CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Are you serious? Who did you hear this brilliant observation from, some pissed off lady in a Buick Enclave that passed you by? Give me a break....

Chicago has too much parking, and not enough transit. That's the problem.

I agree we need more transit... But I do remember this story from about a month ago maybe. I think this is what the comment is probably referring to.

Chicago Named Worst City For Parking

[wierdaaron]

Worst for zeppelins, too.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I agree we need more transit... But I do remember this story from about a month ago maybe. I think this is what the comment is probably referring to.

Chicago Named Worst City For Parking

Whenever I see stuff like this, I am happy. All this article is indicating is that Chicago is one of the few places in this country where people are paying the actual price of their automobiles. Everyone thinks a car only costs loan payment + maintenance + gas + insurance, but really they have all sorts of other costs (from road maintenance to pollution to the scourge of surface parking) that aren't factored into that equation. If we let market prices happen on auto parking, then more of those actual costs are passed on to the driver and less people will drive, doing less damage to our city, our lungs, and our lifestyle.

That's the one reason I support that meter deal at all, the alderbeasties would never have had the gall to raise prices this much if they still sat at the controls. Yes they pissed away the proceeds of the deal, but that's a different criticism.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ 707 N. Wells is absolutely grotesque. Anyone have background on real motivation for the switch from modern with some promise assuming refinement to this trash?

Neighbors (not me, although I live behind 707), who thought it looked too modern and "like the MCC" jail. Stupid reasoning. Reilly also lives within sight of it, so perhaps he had personal issues with it, too.

Originally Posted by chris08876

Its probably based on a estimation on the developers part on the 28 units being planned. They probably figured some units might have 1-2 residents in it. Extra room as all 28 units probably won't have one person in all of them and might have 2 or even 3. Also, the commercial component. Parking for the employees.

Employees would not need parking in the likely type of retail in that building, they would almost certainly commute via transit. In a luxury building, every unit would have at least one parking spot, and some of the larger units would have two. I don't mind luxury condos coming with more parking. But the current lot is/was also used by the Felix Hotel for parking, so it's possible they have arranged for use of some parking in that building, too. At any rate, for high-end luxury condos, anything less than 2:1 parking:unit ratio is okay with me. Also keep in mind that when used as a valet lot, I think it already holds about 50 cars, so it may not be a net decrease in parking in the area, but it's not really a net increase, either, and the residences add density.

Originally Posted by chris08876

I do hear though on another note that Chicago is having a parking issue. By that, I mean lack of parking which isn't keeping pace with current developments.

This is most assuredly not true in any real sense. Some of the other developments in the area are actually building less parking than they have a right to build. If parking was actually in a state of crisis, developments would be building as much parking as possible in new developments, which they are not.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Worst for zeppelins, too.

Zeppelin mooring - conveniently located across the street from the new Rice Cube.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by emathias

This is most assuredly not true in any real sense. Some of the other developments in the area are actually building less parking than they have a right to build. If parking was actually in a state of crisis, developments would be building as much parking as possible in new developments, which they are not.

I think we need to deconstruct this problem a little bit. Residential developments have historically provided tons of parking, while office and restaurant/retail developments have not. The fact that residential developments are now scaling back on parking says nothing about the shortage of parking for non-residents (office workers, shoppers, etc).

Street parking can serve some of this need, but with a 2-hour cap it will not serve office workers.

I support a parking policy that pushes commuters onto transit, but we've got to have the transit investment to match. So far, the vast majority of transit investment downtown has been of the renovation/replacement variety, which doesn't really expand access and get people out of their cars. Other than that, we've had the Morgan Green Line stop (close to a blooming office district) and the Central Loop BRT, which do in fact add new capacity - but not enough.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ Oh... Really? So that's what Chicago's urban problem is afterall. Interesting. All this time, it's really that we just have too little parking downtown. Thank you to your great insight and tireless sources for getting to the bottom of this one. You've clearly nailed it. Identifying our core urban and transportation challenge is a massive step in the right direction toward solving the problem. Thanks very much guy.

