CHICAGO | General Developments

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by lawfin

Wasn't there already a plan to replace the L with a subway back in the 1970's? I don't think it included maintaining the L in situ though

Yes, part of the reason it failed was that the public balked at the idea of losing our historic and precious El. For as much as Chicago loves to 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the CTA, we are completely enamored with the fact that we have an elevated train and that, unlike other elevated trains, it rides on ancient trusses impossibly suspended over our city streets. Its a strange dynamic. You'd think there would be more of a hatred of the noise and its apparent ugly appearance, but its just one of those things that makes Chicago Chicago. I can't imagine Chicago without it, when your eardrums are ruptured by the earsplitting thunder of a heavy rail subway train shooting over your head on 130 year old iron/steel trusses at 55 mph you know you are in Chicago.

Originally Posted by emathias

I'd be okay with that in general, especially if the focus was more on providing a "bike highway" and less on providing a pedestrian path, since I think removing pedestrians from the street is bad for commerce and bad for the "feel" of the city. Bikes, on the other hand, often both threaten pedestrians and interfere with vehicle traffic. It would be pretty cool, though, either way.

Yeah, the idea would be to make it accessible to both, but bike centric. I don't think a lot of people would use it for walking anyhow because it would act as more of a get away from the street and less as a walk way. Though, in a hypothetical situation where Chicago's downtown population dramatically densifies and increases, it could be used to create an interesting environment where the first two floors of all the buildings are used as retail (assuming additional demand) and are connected to the L-Way by ramps or full scale plazas where new buildings are built. It would be very futuristic, applying the principles pioneered by Netsch at UIC to a full scale city.

[lawfin]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Yes, part of the reason it failed was that the public balked at the idea of losing our historic and precious El. For as much as Chicago loves to 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 about the CTA, we are completely enamored with the fact that we have an elevated train and that, unlike other elevated trains, it rides on ancient trusses impossibly suspended over our city streets. Its a strange dynamic. You'd think there would be more of a hatred of the noise and its apparent ugly appearance, but its just one of those things that makes Chicago Chicago. I can't imagine Chicago without it, when your eardrums are ruptured by the earsplitting thunder of a heavy rail subway train shooting over your head on 130 year old iron/steel trusses at 55 mph you know you are in Chicago.



Yeah, the idea would be to make it accessible to both, but bike centric. I don't think a lot of people would use it for walking anyhow because it would act as more of a get away from the street and less as a walk way. Though, in a hypothetical situation where Chicago's downtown population dramatically densifies and increases, it could be used to create an interesting environment where the first two floors of all the buildings are used as retail (assuming additional demand) and are connected to the L-Way by ramps or full scale plazas where new buildings are built. It would be very futuristic, applying the principles pioneered by Netsch at UIC to a full scale city.

I would by kind of neat if a sort of mezzanine level retail developed....I think this would be unique in the world.....though not sure of that.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by lawfin

I would by kind of neat if a sort of mezzanine level retail developed....I think this would be unique in the world.....though not sure of that.

Exactly. I mean as it is right now the L really is a unique structure. Yeah a few other cities used them, but they are not as old as Chicago's and they are not as extensive and they don't occupy a bunch of urban canyons like the loop does.

As much as I love the roar of the L and the views of trains crossing the river, I think at some point Chicago needs to face the writing on the wall and realize that elevated trains are just more expensive in the long run. I mean the train cars and elevated structure get salted all winter long by spray and require maintenance. The structure itself needs a complete rebuild far more often than a subway which can last hundreds of years. Its just something we need to prepare ourselves for in this city. At some point we need to be ready to give up our antique means of PT and hopefully be ready at that point to turn it into another, even more irreplaceable, treasure.

Plus how awesome would it be to have a big elevated circle of green encircling your business district?

[djlx2v2]

.

[djlx2v2]

.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by djlx2v2

also: awesome link. what do we do to make that happen now?

I'm not sure it's politically possible, but if you want to at least keep the idea out there you could always submit a proposal to Rahm's transition committee, send a suggestion to the CTA, and send an email to your alderman.

You could also get involved with the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning and/or the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce's Transportation Infrastructure Committee.

[Rizzo]

New UNO Elementary School, Back of the Yards







Photos by me

[Godwindaniel]

I strongly think that its use and design is totally unnecessary and inappropriate.

[J_M_Tungsten]

^^^ for the school?

[i_am_hydrogen]

[ardecila]

Gross. I dislike orange brick even more than I dislike purple brick. Can't we just stick with white, black, cream, and red?

[i_am_hydrogen]

It's not just the color that's awful. The entire building is 🞵🞵🞵🞵-ugly.

