somehow less useful now than it was when it was a tiny government network only accessible from a few government institutions. and C. Is now more pricey than it was in the past. (Umm prices have dropped rapidly as speed and bandwidth has increased. Do you have any idea how expensive internet access and broadband were when they first came out?)

Also, when did they privatize water and electricity? Last time I checked water in all major cities is publicly controlled. In the country its a different matter where everyone must build their own wells.

As far as electricity goes, the only major problem that has been caused by privatization was in California. The reason that was happening was that there was a gigantic, massively corrupt, little company called Enron running lose that was blatantly manipulating the markets that were deregulated in an attempt to make them free. Manipulation of markets has been illegal in the United States for 100 years, since Teddy Roosevelt was in office. That was an example of the government not doing its job and enforcing the laws. I mean if the government suddenly didn't enforce laws against stealing don't you think that all of the "private market" stores that sell good would quickly become inefficient? Notice how the "energy crisis" in California immediately disappeared after Enron collapsed and could no longer manipulate the markets? I mean they were literally shutting down power plants in Cali so they could charge more money knowing that it would cause service outages. Thats about as perfect an example of corrupt monopolistic behavior as you can get.

BVictor1

Apr 25, 2009, 3:47 PM

For those who can make it.

Upcoming Community Meetings and Event

Chicago Central Area Plan presentation

Location: Robert Morris College auditorium, Room 803
401 S. State St. Enter on Van Buren Street

Time: 7 p.m.

Date: Thursday, April 23, 2009

As I already know, many people who live in the South Loop need to move. I attended this meeting and 4 previos ones in different neighborhoods. This is the ONLY meeting where people asked about "more parking". I seriously wanted to fucking scream. There was one guy who was saying there wasn't enough parking for family members! Seriously! Why should developers be required to provide parking for friends and family member who live in condo towers. Simple answer is, the shouldn't be required.

I must say that I was pleased when several people spoke out in high praise to the 2020 Action Plan. These peoiple stated that the loved the CTA and used it almost exclusively and that there should be less cars on the roads. They said that it was time for people to find alternative modes of transportation. This suprised and pleased me. There was even one guy who said he moved in from the suburbs a years ago and now he hardly drives.

There was one guy who asked about height and density. He's bitched about this before and i wish i could bitch slap him. He was basically told by the alderman that this wasn't the forum do discuss his question. He's asked the alderman this same question before.

Peosonally I think the city should put together a guide "City Living for Dummies". Some people might be offended, but I believe that it would be helpful.

I wish more people from these forum could or would attend more of these meetings. They are important.

the urban politician

Apr 25, 2009, 4:03 PM

Jamesmpk

Apr 25, 2009, 4:46 PM

BVictor1

Apr 25, 2009, 5:12 PM

^ Thank goodness that the new head of the South Loop Neighbors (wink wink) or whatever the exact name of the organization is, has a good head on his shoulders and doesn't obsess over parking.

BVictor, in all those meetings did anybody shed light on the chances of getting some of these projects funded? I'm most interested in the Clinton subway and the Carrol/Clinton Ave and Monroe transitways

Most of the people attending are residents. These are basically town hall meetings to explain the plan.

There really hasn't been a full explaination as to how all these projects will be funded. They'vew been working on this before it was announced that we would compete for 2016. Some of these projects are going to happen whether we get the olympics or not. However, if we do get the olympics, the fed's would help kick in more funds for infastructure and such. 50 years ago the feds paid the bulk for projects, like 80%. That number is not at about 45%

Mr Downtown

Apr 25, 2009, 5:13 PM

There was one guy who was saying there wasn't enough parking for family members! Seriously! Why should developers be required to provide parking for friends and family member who live in condo towers.

I know the issue pales in relation to world hunger and music piracy, but there is a bit of a problem with nonaccessory parking as the South Loop is built out. Probably the biggest problem area at the moment is Central Station. Since virtually all the accessory parking is deeded parking within the towers, there's no place for people who visit (either the residents or the businesses) to park. All the surrounding streets are either metered or permit parking. Even if they build or have excess spaces, condo developers and associations are very resistant to the idea of "outsiders" parking in their building.