I was just reading some articles on DNAinfo, and Curbed that mentioned the Transit Oriented Development Ordinance and how residents are complaining about lack of parking due to it. I by no means am confirming it, I merely said thats what I've heard via reading. No need to be so hostile . If what I read was wrong, no need to be a-hole. Simply enlighten me.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ What you are hearing is the rantings of a loud, vocal, minority of people who are basically transplants from Naperville with a car fetish. I am dealing with said idiots right now. These people are exactly why we live in a republic and not a true democracy. Ideally the politicians (though they are often just as stupid) are able to make decisions that are unpopular with certain groups with the aim of the good of the whole. Car fetishists from the burbs are simply flat out wrong and should be outed as what they are every at opportunity: Chicago has no "shortage" of parking and the entire concept of a "parking shortage" is flawed because it is a "build it and they will come" proposition.

If you add freeway lanes and build parking, then people are going to drive. If you add more parking and no additional roadway capacity, then more people will drive and you just get congestion. So really, all these idiots bemoaning the lack of parking are really just advocating for more congestion because I don't see any political reality where the public will support eminent domain takings for additional freeway and roadway capacity. If they tried to widen streets like they widened the arterials a century ago, you would have riots in the streets. So instead of building ourselves a shiny new traffic jam, we should learn to live and work within the constraints of our built environment which means less parking and more transit.

[Chi-Sky21]

I think it all depends on what demographic each building is trying to attract. If you want a young crowd, then you don't need as much parking. If you are trying to attract families then you almost have to have at least 1 spot for each unit. I do not see you convincing these "naperville fetish" crowds with families that they do not need a car. I just do not see a way to live with a family and not have a car. I eagerly await the attacking of my opinion.

[chris08876]

^^^^

I eagerly await the attacking of my opinion.

Yea IDK what it is with the Chicago thread but its so hostile compared to every other thread. Even when it comes to opinions or observations. No wonder the mods have to clean and delete posts every other day. Thanks LouisVanDerWright for the info to clarify the issue of parking.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I think we need to deconstruct this problem a little bit. Residential developments have historically provided tons of parking, while office and restaurant/retail developments have not. The fact that residential developments are now scaling back on parking says nothing about the shortage of parking for non-residents (office workers, shoppers, etc).

Street parking can serve some of this need, but with a 2-hour cap it will not serve office workers.

I support a parking policy that pushes commuters onto transit, but we've got to have the transit investment to match. So far, the vast majority of transit investment downtown has been of the renovation/replacement variety, which doesn't really expand access and get people out of their cars. Other than that, we've had the Morgan Green Line stop (close to a blooming office district) and the Central Loop BRT, which do in fact add new capacity - but not enough.

We are discussing mostly River North, and the Central Area of Chicago, so this doesn't apply (necessarily) to, say, Lincoln Square.

1) Residential buildings, especially planned developments, can provide public parking in addition to parking just for themselves. Doing so is not generally popular in with existing residents because they (mostly) know that creates congestion.

2) Even in the Loop, existing transit infrastructure is underutilized. You may not believe that, but compared to other systems it's hard to view the numbers in any other light. I agree that some enhancements in parts of the Central Area would be useful and beneficial but, except in a few specific instances, transit in the Central Area is not maxed out.

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I think it all depends on what demographic each building is trying to attract. If you want a young crowd, then you don't need as much parking. If you are trying to attract families then you almost have to have at least 1 spot for each unit. I do not see you convincing these "naperville fetish" crowds with families that they do not need a car. I just do not see a way to live with a family and not have a car. I eagerly await the attacking of my opinion.

Again, in the context we're discussing, your comment is mostly irrelevant. The number of car-oriented families with children who would even consider moving from Naperville or any other far-flung suburb to River North or even the Central Area in general is tiny compared to the amount and types people who actually do want to live in a downtown-type environment. Napervillians who feel a car is essential may be considering Lincoln Square, but not Streeterville.