[ardecila]

I don't think the design is unattractive, it's just inappropriate.

If CPS was really planning properly, they could have consolidated into a 4-story school, leaving the east half of the block to be leased later for high-rise development. The future proceeds from the lease would more than cover the added construction cost of the taller building.

CPS' land policies in general are astoundingly stupid. They occupy bloated plots in some of the city's most desirable neighborhoods, and yet every year they complain about how they don't have enough money to provide decent education to kids. Then, when they need more land to build new schools, they carve chunks of land out of public parks, paying nothing since it's just a transfer from CPD.

[VivaLFuego]

^ It's a much broader issue than just CPS's real estate practice (or lack thereof). It ties into the fundamental distortions of (1) institutions having tax exempt land, gifting us with stuff like private parking lots in high-demand areas with little economic incentive to do otherwise; and (2) the basic incompatibility of normal real estate transactions and the government procurement/ethics process.

In re: disposition of excess land, unlike China (where land sales are the fundamental revenue source for government), it's just a very controversial and time consuming process here, all the moreso when the land is ever more valuable and ends up being steered toward ever more connected private interests (remember the Wilson Yard fiasco). The sale can't occur via a normal market transaction with offers, counteroffers, and the like; rather, it has to go through essentially a reverse procurement process, and all that entails vis-a-vis financial disclosure (which itself deters a lot of potential buyer interest), bidder qualification, and nebulous/subjective "public goals" that may be specified in the RFP due to political pressure. In fact, it can take so long that the owner basically misses a market cycle, and that a potential developer can't adequately manage his risk or make it profitable within the restrictions set by the seller, so at the end of the day it's pretty easy for both sides to deem it not worth the trouble.

[spyguy]

http://www.suntimes.com/photos/galleries...o-be-reborn-from-ashes-of-2006-fire.html

Pilgrim Baptist Church to be reborn from ashes of 2006 fire
BY LISA DONOVAN

Fittingly occurring during the Christian season of Lent, leaders of Bronzeville’s historic Pilgrim Baptist Church on Saturday unveiled plans for the resurrection of the architectural masterpiece that went up in flames five years ago.

Under newly minted architectural plans, by September 2012, the burned-out shell of the church widely revered as the birthplace of gospel music, will have a brand new roof and reinforced walls.

[Segun]

I was walking near Irving Pk and Lincoln yesterday and noticed a few blocks with new white streetlights. I've noticed them in other scattered areas across the city. Does anyone know whats going on with this? Chicago without the orange glow will be a brave new world.

[Rizzo]

Saw them. Coincidentally, I was at Irving Park and Lincoln for a party last night. The street was well lit

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^ It's a much broader issue than just CPS's real estate practice (or lack thereof). It ties into the fundamental distortions of (1) institutions having tax exempt land, gifting us with stuff like private parking lots in high-demand areas with little economic incentive to do otherwise; and (2) the basic incompatibility of normal real estate transactions and the government procurement/ethics process.

In re: disposition of excess land, unlike China (where land sales are the fundamental revenue source for government), it's just a very controversial and time consuming process here, all the moreso when the land is ever more valuable and ends up being steered toward ever more connected private interests (remember the Wilson Yard fiasco). The sale can't occur via a normal market transaction with offers, counteroffers, and the like; rather, it has to go through essentially a reverse procurement process, and all that entails vis-a-vis financial disclosure (which itself deters a lot of potential buyer interest), bidder qualification, and nebulous/subjective "public goals" that may be specified in the RFP due to political pressure. In fact, it can take so long that the owner basically misses a market cycle, and that a potential developer can't adequately manage his risk or make it profitable within the restrictions set by the seller, so at the end of the day it's pretty easy for both sides to deem it not worth the trouble.

Yeah, I figured there were some regulatory roadblocks. If I ran CPS, this would be one of the first things I would change.

I don't think it necessarily matters if land goes to politically-connected developers; the point is to get money for education. Any actual development that occurs is just a pleasant side effect.

So long as the sale price is reasonably commensurate with the sale prices of nearby properties, then the specific owner of the land isn't the City's concern. It might be smart to restrict the process to 99-year leases instead of fee-simple sales, though... and you could appoint an independent appraiser to manage the process, a la Inspector General.

Not to make it too complex but if a potential buyer makes a bid below what the independent appraiser deems to be fair market value, then you could require the buyer to build a certain percentage of affordable housing... making it, in the end, less profitable for them to bid low.

[the urban politician]

It was reported at SSC that construction on this project has begun:

Originally Posted by spyguy

1611 N Damen

[the urban politician]

^ Well, I had some free time to look into it and it turns out that the project will only consist of single story storefronts--no parking above:



Source1

Source2