So it's not a huge issue, but as the neighborhood develops, we need to make sure that there is parking for visitors. It certainly doesn't have to be free, or in the same building, but even the Loop has places for visitors to park. Central Station does not.

BVictor1

Apr 25, 2009, 5:55 PM

I know the issue pales in relation to world hunger and music piracy, but there is a bit of a problem with nonaccessory parking as the South Loop is built out. Probably the biggest problem area at the moment is Central Station. Since virtually all the accessory parking is deeded parking within the towers, there's no place for people who visit (either the residents or the businesses) to park. All the surrounding streets are either metered or permit parking. Even if they build or have excess spaces, condo developers and associations are very resistant to the idea of "outsiders" parking in their building.

So it's not a huge issue, but as the neighborhood develops, we need to make sure that there is parking for visitors. It certainly doesn't have to be free, or in the same building, but even the Loop has places for visitors to park. Central Station does not.

I think that that's something that the alderman should take up with those associations. There's nothing wrong with over night visitors using metered parking. The problem is that we all need to stop using are cars for everything, myself included. IF there is to be additional parking in the area, it should be within a new development and the residents need to insist that most of it be placed underground. No more podiums.

At least you're being reasonable about it.

The one guy i was mentioning last night seemed like a total car whore. I overheard him saying that that's the reason why he didn't live in Mew York or Streeterville; so that he could drive and park. I found that quite ignorant. You don't move downtown or the central area just to be able to drive and park. You as an avid biker I'm sure can agree with that.

Jibba

Apr 25, 2009, 7:57 PM

hey peoples. I've been lurking on this board before the trump tower in Chicago was even stated (sun-times was still where the trump is now). I tried to sign up a few years back but it wouldn't take my email. Anyways, I just had a question for all the Chicago people who can help out. Can someone PLEASE go and see how that five story bulding is coming along in Humboldt Park (North ave and California)? Also between North and division, on Kedzie Ave they are building Cubs Care Park. Can someone check that out for me too?

I used to live in Chicago and I just want to know how those projects are coming along.

Almost complete, if not already there. Yo Chicago has had some recent photos of it if you'd like to see what the almost-finished product looks like. I've been by it quite a few times but have been too blinded by its awful silver finish to place it in view long enough to get a good look at it.

Jamesmpk

Apr 25, 2009, 8:23 PM

Almost complete, if not already there. Yo Chicago has had some recent photos of it if you'd like to see what the almost-finished product looks like. I've been by it quite a few times but have been too blinded by its awful silver finish to place it in view long enough to get a good look at it.

I see it. Thank you

Jibba

Apr 25, 2009, 9:54 PM

...The one guy i was mentioning last night seemed like a total car whore. I overheard him saying that that's the reason why he didn't live in Mew York or Streeterville; so that he could drive and park...

Yeah, dude was a real piece of work, wasn't he? Benet tried to explain that part of the Central Area Plan of 2003 was reduced off-street parking ratios that would encourage other modes of transportation, and the guy didn't understand that this would ease parking problems in the neighborhood; in fact, he was quite incredulous, not even taking the time to let Benet finish explaining how this can help ease traffic congestion, and instead he continued his mindless bitching about how he wants more parking everywhere wherever possible. Benet said that "less people will need parking because there will be less automobiles" but all the guy hears is the words "less" and "parking" in succession and decides that he needs to repeat the same tired mantra of "more parking, more parking, more parking..." Complete moron. Sadly, he and a bunch of other idiotic suburban expatriates were the most vocal members at the meeting. Benet got verbally gang raped by these people at the end of the meeting, too, far after the hour-plus-long Q&A session that was allotted to their self-righteous circle jerk. It was rather pathetic and repulsive to watch, but, sadly and regrettably, I decided not to enter the fray for fear of my safety.

Mr Downtown

Apr 26, 2009, 4:00 AM

There's nothing wrong with over night visitors using metered parking.
Are you volunteering to go out every two hours all night and put in seven quarters each time? Remember that at 8 the next morning the rate goes up to seven quarters each hour, if it's not a tow zone from 7-9 am. And of course from Dec. 1 to Apr. 1 you probably can't park there.