In other words, I think you've either misunderstood the context of the discussion, or you've created a straw-man argument. Either way, I don't think your argument applies or is relevant to parking (or the lack thereof) in the Central Area of Chicago.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^^



Yea IDK what it is with the Chicago thread but its so hostile compared to every other thread. Even when it comes to opinions or observations. No wonder the mods have to clean and delete posts every other day. Thanks LouisVanDerWright for the info to clarify the issue of parking.

Too be fair, skyscraperpage is generally pretty hostile towards any mention of needing more auto orientation than transit orientation. The reason why it's particularly apparent in the Chicago threads is because there has been a lot of development in Chicago with high parking ratios compared to other cities such as New York and Toronto, which have been pushing for more efforts to invest in transit. Don't worry, you just simply misunderstood the issue at hand. No need to feel shunned for it.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Too be fair, skyscraperpage is generally pretty hostile towards any mention of needing more auto orientation than transit orientation. The reason why it's particularly apparent in the Chicago threads is because there has been a lot of development in Chicago with high parking ratios compared to other cities such as New York and Toronto, which have been pushing for more efforts to invest in transit. Don't worry, you just simply misunderstood the issue at hand. No need to feel shunned for it.

It's not just SSP, it's the entire urban planning and architectural communities at this point. The main school of thought on how we address such things has changed radically since the year 2000. I am friends with many architecture, development, and planning types and can tell you about 90% of them agree on the parking thing. The rare exceptions are, as I said above, the types that live in the suburbs and refuse to believe there is a tectonic shift underway. These types are almost always baby boomers in my experience.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I agree we need more transit... But I do remember this story from about a month ago maybe. I think this is what the comment is probably referring to.

Chicago Named Worst City For Parking

Chicago worse than NYC for parking? Gimme a — break. I drive everywhere; parking is no problem throughout the city. The only time it is is past midnight in my neighborhood. Well, meter parking is a — pain in the — and expensive, but finding spots is never an issue. That article is trash.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Worst for zeppelins, too.

Another example of the farsighted development - 200 E Illinois, adjacent to a zeppelin morning station.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by emathias

Even in the Loop, existing transit infrastructure is underutilized. You may not believe that, but compared to other systems it's hard to view the numbers in any other light. I agree that some enhancements in parts of the Central Area would be useful and beneficial but, except in a few specific instances, transit in the Central Area is not maxed out.

Other systems are far better integrated. It's sad that we still have no L-subway transfers at State/Lake or Jackson. It's sad that there is no CTA station at Union or Ogilvie. It's sad that Metra funnels everyone into West Loop terminals and has no convenient stops in the downtown fringe (Metra Electric notwithstanding).

Again, I think it is somewhat disingenuous for the city to keep pushing people away from driving into downtown when the very people that still drive are the ones most poorly served by the transit system.

The only saving grace is the bike network, which does seem to be the subject of some comprehensive planning with the resources to follow through.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Other systems are far better integrated. It's sad that we still have no L-subway transfers at State/Lake or Jackson. It's sad that there is no CTA station at Union or Ogilvie. It's sad that Metra funnels everyone into West Loop terminals and has no convenient stops in the downtown fringe (Metra Electric notwithstanding).

Again, I think it is somewhat disingenuous for the city to keep pushing people away from driving into downtown when the very people that still drive are the ones most poorly served by the transit system.

The only saving grace is the bike network, which does seem to be the subject of some comprehensive planning with the resources to follow through.

Completely agree. I would love to do without a car but it simply is not convenient at all until the city upgrades our options. How long will the city sit around and "talk" about the clinton subway, the circle line, or any other new lines....rehabbing old stations is great but we really need expansion of the system as a whole. Oh well, it all costs to much is all i ever hear but then they want to waste money on extending the red line. I have some optimism though, Rahm seems to have some focus on CTA and TOD. And to clarify this is only in response to ardecilas comment, i would hate for its relevancy to others to be questioned.

[Rizzo]

Figured I'd show this older photo of Lasalle and Chicago taken by a friend of mine

[LouisVanDerWright]

Woke up to an update on 601 W Jackson taken by my girlfriend before work:



Hope she keeps this up!

[marothisu]

^ LOL, nice. That thing is rising pretty quickly. That's over 1/4 of the way to topping out I believe.