CHICAGO | General Discussions

[SIGSEGV]

Does anybody know what the process is to get the city to consider a new crosswalk?
I cross here fairly often:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7915...7i16384!8i8192
but it's a quite harrowing experience with cars coming from 4 directions.

[ardecila]

It can be a bewildering process, there's not a 311 number... you could just write directly to CDOT, but they get lots of these requests with very limited funding to address them. Going the political route is usually more effective. Ideally, you would find a transportation-focused group in the community, or an influential institution (DuSable maybe) and team up with them to support your crosswalk request. Then you and that group would go persuade the alderman to use his/her discretionary "menu money" to fund the crosswalk, ideally with signatures on a petition, data on crashes/safety, etc. CDOT will provide an estimated price for the project and the project will go into a short list of neighborhood projects that the alderman can pick and choose from in any given year. The alderman here is Jeannette Taylor - I can't speak to her specifically, but I know many of the South Side aldermen have pro-car attitudes so they won't be inclined to spend money on pedestrian projects without some heavy hitters (again, DuSable?) backing the request. Oboi Reed also runs a group called Equiticity in that community which advocates for bike/ped projects, you could try reaching out to him.

It helps to know the jurisdiction of the road in question... Looks like Morgan Drive here is a CDOT roadway (blue), but if it was an IDOT roadway then additional state approvals would be required.

Also, given the high traffic volumes and complicated intersections at this particular site, CDOT engineers may decide it is too dangerous to install a crosswalk here. I'm guessing that was the decision logic in the past, since it looks like there used to be a crosswalk at this location. Putting the crosswalk back would open the city up to liability for dangerous road design, at least without a much more elaborate and expensive re-working of the roadways. Sometimes this can just be done with paint and posts, but they might decide it requires a traffic signal or something to really be safe.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by ardecila

It can be a bewildering process, there's not a 311 number... you could just write directly to CDOT, but they get lots of these requests with very limited funding to address them. Going the political route is usually more effective. Ideally, you would find a transportation-focused group in the community, or an influential institution (DuSable maybe) and team up with them to support your crosswalk request. Then you and that group would go persuade the alderman to use his/her discretionary "menu money" to fund the crosswalk, ideally with signatures on a petition, data on crashes/safety, etc. CDOT will provide an estimated price for the project and the project will go into a short list of neighborhood projects that the alderman can pick and choose from in any given year. The alderman here is Jeannette Taylor - I can't speak to her specifically, but I know many of the South Side aldermen have pro-car attitudes so they won't be inclined to spend money on pedestrian projects without some heavy hitters (again, DuSable?) backing the request. Oboi Reed also runs a group called Equiticity in that community which advocates for bike/ped projects, you could try reaching out to him.

It helps to know the jurisdiction of the road in question... Looks like Morgan Drive here is a CDOT roadway (blue), but if it was an IDOT roadway then additional state approvals would be required.

Also, given the high traffic volumes and complicated intersections at this particular site, CDOT engineers may decide it is too dangerous to install a crosswalk here. I'm guessing that was the decision logic in the past, since it looks like there used to be a crosswalk at this location. Putting the crosswalk back would open the city up to liability for dangerous road design, at least without a much more elaborate and expensive re-working of the roadways. Sometimes this can just be done with paint and posts, but they might decide it requires a traffic signal or something to really be safe.

This is the primary walking (and Divvy, for that matter) path between UChicago and the Garfield Green Line, so maybe it would be easier to see if I can get the university to care .

[bhawk66]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think my point is that Chicago is only getting wealthier (and yes, poorer) than it was decades ago. That may surprise people, but we are seeing even more investment in the core of the city than we were when the Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears Tower were built.

So the notion that a supertall can’t be financed when places on earth with much lower GDPs and per capita incomes are able to build them just speaks to lack of will, not lack of money.

Related may have a lot of vested interest in Chicago, but I don’t think their “heart” is in it. I think they have an obligation to build something really special here, and fine they decided to not go with a supertall—but does anyone here honestly think they will go with a high quality design and follow through with good materials?

If we don’t get height, then it’s very likely that we won’t get anything, because they probably aren’t going to build something that hasn’t been VE’d to death.

This is Reilly’s fault. Blair Kamin called him out correctly. Reilly didn’t oppose the height, but whatever he did made Related have to shake up their previous plans and now we are getting something much less inspiring, IMO.