I overheard him saying that that's the reason why he didn't live in New York or Streeterville; so that he could drive and park. I found that quite ignorant. You don't move downtown or the central area just to be able to drive and park.

Take a breath and think about this. A guy looks around and decides that he likes the South Loop, because it's not as congested as Streeterville. He likes the combination of modern amenities, transit access, and proximity to the Loop. He moves in, to the benefit of all Chicago. You come along, visiting from a neighborhood where parking is never a problem, and arbitrarily declare that he lives "downtown" and that he should not complain about losing one of the features that originally made the neighborhood attractive to him. Why can't different neighborhoods (and the South Loop is a neighborhood, not "downtown") have different attributes?

Abner

Apr 26, 2009, 5:00 AM

To pick up on the turbine/bird thing from a few posts back, wind turbines have negligible impact on bird mortality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_wind_power#Impact_on_wildlife). Buildings, cars, and (most of all) cats are the main human-related bird killers, and they kill hundreds of millions of birds a year. Their bird-killing reputation is probably due to the obsolete wind turbines used at Altamont Pass and a few other sensitive places, for reasons explained here. (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php) I think that most parties that raise concerns about birds have ulterior motives, either to maintain the energy status quo or for NIMBY reasons, because almost all environmentalists serious enough to be politically active know that the bird stuff is mostly bogus. Now bats might be a somewhat more serious concern, but we're unlikely to see a campaign to protect them...

^^^ I am an economist (well I have my degree in it completed and am studying Finance right now). Anyone who has taken a course in government monetary and fiscal policy would know that when the government is running a deficit they are taking out debt that has to be paid back in the future. So essentially the government is exchanging higher tax rates in the future for lower tax rates now. So they are transferring future wealth to present wealth. Not only do we have to pay it back, but we have to pay it back with interest and managerial costs. Do you really think a government that is already running 300 million dollar deficits can afford to cut taxes? There is no way we will be able to pay our debt and entitlements in the future unless the government either drastically cuts services (do you like having the streets plowed, the parks maintained, and the garbage picked up? I sure do) or drastically raises taxes, which would have the same negative effect on the economy that people are trying to avoid right now.

According to your subtitle thingy, you are a wealth manager or something. If you really are educated in Economics or Finance I would assume you have at least read some of Milton Friedman's works like A Monetary History of the United States which postulates that political intervention into monetary policy is almost invariably delayed (comes too late) and that it often causes greater problems in the future (in the Great Depression it caused a recession to turn into a depression).

Nowhereman, it is not particularly nice to pull rank and pretend to be an authority on a subject, then completely distort the topic at hand. First of all, I have no idea what "political intervention into monetary policy" means, as monetary policy is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Fed and has played zero role in the political debate. There's good reason for this: monetary policy is already as loose as it can possibly go. The Fed has done everything in its power to bring interest rates as low as they can go and explosively increase the money supply (unless you favor some truly exotic and risky quantitative easing that the best evidence shows is not a promising tool). None of Friedman and Schwartz's (always cite coauthors!) criticisms of the Fed during the Depression apply to the current situation.

Second, your claim about fiscal policy appears to be a mishmash of the Treasury View and Ricardian equivalence, which have both been put into the economic dustbin by WW2 and mountains of empirical evidence, respectively. I know you were responding to the idea of local stimulus, which is very different, but you seem to be making a general argument about all layers of government. I'm not interested in a debate about economics (even if it would be taken to some appropriate thread), but I wish you wouldn't pretend to speak for all economists when you most definitely do not.

Having said that, I think the economics behind fiscal stimulus really only applies to federal spending because of sharp limits on the ability of smaller units of government to finance spending with deficits. If politicians in Illinois want to see more stimulus money spent here, they would better use their time working in Congress to pass a second round of stimulus legislation.

lawfin

Apr 26, 2009, 9:13 AM

Perhaps you can provide a reference to a post in which I've ever called for more parking. I believe this is a complete list:

The ease and arrogance you facilely misrepresent your history of arument on this site and ssc belies your over reliance on such argumentative tropes as straw man , false dilemna etc

Do you really want to continue with your lie that your line of
I know the issue pales in relation to world hunger and music piracy, but there is a bit of a problem with nonaccessory parking as the South Loop is built out. Probably the biggest problem area at the moment is Central Station. Since virtually all the accessory parking is deeded parking within the towers, there's no place for people who visit (either the residents or the businesses) to park. All the surrounding streets are either metered or permit parking. Even if they build or have excess spaces, condo developers and associations are very resistant to the idea of "outsiders" parking in their building.

