CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wow, and without any fanfare.

See, this is how gentrification quietly proceeds.

This is a rental project, so no need for the developer to market units quite yet. There were several news stories about this when it came out. Demo and environmental has been going on for a few months already.

Solis is supposedly letting the project move forward without the required 20 percent affordable housing because the developer agreed to build a sports field and donate the land to Juarez Academy across the street. Previously the land was a factory parking lot with contaminated soil, which the developer is remediating.

[sentinel]

Preliminary (generic) design for the new, 2 story Chanel boutique on Oak St (with adjacent tenant space):

http://www.chicagoarchitecture.org/2016/12/21/lux-retail-acorn-about-to-germinate-on-oak-street/

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Wow, and without any fanfare.

See, this is how gentrification quietly proceeds.

That's what I was thinking. Everyone is always up in arms about new construction and what not, but this type of stuff is just as "damaging" gentrification wise as building some 6 story 75 unit place.

Thing is that in a place with enough housing, like Pilsen, the gentrification is going to happen under peoples' noses. String together a bunch of renovations of SFHs and 3-5 unit buildings that don't make a lot of noise and most people won't even notice. Build even a 30 unit building where there formerly were buildings or vacant land and everyone cares. Something like this? Somehow they don't seem to care as much or even know about it.

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is a rental project, so no need for the developer to market units quite yet. There were several news stories about this when it came out. Demo and environmental has been going on for a few months already.

Solis is supposedly letting the project move forward without the required 20 percent affordable housing because the developer agreed to build a sports field and donate the land to Juarez Academy across the street. Previously the land was a factory parking lot with contaminated soil, which the developer is remediating.

Do you have any links for it? I'm actually glad to hear about the vacant parcel across the street. Was wondering what would become of that.

[the urban politician]

^ A vacant multilevel warehouse on 18th a few blocks west of Halsted is being renovated into a few dozen apts and retail space.

This is right across the street from the huge vacant lot that the Alderman 🞵🞵🞵🞵-blocked from getting developed. These renovations are preserving the city's architectural heritage.

Heck, I preserved 3 traditional buildings and gave them a new lease on
Life (I've renovated more, actually, but the other ones are frame structures with little architectural importance).

These people should be lauded by preservationists, who instead only give attention to the really big projects

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ A vacant multilevel warehouse on 18th a few blocks west of Halsted is being renovated into a few dozen apts and retail space.

This is right across the street from the huge vacant lot that the Alderman 🞵🞵🞵🞵-blocked from getting developed. These renovations are preserving the city's architectural heritage.

Heck, I preserved 3 traditional buildings and gave them a new lease on
Life (I've renovated more, actually, but the other ones are frame structures with little architectural importance).

These people should be lauded by preservationists, who instead only give attention to the really big projects

Totally agree with the preservation on this.
I have a question, though. I'm (relatively) new to Chicago, after living in Portland, OR for the last 13 years. After watching the Chicago feed and keeping up on curbed, etc. I have to know - what is up with the parking obsession in this city? If this development is so close to the pink line stop then why are they including parking at all - especially for rentals? Portland's transit is a joke compared to Chicago, and the density is half of Chicago's and Portland has mid level high rises with 100+ units with no parking.
It seems really backwards and kind of "small ball" suburban style thinking when it comes to planning in this city (especially in the loop, 🞵🞵🞵?).
Is there something I'm missing about the city culturally speaking? Is it weather?It seems like with the current infrastructure, density, etc that developers would love to not have to build parking and a development like this that's going to attract Millenials and students who don't want cars in the first place, makes me scratch my head.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

Totally agree with the preservation on this.
I have a question, though. I'm (relatively) new to Chicago, after living in Portland, OR for the last 13 years. After watching the Chicago feed and keeping up on curbed, etc. I have to know - what is up with the parking obsession in this city? If this development is so close to the pink line stop then why are they including parking at all - especially for rentals? Portland's transit is a joke compared to Chicago, and the density is half of Chicago's and Portland has mid level high rises with 100+ units with no parking.
It seems really backwards and kind of "small ball" suburban style thinking when it comes to planning in this city (especially in the loop, 🞵🞵🞵?).
Is there something I'm missing about the city culturally speaking? Is it weather?It seems like with the current infrastructure, density, etc that developers would love to not have to build parking and a development like this that's going to attract Millenials and students who don't want cars in the first place, makes me scratch my head.