Chicago's fortunes as far as economy are always on a slippery slope. Also, to say it has more investment than when Hancock, Sears, Standard Oil was built is a little misleading, imo. The core of the cities doing fine right now, but I wont hold my breath. It's not invulnerable.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by bhawk66

Chicago's fortunes as far as economy are always on a slippery slope. Also, to say it has more investment than when Hancock, Sears, Standard Oil was built is a little misleading, imo. The core of the cities doing fine right now, but I wont hold my breath. It's not invulnerable.

A very common misconception is that only the core is doing well. Between 2010 and 2018, 44 of 77 CAs in the city have gained population. Let's disregard the usual suspects from this that are downtown + Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square, Lakeview, West Town (Wicker Park, Ukrainian Village), North Center, etc. Let's look at the other CAs of the city that have grown in population between 2010 and 2018. Keep in mind that I'm comparing the 2010 ACS to the 2018 ACS as the US Census Department told me a few years ago personally to not compare decennial census to ACS because they're completely different studies with different methodologies:

West Ridge: +5143 people
Avondale: +4879 people
Bridgeport: +2293 people
Uptown: +2084 people
South Lawndale: +2041 people
Humboldt Park: +1762 people
Douglas: +1744 people
Clearing: +1670 people
Hyde Park: +1639 people
Ashburn: +1604 people
Woodlawn: +1471 people
West Elsdon: +1429 people
Dunning: +1391 people
Riverdale: +1374 people
Grand Boulevard: +1319 people
Portage Park: +1317 people
Jefferson Park: +1279 people
Oakland: +1015 people
Garfield Ridge: +1012 people
Washington Park: +877 people
Brighton Park: +871 people
Mount Greenwood: +845 people
Montclare: +740 people
Edison Park: +597 people
O'Hare: +564 people
Morgan Park: +499 people
Belmont Cragin: +495 people
Gage Park: +452 people
South Shore: +320 people
McKinley Park: +294 people
Forest Glen: +259 people
Armour Square: +124 people
Archer Heights: +123 people

Of these 33 areas, 21 of them are situated south of Roosevelt. Now looking on the flip side, all the CAs that lost population between 2010 and 2018 add up to -86,976 people, which were in 34 CAs. Of those, 12 areas alone account for just over 75% of all of the loss of those areas. It's obviously a huge problem in those areas, do not get me wrong. However, saying that only the central area is OK and nowhere else is doing OK is factually false. Obviously population isn't the end-all-be-all either, but this is just the starting point. A lot of parts of the city are actually growing, not just the center contrary to popular belief.

[Mimol742]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think my point is that Chicago is only getting wealthier (and yes, poorer) than it was decades ago. That may surprise people, but we are seeing even more investment in the core of the city than we were when the Hancock, Standard Oil, and Sears Tower were
.

Why do you say the city is also getting poorer? I disagree with that statement. Minimum wage is now the highest it’s been for years and the city is booming economically.

[Darude_Sandstorm]

Originally Posted by Mimol742

Why do you say the city is also getting poorer? I disagree with that statement. Minimum wage is now the highest it’s been for years and the city is booming economically.

If there was no such thing as cost-of-living you would be correct

[Mimol742]

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

If there was no such thing as cost-of-living you would be correct

Of course cost of living Has a lot to do with poverty rates. That being said, the minimum wage was not changed for a long time and cost of living was going up every year. Now that the minimum wage gas gotten a big bump, the poverty rate should continue to decrease specially since it will be adjusted to inflation year over a year once it reaches $15 an hour.

The below article mentions how poverty rates in Chicago have been decreasing for the past five years:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/chicago...al-demographer

[pianowizard]

Originally Posted by Zapatan

For building nerds and their statistics we at least have 2 skyscrapers instead of one.

True, the number of skyscrapers (defined as buildings at least 150 m tall) matters too! With 126 completed skyscrapers as of Dec 2019, Chicago is #8 in the world, though many developing cities are rising fast:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...150_m_(492_ft)

Actually, I just scrolled down to the table that includes skyscrapers under construction, which shows that Chicago is ranked #9, and Wuhan is just 2 skyscrapers behind:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ion_inclusive)

This same table shows that Shenzhen has surpassed Hong Kong, while NYC is closing the gap with HK.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

If there was no such thing as cost-of-living you would be correct

Right, except for "home cost burdened" percentage in the city has gone down.