So it's not a huge issue, but as the neighborhood develops, we need to make sure that there is parking for visitors. It certainly doesn't have to be free, or in the same building, but even the Loop has places for visitors to park. Central Station does not.

Perhaps you can provide a reference to a post in which I've ever called for more parking. I believe this is a complete list:

Umm the above is just the most recent sample.

Number ???
oh by the way this is not the 1st instance.....I just have not had the time nor the need to feel as if I had to show evidence of my premise

I knew you, yourself, would do it for me eventually

You really need to be educated on the distinction between explicit argument and implication

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4216562&postcount=6881

You are aware that the world doesn't consist entirely of healthy men in their 20s who live along the Red Line. As an exercise in s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g your mind, let's try a little rôle-playing exercise:

Never said it did.....

How about an execise in stretching your argumentative strategy beyond straw man and false dilemna

First, let's imagine that you live in Freeport and want to take your family to a Cubs game. Will it seem like a good idea to hold your wailing overtired toddler and keep up with the other two kids while riding a standing-room-only bus back to your minivan at Lane Tech? That night, will it have seemed like a good idea to your wife?

Next, let's imagine you want to take your diabetic dad (who has trouble walking) and his elderly brother to a Sunday afternoon game. How simple does it seem to find a suburban Metra station where nonresidents are allowed to park, make two transfers downtown to get to the Red Line, then walk from the Addison station? Even worse, what happens when you look at your watch after the exciting final out and realize that you're now facing a hour to get back to Union Station, where you'll have to wait two hours for the next train?

Finally, let's imagine you're escorting a group of Cub Scouts from Hoffman Estates to see a major-league game. After extensive research, you've figured out how to ride the bus from Woodfield Transportation Center and convinced the boys' moms that they won't be snatched off the sidewalk by perverts if they're allowed to visit the city. But now the game's over, the wind has turned off the lake, the boys have drunk way too much pop, and you're facing a 90-minute ride back to Schaumburg on a bus—with no bathroom—full of overserved frat boys who are helping the Scouts improve their vocabularies.

Still think anybody who would drive to Wrigley, under any circumstances, is a wanker?

Still want to claim that None of your posts calls for more parking?

Or will you admit you are a liar or at best have a bad memory?

And to TUP, yes Mr D-town is the clownish shadow guy, but he is also the parking guy....he has made the argument many, many times that addtional parking should be available for "people in a highly mobile society" , for relatives, for visitors.....

bottom line the guy wants to ban shadows d-town in grant park and by implication ban taller developement where such development might impact the precious sun-lawn ration in Grant Park, AND additionally want more parking for the above non-residential users.......his time on this board and ssc is replete with ratiocination that such an outcome is the best outcome

the urban politician

Apr 26, 2009, 2:46 PM

Take a breath and think about this. A guy looks around and decides that he likes the South Loop, because it's not as congested as Streeterville. He likes the combination of modern amenities, transit access, and proximity to the Loop. He moves in, to the benefit of all Chicago. You come along, visiting from a neighborhood where parking is never a problem, and arbitrarily declare that he lives "downtown" and that he should not complain about losing one of the features that originally made the neighborhood attractive to him. Why can't different neighborhoods (and the South Loop is a neighborhood, not "downtown") have different attributes?

^ Is this really a serious attempt on your part to have sympathy for somebody who moves into an area a couple of blocks from the Loop and expects it to remain a spacious, parking-rich hamlet in perpetuity?