There's a few things going on here.

1) Chicago and the area are pretty damn big. Much bigger than Portland. There's many, many different types of people in Chicago (I'm not talking about race). Some love their cars no matter what, others don't. Just like anywhere else really. There are tons of jobs in the suburbs though, and some people who work in the suburbs choose to live in the city. For some of them, taking public transit is either not an option or it's just as much (or more) of a hassle than driving, so they keep their cars for the commute. There's a number of people in the South Loop area like that and yes, even Loop, River North, etc. I have a friend who commutes to Hinsdale almost everyday. He has a car, and he almost never uses it unless he's going to and from work - he walks or takes cabs/uber everywhere else. Chicago has one of the biggest public transit systems in the US (top 3 I believe all together, maybe even #2), but you need to think about things in terms of the region. Not everyone who lives in the city works in the city. Even if they do work in the city and it's accessible by public transit, not everyone works in the Loop or downtown. There are random offices all over the city. Guaranteed Rate for example has HQ up in Irving Park/Ravenswood - not downtown. Although it's on the Brown Line, getting there from Pilsen might take just as much or more time on public transit. Personally, I think it would be short sighted to tell someone who works in say Naperville to not live downtown because they have a car - as long as they're able to deal with the commute, that's their deal.

The thing is that a lot of the people who have cars in these neighborhoods don't use them as much as you'd think. Some do, but a lot basically collect dust when not being used for the commute. You really think the guy living in River North is driving 3 blocks to a restaurant just because he happens to have a car? No. He's walking there. And I will tell you as someone who has spent nearly every week in Manhattan for almost 2.5 years, as well as Chicago, the traffic in Chicago on the side streets is NOTHING compared to there. If everyone who owned a car in Chicago was actually driving everywhere all the time, the traffic would be MUCH worse than it actually is on the side streets. Most of the bad traffic in Chicago is on a few expressways.


What I've found in these neighborhoods is that many people who own cars either work in the burbs and need it or sometimes they just have it "just in case" (I have a few friends like that in various neighborhoods). However,when it comes to daily non work life, they don't even use it that much.

2) There's a lot of wealthy people in Chicago - maybe you've noticed, maybe not. On average, the guy worth $10M down the block from you isn't going to be taking the Pink line to work, even if it's more efficient. They're probably going to be driving themselves or someone driving for them on average. There's a reason why the parking ratios on the more high end developments is higher than the more normal market rate stuff.

3) Most of the US is not walkable nor transit friendly. People move to here from all over the place, and there are a lot of people who move here who have never lived in anything BUT somewhere car oriented. I have found people in those camps either (a) don't do their homework or (b) cannot believe you can't live without a car.

I went to college in Iowa and remember vividly our Speech Communications professor doing a sample speech on why you don't need a car. She was originally from Chicago. It was a lecture hall full of 300 people and people were calling her an idiot for thinking you could live without a car (she couldn't hear it) and people were debating with her about it vehemently for like 30 minutes after. Some of those people might end up moving to Chicago. Sure they might get rid of their cars eventually, but in the beginning they are using them.

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by marothisu

It's not that hard - Chicago and the area are pretty damn big. Much bigger than Portland. There's many, many different types of people in Chicago (I'm not talking about race). There are tons of jobs in the suburbs too and some people who work in the suburbs choose to live in the city. For some of them, taking public transit is either not an option or it's just as much of a hassle of driving, so they keep their cars. There's a number of people in the South Loop area like that. Chicago has one of the biggest public transit systems in the US (top 3 I believe all together, maybe even #2), but you need to think about things in terms of the region. Not everyone who lives in the city works in the city. Even if they do work in the city and it's accessible by public transit, not everyone works in the Loop or downtown. There are random offices all over the city. Guaranteed Rate for example has HQ up in Irving Park/Ravenswood - not downtown. Although it's on the Brown Line, getting there from Pilsen might take just as much or more time on public transit.

What I've found in these neighborhoods is that many people who own cars either work in the burbs and need it or sometimes they just have it "just in case" (I have a few friends like that in various neighborhoods). However,when it comes to daily non work life, they don't even use it that much.

I guess I maybe expected Chicago to be more Manhattan and less Houston. I never needed a car in NYC when I lived there and it's bigger both in population, size, and region. But I'll take your reasoning at face value.. I didn't expect a lot of Pilsen residents to commute to Deerfield.