Percentage of Mortgage Holding Households spending >= 30% of gross income on housing costs

2017: 36.95%
2013: 45.62%

Percentage of rent households spending >= 30% of gross income on rent

2017: 50.7%
2013: 53.7%

[Handro]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Right, except for "home cost burdened" percentage in the city has gone down.

Percentage of Mortgage Holding Households spending >= 30% of gross income on housing costs

2017: 36.95%
2013: 45.62%

Percentage of rent households spending >= 30% of gross income on rent

2017: 50.7%
2013: 53.7%

Very interesting. I'm guessing this has to do with the loss of lower and lower middle class residents and increase of wealthier white collar residents?

Of course, these stats don't mean that the general COL hasn't increased (which is partly why the city is losing lower income residents) so while the trend might bear out the city as a whole is getting wealthier, it doesn't mean that the remaining lower income residents aren't feeling more squeezed.

Originally Posted by vexxed82

Agreed with rgarri. If the details and materials stay the same, I'll still be happy. Maybe it's just my coping mechanism, but I sort of think this is a good height for this spot. With Vista, Trump, and hopefully the Tribune addition standing taller behind it, I think a slight 'tenting' of the skyline towards the heart of the city will be more aesthetically pleasing; drawing your eye inward and upward. I feel a supertall at this point would act like a sort of wall between the skyline and lake

This is honestly how I feel and I don't think it's a coping mechanism for me. The strength of Chicago's skyline is in part due to it's incredible balance, and the stunning views from the lake. A super tall here could block architectural gems of the present and future. Having shorter towers along the lakefront increases the depth of the skyline, IMO.

Though I'm not a huge fan of the alignment of the two tower design. I'll wait for more renderings but it creates a weird dead space...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Handro

Very interesting. I'm guessing this has to do with the loss of lower and lower middle class residents and increase of wealthier white collar residents?

Of course, these stats don't mean that the general COL hasn't increased (which is partly why the city is losing lower income residents) so while the trend might bear out the city as a whole is getting wealthier, it doesn't mean that the remaining lower income residents aren't feeling more squeezed.
..

Right. It depends on the area. Most of the city is doing better except areas in and around Englewood and around Austin I think. Which no surprise are the areas of the city responsible for a huge percentage of population loss while a good chunk of the city, including multiple areas on the south and southwest sides are actually gaining in population. On the whole I agree with you but it's also not fully correct to say only the core is doing well. You will find areas on the south and south west side doing better than realized (not just Hyde Park). Then you'll find some that are doing worse off and it's important to uplift those areas instead of neglect them.

The site for 2018 data is up again. Here is the percentage of households with an income of less than $35K with a mortgage spending 30%+ of gross income on mortgage:

2018: 97.4%
2013: 96.8%

So yes that is going up however, there's 11,776 less households with a mortgage making under $35K in 2018 than 2013 and about the same in that range without a mortgage. Obviously hard to tell by this alone what's going on.

As a city though, the percentage of households paying less than 30% on housing has gone up overall (a good thing) but some areas for sure not good. Those areas have big population loss so it's important to address the economic issues of those areas specifically IMO

[Handro]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Right. It depends on the area. Most of the city is doing better except areas in and around Englewood and around Austin I think. Which no surprise are the areas of the city responsible for a huge percentage of population loss while a good chunk of the city, including multiple areas on the south and southwest sides are actually gaining in population. On the whole I agree with you but it's also not fully correct to say only the core is doing well. You will find areas on the south and south west side doing better than realized (not just Hyde Park). Then you'll find some that are doing worse off and it's important to uplift those areas instead of neglect them.

The site for 2018 data is up again. Here is the percentage of households with an income of less than $35K with a mortgage spending 30%+ of gross income on mortgage:

2018: 97.4%
2013: 96.8%

So yes that is going up however, there's 11,776 less households with a mortgage making under $35K in 2018 than 2013 and about the same in that range without a mortgage. Obviously hard to tell by this alone what's going on.

As a city though, the percentage of households paying less than 30% on housing has gone up overall (a good thing) but some areas for sure not good. Those areas have big population loss so it's important to address the economic issues of those areas specifically IMO

For sure, I love seeing the numbers bear that out. The success of downtown and the depletion of those neighborhoods on the south and west sides make the news, the nice steady rise of all the rest of the city get lost between them. Good news

[Chi-Sky21]

Just saw one of the beams being used on the mile long bridge while driving....the thing was MASSIVE. Could not get a pick without crashing...sorry. Wonder how they lift those on the part over the waterway.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Darude_Sandstorm

If there was no such thing as cost-of-living you would be correct

In recent years the minimum wage has risen faster than the cost of living. Granted that's after decades of it stagnating, but it's at least regained some of the ground it lost.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by emathias

In recent years the minimum wage has risen faster than the cost of living. Granted that's after decades of it stagnating, but it's at least regained some of the ground it lost.