Once again Mr D tries to ply his hobby of being the devil's advocate instead of locking step with the common sense crowd. Never mind that this butt-head being discussed above didn't do his homework when shopping for where to live. No--according to Mr. D, it's all THEIR FAULT, the Planning Dept, for suggesting that the south loop will eventually grow, prosper, and perhaps not be the suburban hamlet that one guy dreamed of it being 10 years ago as he bought property adjacent to the nation's second largest Central Business District.. :rolleyes:

Nowhereman1280

Apr 26, 2009, 3:17 PM

Nowhereman, it is not particularly nice to pull rank and pretend to be an authority on a subject, then completely distort the topic at hand. First of all, I have no idea what "political intervention into monetary policy" means, as monetary policy is left almost entirely to the discretion of the Fed and has played zero role in the political debate. There's good reason for this: monetary policy is already as loose as it can possibly go. The Fed has done everything in its power to bring interest rates as low as they can go and explosively increase the money supply (unless you favor some truly exotic and risky quantitative easing that the best evidence shows is not a promising tool). None of Friedman and Schwartz's (always cite coauthors!) criticisms of the Fed during the Depression apply to the current situation.

I'm not pulling rank, I was responding to someone who suggested that I don't really know anything about economics by saying, well I literally am an economist by field. No, the Fed does play a political role, just because they are theoretically separate does not mean they don't coordinate their actions with fiscal policy and national legislation. Also, I was primarily referring to the pre-Volker fed which was much more politically influenced. No, monetary policy is not as loose as it can go, there was literally no government influence over interest rates prior to 1913 and monetary intervention didn't begin in earnest until 1929. What I would prefer is for the fed to let rates float and stop buying and selling treasuries and other debt issued by the government. Also, I only didn't cite Schwartz because was only referring to the book as an example of something Friedman authored. I have nothing but the highest respect of Anna Schwartz who I think is still one of the greatest living economists.

However, this is completely off topic and needs to go elsewhere or just stop here.

Abner

Apr 26, 2009, 4:35 PM

I'm not pulling rank, I was responding to someone who suggested that I don't really know anything about economics by saying, well I literally am an economist by field. No, the Fed does play a political role, just because they are theoretically separate does not mean they don't coordinate their actions with fiscal policy and national legislation. Also, I was primarily referring to the pre-Volker fed which was much more politically influenced. No, monetary policy is not as loose as it can go, there was literally no government influence over interest rates prior to 1913 and monetary intervention didn't begin in earnest until 1929. What I would prefer is for the fed to let rates float and stop buying and selling treasuries and other debt issued by the government. Also, I only didn't cite Schwartz because was only referring to the book as an example of something Friedman authored. I have nothing but the highest respect of Anna Schwartz who I think is still one of the greatest living economists.

However, this is completely off topic and needs to go elsewhere or just stop here.

You are free to think what you want and I'll stop the argument here, I just prefer that you not represent your opinion as the natural result of education in economics when your stated position appears to put you in the Austrian school, quite a small camp indeed (which is no reason in and of itself to dismiss it).

ardecila

Apr 26, 2009, 6:45 PM

^ Is this really a serious attempt on your part to have sympathy for somebody who moves into an area a couple of blocks from the Loop and expects it to remain a spacious, parking-rich hamlet in perpetuity?

Once again Mr D tries to ply his hobby of being the devil's advocate instead of locking step with the common sense crowd. Never mind that this butt-head being discussed above didn't do his homework when shopping for where to live. No--according to Mr. D, it's all THEIR FAULT, the Planning Dept, for suggesting that the south loop will eventually grow, prosper, and perhaps not be the suburban hamlet that one guy dreamed of it being 10 years ago as he bought property adjacent to the nation's second largest Central Business District.. :rolleyes:

I don't know, I don't see any major problems with Mr. D's position. The way to handle a parking issue is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and abolish parking altogether. If the presence of parking creates a negative effect on the streetscape, i.e. the "urban feel" that all of us seem to desire, then that negative effect should be addressed through design and not through a wholesale prohibition of parking.

We've seen solutions like burying parking or fronting garages with townhomes in other places, as ways to mitigate the unpleasantness that parking inserts into our cities.

So my question is: if parking can be addressed in this manner, then why do you still stand in the way of it? You act as if people will naturally turn to their cars in all circumstances, even in one of the densest, most urban neighborhoods in Chicago, not realizing the problems like traffic, gas, and parking at the destination.