I agree that Portland is smaller in size, region, and population but the region as a whole cooperates closely on a whole spectrum of planning issues. Even the burbs are built with TOD as a priority with dense clusters located along regional rail lines. It still seems to me that for a city this size that the planning seems decades behind other municipalities in the country. Adding 50 units of parking a couple blocks from an L stop for a 90+ unit development just seems shockingly regressive.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ A vacant multilevel warehouse on 18th a few blocks west of Halsted is being renovated into a few dozen apts and retail space.

This is right across the street from the huge vacant lot that the Alderman 🞵🞵🞵🞵-blocked from getting developed. These renovations are preserving the city's architectural heritage.

Heck, I preserved 3 traditional buildings and gave them a new lease on
Life (I've renovated more, actually, but the other ones are frame structures with little architectural importance).

These people should be lauded by preservationists, who instead only give attention to the really big projects

Totally. People who preserve should be lauded. I just find it funny how people get all pissed when someone wants to build a 100 unit building on a piece of land that's been vacant for 25 years yet they don't care when a warehouse is converted to a 100 unit building attracting similar types of people as the new construction would. Gentrification is not just about how the place looks, it's about a lot more and one thing is the type of people who are moving there. Just because you have some renovated warehouse doesn't mean you're magically saved - they for some reason don't understand that. When enough of that happens and it flies under the noses, it'll be easier for people to build on vacant land when it was once blocked.

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by marothisu

There's a few things going on here.

1) Chicago and the area are pretty damn big. Much bigger than Portland. There's many, many different types of people in Chicago (I'm not talking about race). Some love their cars no matter what, others don't. Just like anywhere else really. There are tons of jobs in the suburbs though, and some people who work in the suburbs choose to live in the city. For some of them, taking public transit is either not an option or it's just as much (or more) of a hassle than driving, so they keep their cars for the commute. There's a number of people in the South Loop area like that and yes, even Loop, River North, etc. I have a friend who commutes to Hinsdale almost everyday. He has a car, and he almost never uses it unless he's going to and from work - he walks or takes cabs/uber everywhere else. Chicago has one of the biggest public transit systems in the US (top 3 I believe all together, maybe even #2), but you need to think about things in terms of the region. Not everyone who lives in the city works in the city. Even if they do work in the city and it's accessible by public transit, not everyone works in the Loop or downtown. There are random offices all over the city. Guaranteed Rate for example has HQ up in Irving Park/Ravenswood - not downtown. Although it's on the Brown Line, getting there from Pilsen might take just as much or more time on public transit. Personally, I think it would be short sighted to tell someone who works in say Naperville to not live downtown because they have a car - as long as they're able to deal with the commute, that's their deal.

The thing is that a lot of the people who have cars in these neighborhoods don't use them as much as you'd think. Some do, but a lot basically collect dust when not being used for the commute. You really think the guy living in River North is driving 3 blocks to a restaurant just because he happens to have a car? No. He's walking there. And I will tell you as someone who has spent nearly every week in Manhattan for almost 2.5 years, as well as Chicago, the traffic in Chicago on the side streets is NOTHING compared to there. If everyone who owned a car in Chicago was actually driving everywhere all the time, the traffic would be MUCH worse than it actually is on the side streets. Most of the bad traffic in Chicago is on a few expressways.


What I've found in these neighborhoods is that many people who own cars either work in the burbs and need it or sometimes they just have it "just in case" (I have a few friends like that in various neighborhoods). However,when it comes to daily non work life, they don't even use it that much.

2) There's a lot of wealthy people in Chicago - maybe you've noticed, maybe not. On average, the guy worth $10M down the block from you isn't going to be taking the Pink line to work, even if it's more efficient. They're probably going to be driving themselves or someone driving for them on average. There's a reason why the parking ratios on the more high end developments is higher than the more normal market rate stuff.

3) Most of the US is not walkable nor transit friendly. People move to here from all over the place, and there are a lot of people who move here who have never lived in anything BUT somewhere car oriented. I have found people in those camps either (a) don't do their homework or (b) cannot believe you can't live without a car.

I went to college in Iowa and remember vividly our Speech Communications professor doing a sample speech on why you don't need a car. She was originally from Chicago. It was a lecture hall full of 300 people and people were calling her an idiot for thinking you could live without a car (she couldn't hear it) and people were debating with her about it vehemently for like 30 minutes after. Some of those people might end up moving to Chicago. Sure they might get rid of their cars eventually, but in the beginning they are using them.