If minimum wage had kept pace with inflation since the late 60s, it’d still be less than $15 per hour. If it had kept pace with productivity gains, it’d be higher.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Right, except for "home cost burdened" percentage in the city has gone down.

Percentage of Mortgage Holding Households spending >= 30% of gross income on housing costs

2017: 36.95%
2013: 45.62%

Percentage of rent households spending >= 30% of gross income on rent

2017: 50.7%
2013: 53.7%

Potentially minor nitpick, though important as far as then vs. now comparisons and stitching together a storyline: my understanding of the 5-year ACS is that it's a rolling sample, which also makes it a bit of a lagging indicator. So, according to the ACS, most economic/income indicators bottomed out around 2012 and 2013, whereas the actual worst depths of the recession were more like 2010.

A more meaningful and long term comparison IMO would be 2018 vs 2008 stats. Whenever I've looked at things longer term like that, particularly if looking back to the 2000 or earlier, I often up finding that a huge portion of Chicagoland has stagnated or declined. Many parts of the regional and urban economy never really recovered from the 2001 recession, let alone 2009.

[VivaLFuego]

Chicago can be thought of two economic areas, one of which has done well and one of which has done terribly, and it averages out to a general stagnation that masks very stark disparities throughout the region.

Comparing Metropolitan Area Median HH Income, Inflation Adjusted to CPI-U:

Chicago
1969 - $67K
1989 - $72K
2017 - $68K

Washington DC
1969 - $72K
1989 - $91K
2017 - $100K

Boston
1969 - $62K
1989 - $79K
2017 - $86K

San Francisco (doesn't include San Jose MSA)
1969 - $62K
1989 - $80K
2017 - $102K

Los Angeles (LA-LB-Ana MSA only)
1969 - $58K
1989 - $69K
2017 - $70K

Minneapolis
1969 - $66K
1989 - $72K
2017 - $77K

Dallas
1969 - $58K
1989 - $65K
2017 - $67K

Denver
1969 - $59K
1989 - $65K
2017 - $77K

Detroit
1969 - $69K
1989 - $68K
2017 - $58K

Cleveland
1969 - $64K
1989 - $60K
2017 - $52K

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Chicago can be thought of two economic areas, one of which has done well and one of which has done terribly, and it averages out to a general stagnation that masks very stark disparities throughout the region.

Comparing Metropolitan Area Median HH Income, Inflation Adjusted to CPI-U:

Chicago
1969 - $67K
1989 - $72K
2017 - $68K

Washington DC
1969 - $72K
1989 - $91K
2017 - $100K

Boston
1969 - $62K
1989 - $79K
2017 - $86K

San Francisco (doesn't include San Jose MSA)
1969 - $62K
1989 - $80K
2017 - $102K

Los Angeles (LA-LB-Ana MSA only)
1969 - $58K
1989 - $69K
2017 - $70K

Minneapolis
1969 - $66K
1989 - $72K
2017 - $77K

Dallas
1969 - $58K
1989 - $65K
2017 - $67K

Denver
1969 - $59K
1989 - $65K
2017 - $77K

Detroit
1969 - $69K
1989 - $68K
2017 - $58K

Cleveland
1969 - $64K
1989 - $60K
2017 - $52K

This is great data. Some additional cost-of-living information would make it even more impactful.

At a high-level, outperforming other Rust Belt cities, but underperforming Sun Belt cities. The Coasts have had such a cost-of-living increase, I'm not sure how to categorize them.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by moorhosj1

This is great data. Some additional cost-of-living information would make it even more impactful.

At a high-level, outperforming other Rust Belt cities, but underperforming Sun Belt cities. The Coasts have had such a cost-of-living increase, I'm not sure how to categorize them.

Average cost of tuition at 4-year public university in 1970 (in 2016 dollars): $2,676.27 (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/...s/dt07_320.asp) (inflation calculator: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc...1&year2=201601)

Average cost of tuition at 4-year public university in 2016: $19,800 (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=76)

A minimum wage job and some bootstrapping could get you a 4 year degree in 1970. Good luck now.