Transit is already a very convenient option in Chicago, and banning parking is not going to make the incorrigible people who insist on driving into transit-loving urbanites. They simply will choose not to live in the South Loop. You might say "Good riddance" but keep in mind that many other buyers are turned off by the lack of parking that will, in fact, discover transit despite the fact that they have a car.

Mr Downtown

Apr 26, 2009, 7:17 PM

Still want to claim that None of your posts calls for more parking?

I'll stand by that claim, yes.

Saying that the parking in new buildings needs to be managed so it's available to visitors and nonresidents is not calling for more parking.

Pointing out that there are rational reasons why a baseball fan might drive to Wrigley Field is not calling for more parking there.

TUP's suggestion that I'm merely playing devil's advocate fails to recognize that there could be any rational position between the status quo and another forumer's radical view that cars have no place in a city.

My world, the real world, is one of nuance and competing interests. Pointing out the side effects of a prescription doesn't mean you're in favor of the disease. Acknowledging the existence of the automobile does not mean we must grant it supremacy over our lives. In fact, to not acknowledge the automobile is for a designer to simply assume away part of the problem.

I don't know where the gentleman BVictor overheard lives, but Cullerton/Indiana is more than a couple blocks from the Loop. Someone who chose a townhouse there based partly on availability of parking nearby certainly has no guarantee that will always be the case—but I don't think they've completely forfeited the right to complain about it.

For what it's worth, this is what's in the Central Area Action Plan:

Page 4-48 Chapter 4: Central Area Planning Subdistricts Draft
South Loop
Policies & Actions
Regulatory
•The parking policy in the South Loop merits review as surface lots give way to new development. Minimum parking ratios may not be creating enough spaces for visitors and business customers and, therefore, contributing to localized parking shortages and circulation problems.

Page 4-52 Chapter 4: Central Area Planning Subdistricts Draft
Near South
Policies & Actions
Regulatory
•The accessory parking policy in this district merits review; minimum residential parking ratios are not creating enough spaces. The loss of surface parking lots is also contributing to parking shortages or circulation problems.

Chicago3rd

Apr 26, 2009, 9:48 PM

Page 4-48 Chapter 4: Central Area Planning Subdistricts Draft
South Loop
Policies & Actions
Regulatory
•The parking policy in the South Loop merits review as surface lots give way to new development. Minimum parking ratios may not be creating enough spaces for visitors and business customers and, therefore, contributing to localized parking shortages and circulation problems.

Page 4-52 Chapter 4: Central Area Planning Subdistricts Draft
Near South
Policies & Actions
Regulatory
•The accessory parking policy in this district merits review; minimum residential parking ratios are not creating enough spaces. The loss of surface parking lots is also contributing to parking shortages or circulation problems.

But aren't some of our most desirable neighborhoods...Lakeview and Lincoln park have these very issues this plan is concerned with and yet they are vibrant well to do neighborhoods with thriving businesses. What standard is the study using to determine "not creating enough spaces."?

Mr Downtown

Apr 26, 2009, 9:58 PM

Lakeview and Lincoln Park have on-street parking. Much of the South Loop does not.

pilsenarch

Apr 26, 2009, 11:02 PM

With regards to parking, this is one area that I believe the free market actually works quite well. So, for example, if the guy who moved to Cullerton/Indiana finds that growth has eliminated his much-desired easy street-parking scenario, then let him move.

If he doesn't move, and just likes to bitch at meetings with the alderman, then it is more then likely that an enterprising developer will find a way to provide payed parking and the problem will be solved. If the guy still wants free parking, then again, he will move and someone with more realistic expectations will move in behind him.

It is the way the city grows, (with the exception of the City of Chicago's abandoned foray into the mid-century commercial parking business), and it will most likely remain the best way to proceed.

Requiring developers to build more parking then they are able or willing to sell and then somehow force the associations to manage this parking is wholly unrealistic and, I believe, environmentally unsound.

Abner

Apr 27, 2009, 12:44 AM

Lakeview and Lincoln Park have on-street parking. Much of the South Loop does not.