Thanks for the expanded answer. I noticed that Chicago draws from around the region (Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, etc) and I completely agree that most of those areas are not pedestrian friendly, attractive to walk around in places. Which is why I was wondering if it was more of a cultural thing. Thank you for your thorough response!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

Thanks for the expanded answer. I noticed that Chicago draws from around the region (Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, etc) and I completely agree that most of those areas are not pedestrian friendly, attractive to walk around in places. Which is why I was wondering if it was more of a cultural thing. Thank you for your thorough response!

I think it's part cultural, part logistical, and part a wealth thing. Look at Manhattan - easily the most urban part of the US. 28% of households in the Upper East Side have cars. 24% in Upper West. Tribeca is 36% and some other areas are under 20% (like Lower East, East Village, etc). While those are low percentages, I think the entirety of Manhattan is somewhere around 20-25% of households have cars. There's over 750,000 households there alone meaning that there's probably not THAT much shy of 200K or 175K households with cars in Manhattan, which is a lot still. Are they driving everywhere? No, of course not.

I have a handful of friends with cars in Chicago and they almost never use them. They're fully into walking and taking public transit, but they have their cars paid off and have it just in case/in case they want to go to some hard to get restaurant in a far reaching neighborhood or suburb. A few of them have it for their commutes as they want to live in the city and will put up with the commute, but know that the public transit is not a better option for them. They cannot afford to live downtown, so they might choose somewhere "fun" but cheaper like Lakeview and just put up with the commute. To them, living in a more strategic but more boring location closer to their work (like let's say Bridgeport) is not an option and they're willing to deal with the tradeoff so they can be in a cool, walkable area full of restaurants, bars, etc.

You are probably not going to convince the average wealthy person either to not have a car either. As a Gold Coast resident I find it hilarious in the summer when my "neighbors" come out and drive their Lambos, Ferraris, etc for like 2 blocks just to be seen with them. They're rich and a $200K car is nothing to them even if they aren't driving it for 42 weeks of the year (and the 10 weeks they drive it they barely put any miles on it anyway). You aren't even going to convince the wealthy people of Manhattan to not get their Lambo when they love Lambos and can afford it, even if they almost never drive it. Portland is a completely different place than Chicago - there's a lot at play here, but guaranteed there's more rich snobby people in Chicago who "need a car" even living 2 blocks from a train station than Portland apart from who moves here.

Chicago does attract a lot of the Big 10 graduates (a lot of the big consulting/accounting firms in town heavily recruit from there), but there's also people from a lot of other places. Los Angeles and Miami for example are very car centric - believe it or not, Chicago gets a number of people moving from those areas too. They aren't midwest but still they aren't used to walkable areas as much.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

Portland is smaller in size, region, and population but the region as a whole cooperates closely on a whole spectrum of planning issues.

The biggest culture shock for you will be Chicago's complete absence of any planning. Last I heard, there were only six city planners to work on the entire city, and their focus—from the mayor on down—is on getting as much development as possible. The same is true in each and every suburb, because it means property tax revenue, plus sales tax if it's big-box retail.

As far as parking, there are some zoning districts that still require more stalls than the market does, but for the most part (especially downtown) that's a developer decision, based on marketing considerations. While a building with no parking may appeal to a certain small group of transportation warriors, a building where offstreet parking is available will appeal to nearly all types of residents.

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The biggest culture shock for you will be Chicago's complete absence of any planning. Last I heard, there were only six city planners to work on the entire city, and their focus—from the mayor on down—is on getting as much development as possible. The same is true in each and every suburb, because it means property tax revenue, plus sales tax if it's big-box retail.

As far as parking, there are some zoning districts that still require more stalls than the market does, but for the most part (especially downtown) that's a developer decision, based on marketing considerations. While a building with no parking may appeal to a certain small group of transportation warriors, a building where offstreet parking is available will appeal to nearly all types of residents.

