Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever
I don't understand why there is an implicit expectation that traffic, land-use, and commuting patterns of surrounding areas cannot and should not change in response to this new development. For the sake of argument, if they delivered 12m sq ft of new commercial and residential space without any investments in transportation infrastructure, what would happen? What I would expect to see is a loss of the car-centric retail in the area and the turnover of housing units to households interested in walking to work in the new development. Not the worst thing in the world.
Of course, it would not be economically viable for them to develop that much space without some improvements to the capacity local infrastructure can deliver--hence the investments they are making. But to the extent that these investments are "insufficient", which many of you seem to define as being unable to independently deliver the capacity which the development will require, then of course there will be changes to surrounding areas.
We have two of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city full of high-skill workers next to a blank slate of riverfront land, and for some reason the expectation is that it should be filled with commercial space employing workers from outside the area. I don't get it.
|
^ You are way off. If you want to tap the largest talent pool you might as well be downtown.
If you only want to tap into the surrounding area, then at Lincoln Yards you're forced to build CAR-CENTRIC development, because nearly everybody from the local neighborhoods will drive there and they will need to park. How the hell else is anyone going to get there? Friggin
5 people will choose to walk--everyone else will drive--so don't give me that fantasy.
This ain't rocket science. By your arguments the entire CTA L and Metra system was completely unnecessary for downtown to flourish. Transit is
needed when density becomes very high.
Threaded Mode