The densest parts of the South Loop would be too dense for on-street parking to meet local parking requirements even if the streets weren't taken up by loading zones, traffic lanes, meters, etc. Most of Lakeview and Lincoln Park have scarce parking, but the street plus garages accessed from the alley are enough for residents. Maybe this is part of the reason I prefer neighborhoods that are just about at the highest level of density that is consistent with entirely ground-level parking: drivers don't have to mess with the inconvenience of multi-story garages, and the rest of us don't have to put up with the blight that such garages' massive footprints create.

Are Chicago's relatively large blocks, and accordingly low density of street parking, part of the problem here? We do not seem to be able to get away with as much density as some other cities (Brooklyn, DC, Portland, San Francisco among them) before we run out of parking on the street.

pip

Apr 27, 2009, 1:22 AM

Lakeview and Lincoln Park have on-street parking. Much of the South Loop does not.

I can guanantee you even with Lakeview and Lincoln Park having on-street parking that there are way less spots available per household than the South Loop no matter how you cut it.

Population density of the South Loop 4866 people per square mile, Schaumburg - only 900 people per square less. Lakeview, population 91,000 - 30,000 people per square mile and Lakeview East, the more popular part of Lakeview is about 43,000 people a square mile. Think of all the apartments and three flats that have no parking and yet Lakeview/Lincoln Park are some of the most desired neighborhoods in the city and that is because of the walkablity, transit access, and the restaurant, retail, and other business.

One thing that has always perplexed me is why people want to recreate Schaumburg in a neighborhood adjacent to the Loop. Instead of people fighting for more people and density, thus more retail services and other stuff will arrive, people fight for parking and parking.

You want a Lakeview type neighborhood with plenty of parking thus meaning it would have to be low density? Thats impossible.

the urban politician

Apr 27, 2009, 2:54 AM

I don't know, I don't see any major problems with Mr. D's position. The way to handle a parking issue is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and abolish parking altogether. If the presence of parking creates a negative effect on the streetscape, i.e. the "urban feel" that all of us seem to desire, then that negative effect should be addressed through design and not through a wholesale prohibition of parking.

We've seen solutions like burying parking or fronting garages with townhomes in other places, as ways to mitigate the unpleasantness that parking inserts into our cities.

So my question is: if parking can be addressed in this manner, then why do you still stand in the way of it? You act as if people will naturally turn to their cars in all circumstances, even in one of the densest, most urban neighborhoods in Chicago, not realizing the problems like traffic, gas, and parking at the destination.

Transit is already a very convenient option in Chicago, and banning parking is not going to make the incorrigible people who insist on driving into transit-loving urbanites. They simply will choose not to live in the South Loop. You might say "Good riddance" but keep in mind that many other buyers are turned off by the lack of parking that will, in fact, discover transit despite the fact that they have a car.

^ Where the heck did I ever say parking should be "banned" altogether, or "abolished"?

Sorry, you're not replying to my post. You're replying to somebody else

the urban politician

Apr 27, 2009, 3:15 AM

TUP's suggestion that I'm merely playing devil's advocate fails to recognize that there could be any rational position between the status quo and another forumer's radical view that cars have no place in a city.

My world, the real world, is one of nuance and competing interests.

^ Bull, bull, bull

So now you try this method, eh? Trying to come across as the "reasonable", nuanced person while all of us "radicals" remain out of touch with reality? Do you honestly think so lowly of the people you are debating with? Do you think, for example, that I'm not a grown up professional with a car living in a city?

What a crock. I'm fully aware that car ownership is a reality of life. My point stands, though--if you buy property within blocks of the nation's second largest CBD, expect to lose the hamlet. That doesn't mean there won't be parking, but don't expect it to be very cheap or omnipresent.

Now where is what I just said unreasonable?

Bottom line--why do you waste time with us "radicals" if you always insist on disagreeing with us? Your mission in life to defend individuals driven by nothing more than self-interest is not offensive to me, but why you visit SSP day in and day out knowing very well that such a philosophy is the antithesis around here just plain confounds me.