That makes me want to hyperventilate. I have a UP degree with a focus on sustainable urban dev and a transportation focus. I've noted the development patterns around the city and I've got a grasp on the bizarre city government structure. It's jarring to drive down Elston or Clyborn or Roosevelt and see all that big box development with the skyline so close in the background.
Culturally or not is still seems bizarre to have a development with a couple blocks of an L stop with oodles of parking. A luxury high rise in Gold Coast, fine. But 18th on the pink line in Pilsen? Come on. I'd say the same for the new development going in in WP that's a literal block away from the Division stop. Don't get me started on the loop. Riva, which is a block from Clark/Lake? Man.
Oddly, Portland is much more suburban in feel, layout, density, and transit access. But their development approach is a 180 from here.
Also, why podium parking? Geology? That's another thing I've tried to figure out. Not trying to sound negative about Chicago (I love living here), just trying to figure out some of the quirks.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

That makes me want to hyperventilate. I have a UP degree with a focus on sustainable urban dev and a transportation focus. I've noted the development patterns around the city and I've got a grasp on the bizarre city government structure. It's jarring to drive down Elston or Clyborn or Roosevelt and see all that big box development with the skyline so close in the background.
Culturally or not is still seems bizarre to have a development with a couple blocks of an L stop with oodles of parking. A luxury high rise in Gold Coast, fine. But 18th on the pink line in Pilsen? Come on. I'd say the same for the new development going in in WP that's a literal block away from the Division stop. Don't get me started on the loop. Riva, which is a block from Clark/Lake? Man.
Oddly, Portland is much more suburban in feel, layout, density, and transit access. But their development approach is a 180 from here.
Also, why podium parking? Geology? That's another thing I've tried to figure out. Not trying to sound negative about Chicago (I love living here), just trying to figure out some of the quirks.

I think Marothisu pretty much sums it up.

You can easily live car free in Chicago. It's a wonderfully urban city.

But not everybody's destination is convenient by transit. It's a mess of a region. Makes things interesting

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

That makes me want to hyperventilate. I have a UP degree with a focus on sustainable urban dev and a transportation focus. I've noted the development patterns around the city and I've got a grasp on the bizarre city government structure. It's jarring to drive down Elston or Clyborn or Roosevelt and see all that big box development with the skyline so close in the background.
Culturally or not is still seems bizarre to have a development with a couple blocks of an L stop with oodles of parking. A luxury high rise in Gold Coast, fine. But 18th on the pink line in Pilsen? Come on. I'd say the same for the new development going in in WP that's a literal block away from the Division stop. Don't get me started on the loop. Riva, which is a block from Clark/Lake? Man.
Oddly, Portland is much more suburban in feel, layout, density, and transit access. But their development approach is a 180 from here.
Also, why podium parking? Geology? That's another thing I've tried to figure out. Not trying to sound negative about Chicago (I love living here), just trying to figure out some of the quirks.

Chicago has a new TOD ordinance that is helping. It's now possible to build more densely near transit with virtually no parking. This may seem like common sense but actually this was illegal up until a few years ago

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

Culturally or not is still seems bizarre to have a development with a couple blocks of an L stop with oodles of parking. A luxury high rise in Gold Coast, fine. But 18th on the pink line in Pilsen? Come on. I'd say the same for the new development going in in WP that's a literal block away from the Division stop. Don't get me started on the loop. Riva, which is a block from Clark/Lake? Man.

If you are not surprised by Gold Coast, then you shouldn't be surprised about the Loop either. There's more wealthy people all over downtown than you'd think. it's not just the Loop. There are condos going for $5M+ in the Loop FYI. Gold Coast has the stereotype of being the richest area, but nowadays there's people all over downtown who are like that - actually in many parts of the city whether it's Wicker Park/Bucktown, some in Logan Square, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Kenwood, Hyde Park, etc. Hell, there's a billionaire who lives in a house worth no more than $250K in the O'Hare community area.

As far as other stuff goes - which part in particular are you talking about for Pilsen? The thing I was talking about getting a conversion permit didn't even mention how much parking there is. What if there was only 5 spots they were going to build. Are you going to really get all up in arms about FIVE parking spots for about 100 units? I think you're hyperventilating about data you don't have and regardless, hopefully what I had shed light on makes some sense. It would be utterly ridiculous to think that the people who live in walkable neighborhoods of Chicago who have cars, on average, actually use their cars ALL the time. It's not true - I'm sure some people do, but most people you might see out walking everyday might just *happen* to have a car, but you'd never know it because you only see them out walking.

I mean hell, even Brooklyn has new buildings right near train stations with parking available - and not all of them are relatively super expensive where it would constitute "I have to be a millionaire or be making $250K+ to live here"

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by marothisu

If you are not surprised by Gold Coast, then you shouldn't be surprised about the Loop either. There's more wealthy people all over downtown than you'd think. it's not just the Loop. There are condos going for $5M+ in the Loop FYI. Gold Coast has the stereotype of being the richest area, but nowadays there's people all over downtown who are like that - actually in many parts of the city whether it's Wicker Park/Bucktown, some in Logan Square, Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Kenwood, Hyde Park, etc. Hell, there's a billionaire who lives in a house worth no more than $250K in the O'Hare community area.

As far as other stuff goes - which part in particular are you talking about for Pilsen? The thing I was talking about getting a conversion permit didn't even mention how much parking there is. What if there was only 5 spots they were going to build. Are you going to really get all up in arms about FIVE parking spots for about 100 units? I think you're hyperventilating about data you don't have and regardless, hopefully what I had shed light on makes some sense. It would be utterly ridiculous to think that the people who live in walkable neighborhoods of Chicago who have cars, on average, actually use their cars ALL the time. It's not true - I'm sure some people do, but most people you might see out walking everyday might just *happen* to have a car, but you'd never know it because you only see them out walking.

I mean hell, even Brooklyn has new buildings right near train stations with parking available - and not all of them are relatively super expensive where it would constitute "I have to be a millionaire or be making $250K+ to live here"

I was hyperventilating about the number of planners Mr. Downtown said were employed by Chicago - if you want to look back and read it.
I mentioned the loop due to its central hub of transit. Riva is right next to three 8+story above ground parking garages and it seems exactly the kind of spot where you don't need to accommodate extra parking. I find it hard to believe that there's no market for buildings focused on a car-free lifestyle in a metro area of almost 10 million.. I'm well aware of the demographics of the city and know how to collect my data. It's how I spent my college years.
What I was trying to tease out was what exactly was up with the planning, particularly near dedicated rapid transit lines and why Chicago seems to pursue a car reliant suburban style pattern of development, especially in areas where it doesn't make sense. I don't think there's anything unreasonable about being "up in arms" about a bunch of parking for a development that should be oriented to those who use transit, walk, bike, and also reflect the built environment around them such as the pedestrian friendly "Main Street" vibe going on already along 18th and its offshoots. Five spots is one thing, but this looked like 50+ unless I'm mistaken?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

I was hyperventilating about the number of planners Mr. Downtown said were employed by Chicago - if you want to look back and read it.

My bad,

I mentioned the loop due to its central hub of transit. Riva is right next to three 8+story above ground parking garages and it seems exactly the kind of spot where you don't need to accommodate extra parking. I find it hard to believe that there's no market for buildings focused on a car-free lifestyle in a metro area of almost 10 million..

There is DEFINITELY a market for it. You mentioned you were relatively new to the city, and IMO you should probably stay a little humble to when people are telling you about the city. There are many people (like myself) who do not own cars in the city. Chicago is actually in the top 10 cities for households who do not own cars. i think it was something like #7 as of a few years ago and the percentage of people who do not own cars has actually increased of late when most cities have actually decreased. I'll get the data to you soon - it's from the American Community Survey.

The other funny thing is that in pretty much every downtown area and area that is near downtown, the amount of people taking a car to work (whether by themselves or carpool) has decreased. Near North Side actually increased by like 0.1%, but so did public transit. In reality - Near South Side, Loop, West Town (Wicker Park, UK Village), Logan Square, Near West Side, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc ALL have increased with the amount of people taking public transit to work. Actually pretty much all of those areas have decreased their bus commute to work usage and increased their train commute to work usage. The downtown areas (Loop, Near north Side, etc) have all increased their bike and walk to work since 2010, or mostly since there's a big influx back into the downtown area for jobs in the last 5 years and people are living near where they work.

Why Chicago seems to pursue a car reliant suburban style pattern of development, especially in areas where it doesn't make sense.

First of all, I don't agree with that. There are definitely some developments that do, but as far as the United States goes, there are few cities better than Chicago as far as being urban goes. There are some real facepalms I've seen here as far as it goes, but there are definitely enough more urban related developments of late. By the way, Curbed does not cover everything happening in the city - even some of the medium sized stuff. There was a permit issued maybe a month ago for some 40-70 unit building in West Loop. 0 coverage by Curbed.