HowardL

Apr 27, 2009, 3:35 AM

Lakeview, population 91,000 - 30,000 people per square mile and Lakeview East, the more popular part of Lakeview is about 43,000 people a square mile. Think of all the apartments and three flats that have no parking and yet Lakeview/Lincoln Park are some of the most desired neighborhoods in the city and that is because of the walkablity, transit access, and the restaurant, retail, and other business.You pegged it. And it's not just the walk ups. I live in a vintage midrise on the Drive. No parking. Never even crossed my mind before I bought here. If parking were an issue for me, I would have bought somewhere .... west of here.

Mr Downtown

Apr 27, 2009, 3:55 AM

I don't mean to belittle anyone. But your "devil's advocate" comment makes it sound as if I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing, instead of from real conviction and a robust theory of urban development formed by many decades of study.

In other settings, including neighborhood meetings, you would find me strenuously arguing with those who think they're entitled to cheap, omnipresent parking, or who think that density is dangerous.

I thought the purpose of the forum was discussion. If it's merely cheerleading, perhaps you could let me know where to find the list of approved views.

As for Lakeview and Lincoln Park parking, those are the precise examples I use to argue with people worried that the South Loop is becoming "too dense." When we talk about street parking, though, we should note some differences:

Folks don't drive to Lakeview for cheap parking and walk or take a quick bus ride to Loop offices. The South Loop has to accommodate (or prohibit in certain places) these daily "invaders."
The South Loop has a lot of commuter routes where street parking has to be prohibited during rush hours: Michigan, State, Clark.
The demographic mix is different, with Lakeview and Lincoln Park having more carless young people and elderly, in small units. The South Loop, for better or worse, has a big component of middle-class middle-agers and empty-nesters.

the urban politician

Apr 27, 2009, 5:20 AM

^ I know you're reasonable, Mr D, and perhaps I came on a bit too strong.

But if I were to summarize what concerns me the most briefly, I'd do it like this:

In a city as bold and ambitious as Chicago, among the most grave mistakes that can be made is giving newcomers a false sense that they will be among the few benefactors of the most desirable resources of the city (ie prime real estate, space, parking, etc downtown) without having to pay the price. I think the city would be better off by, in some way/shape/form, making it more obvious from the very beginning that the great resources offered by the city will simply have to be shared by a large number of people. A whole lot of controversy could be avoided in this way.

This is why I have long felt that the whole "have it your way" philosophy espoused by Chicago needs to fade away. It's okay to let people compete for resources; in fact, in my observation it is human nature to desire something that is somewhat a challenge to obtain. For example, why must it be a city policy to create more parking? If a private developer wants to build a parking garage, let him do it! It certainly has happened in plenty of other places in the city; so frankly, why mandate extra parking for no reason?

VivaLFuego

Apr 27, 2009, 3:38 PM

I'll tepidly throw my hat in with MrD here - while there is ample off-street accessory parking deeded to housing units and ample metered street parking for short-term stays in South Loop, there are a few areas where there is a near complete absence of parking available at any price for medium-term stays (e.g. 6-24 hours, overnight). To be sure, it's a highly localized problem, particularly getting south of Roosevelt and in Central Station as MrD points out. It really is a problem unique to South Loop, as most other neighborhoods in the Central Area either have publicly-accessible off-street parking, e.g. the garages in River North and Gold Coast, or are much lower density and have unmetered street parking as in West Loop.

Just because there is a need for carefully considered parking facilities doesn't imply that there should be retail strip malls with acres of asphalt wastelands sitting unused for 99% of the year. It's important to draw a line in the sand against the people who would turn South Loop into Schaumburg as many undoubtedly would, but having some medium-term parking available at an appropriate price (i.e. not free/subsidized) is actually important for the economic vitality of the area, particularly if there are aspirations for it being mixed-use. For myriad reasons, there are some people who will only ever go to South Loop by automobile, and while they shouldn't be subsidized in doing so (that is to say, they should have to pay a commensurate price for storing their vehicle in downtown Chicago where real estate value is at a premium), it should at least be feasible.

Generally, parking availability can be taken care of by the "free market" as pilsenarch suggests - this is why I so strongly supported hiking street meter rates, as cheap meters underprice the real estate in busy retail districts and cause a shortage of availability. But if there are no spaces even available to let the market price, the discussion is moot, and I believe that is MrD's contention in re: South Loop parking.