Anyway, downtown, again is a more special case than say an East Lincoln Park. My friend is neighbors with the CFO of McDonald's. They live in the Loop near all those transit lines - do you think the CFO of McDonald's gives a damn that he could take the train to work? No. He's either going to drive himself in whatever luxury car he has or get his driver to take him in whatever luxury car he is. There are few places in the US, in my opinion, as attractive to live in than downtown Chicago. This is attractive to numerous people - and as there's luxury places here, sometimes the people going there could care less that there's transit all around. I think though again you're confusing "having a car" with "using it all the time." You will find as you get to know Chicago better that a lot of the more "normal" income people who live in walkable areas who own cars barely use them - and if they do it's only to get to and from work in a suburb or some far reaching part of town. Regardless, you're going to attract a lot of people to these areas.

I mean, I totally agree with what you're saying - it's kind of dumb and most of us hate it here, but I also understand the city and commute patterns of people in certain areas enough to understand why there's a market for it. But on the other hand, to think there's not a market for the car-less society is a complete misunderstanding of Chicago. Something like 30% of households do NOT own a car in Chicago, which is many, many, many people and many of those people choose to not own a car, not because they can't afford it (yeah, there are those people too obviously).

I don't think there's anything unreasonable about being "up in arms" about a bunch of parking for a development that should be oriented to those who use transit, walk, bike, and also reflect the built environment around them such as the pedestrian friendly "Main Street" vibe going on already along 18th and its offshoots. Five spots is one thing, but this looked like 50+ unless I'm mistaken?

There is literally nothing is the building permit that says how much parking there is on this thing. it says "parking garage" which could mean anything on these permits. I've seen permits say "parking garage" only to mean it was no more than 10 spots. This is exactly what the permit says

"ALTER HISTORIC, 1+3-STORY W/BSMT, TYPE 3B FACTORY BLDG COMPLEX AND CONVERT TO 3 COMMERCIAL UNITS, PARKING GARAGE AND 99 RESIDENTIAL DU'S (CONDITIONAL PERMIT SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTIONS)"

[urbanbydesign]

Originally Posted by marothisu

My bad,



There is DEFINITELY a market for it. You mentioned you were relatively new to the city, and IMO you should probably stay a little humble to when people are telling you about the city. There are many people (like myself) who do not own cars in the city. Chicago is actually in the top 10 cities for households who do not own cars. i think it was something like #7 as of a few years ago and the percentage of people who do not own cars has actually increased of late when most cities have actually decreased. I'll get the data to you soon - it's from the American Community Survey.

The other funny thing is that in pretty much every downtown area and area that is near downtown, the amount of people taking a car to work (whether by themselves or carpool) has decreased. Near North Side actually increased by like 0.1%, but so did public transit. In reality - Near South Side, Loop, West Town (Wicker Park, UK Village), Logan Square, Near West Side, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, etc ALL have increased with the amount of people taking public transit to work. Actually pretty much all of those areas have decreased their bus commute to work usage and increased their train commute to work usage. The downtown areas (Loop, Near north Side, etc) have all increased their bike and walk to work since 2010, or mostly since there's a big influx back into the downtown area for jobs in the last 5 years and people are living near where they work.



First of all, I don't agree with that. There are definitely some developments that do, but as far as the United States goes, there are few cities better than Chicago as far as being urban goes. There are some real facepalms I've seen here as far as it goes, but there are definitely enough more urban related developments of late. By the way, Curbed does not cover everything happening in the city - even some of the medium sized stuff. There was a permit issued maybe a month ago for some 40-70 unit building in West Loop. 0 coverage by Curbed.

Anyway, downtown, again is a more special case than say an East Lincoln Park. My friend is neighbors with the CFO of McDonald's. They live in the Loop near all those transit lines - do you think the CFO of McDonald's gives a damn that he could take the train to work? No. He's either going to drive himself in whatever luxury car he has or get his driver to take him in whatever luxury car he is. There are few places in the US, in my opinion, as attractive to live in than downtown Chicago. This is attractive to numerous people - and as there's luxury places here, sometimes the people going there could care less that there's transit all around. I think though again you're confusing "having a car" with "using it all the time." You will find as you get to know Chicago better that a lot of the more "normal" income people who live in walkable areas who own cars barely use them - and if they do it's only to get to and from work in a suburb or some far reaching part of town. Regardless, you're going to attract a lot of people to these areas.

I mean, I totally agree with what you're saying - it's kind of dumb and most of us hate it here, but I also understand the city and commute patterns of people in certain areas enough to understand why there's a market for it. But on the other hand, to think there's not a market for the car-less society is a complete misunderstanding of Chicago. Something like 30% of households do NOT own a car in Chicago, which is many, many, many people and many of those people choose to not own a car, not because they can't afford it (yeah, there are those people too obviously).



There is literally nothing is the building permit that says how much parking there is on this thing. it says "parking garage" which could mean anything on these permits. I've seen permits say "parking garage" only to mean it was no more than 10 spots. This is exactly what the permit says

"ALTER HISTORIC, 1+3-STORY W/BSMT, TYPE 3B FACTORY BLDG COMPLEX AND CONVERT TO 3 COMMERCIAL UNITS, PARKING GARAGE AND 99 RESIDENTIAL DU'S (CONDITIONAL PERMIT SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTIONS)"

I said I appreciated your info in an earlier thread. I didn't realize having an opinion about the city I live in was somehow showing a lack of humility or disrespectful. And I don't exactly know where in here I was acting arrogantly. Though I could say that your responses are increasingly condescending and pedantic. I had some questions and I have opinions like everyone else.
You can see I've been a member since 2010. And look at my number of posts. You know why? Because people on these forums always have to get oddly personal instead of just nerding out. I read it all the time which is why I rarely pipe in even though I've been a planner and have lots to say.
Thanks for the discussion and insight. Got it. I'll go back to just reading the forums.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by urbanbydesign

I said I appreciated your info in an earlier thread. I didn't realize having an opinion about the city I live in was somehow showing a lack of humility or disrespectful. And I don't exactly know where in here I was acting arrogantly. Though I could say that your responses are increasingly condescending and pedantic. I had some questions and I have opinions like everyone else.
You can see I've been a member since 2010. And look at my number of posts. You know why? Because people on these forums always have to get oddly personal instead of just nerding out. I read it all the time which is why I rarely pipe in even though I've been a planner and have lots to say.
Thanks for the discussion and insight. Got it. I'll go back to just reading the forums.

Sorry if I've been condescending and pedantic (yes that seems to be the case with me sometimes). I am a little touchy about this because I have done loads of analytical research on this very subject - how many people are driving, why they are driving, who is not driving, who is taking public transit, which areas are increasing with various modes of transit, etc. I'm sorry if it's been condescending, but at the same time you must learn who lives downtown and WHY if you want to understand why people are still building in 150 stalls of parking in a 300 unit building near 2 train stops downtown. At the same time though, I feel as if you are equating "owning a car" with "driving a lot" which is definitely not true in Chicago of many people in the dense neighborhoods who do own cars. If you aren't, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

In all honesty, the neighborhoods that have a better shot of TOD are the ones like Logan Square, Wicker Park, etc. I think there is a reason why a larger percentage of the TOD developments and proposals have been in areas like that. And neither of us knows how many stalls of parking are going in this Pilsen conversion, so there's literally no point in talking about that part of it other than it's great someone is doing something with that factory - and it's mixed use. Anyway, developers know 100% of what I've been saying about who lives downtown (I know because I've worked with a few on some of this research. They're very well aware and have been for years). They're doing this downtown because they know there's a market for it. If there wasn't a market for it, they wouldn't be doing it - especially developers who have more than one building in that area of late. Most developers are in the business of money making - sometimes in the business of changing things - but mostly in the money making business. If it wasn't a good investment, they wouldn't be doing it if they are good at making money. Most big developers could care less whether they've just put 100 parking stalls next to a train stop for their new shiny high rise. If they made out with a good ROI, and those stalls are being utilized, then they're happy.

P.S. The train ridership in the city is basically at an all time high (or was as of a few months ago) not including the old street car lines (surface lines) and a few lines are actually set to reach their upper daily limits probably in 5 years at this rate which makes the case for other lines or methods more imperative.

[Mr Downtown]

As an observer of urban planning nationwide, I should point out that Portland is really the outlier in trying push a car-free agenda along its new rail lines. Even in the Pearl District, savvy developers might have preferred to include some parking to appeal to folks who have jobs in Lake Oswego or parents in Tigard, or who head to Lincoln City every weekend in summer. Remember that less than 20 percent of trips are journeys to work, which are about the only trips it's reasonable to assume will regularly be made by transit.

Why not underground parking? The water table is only about 10-15 feet below ground, so it gets expensive fast to go down more than a level and a half.

I hope you won't go away with feelings hurt, as we enjoy and need thoughtful discussion of urban design issues.