CHICAGO | General Developments

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

To me, the really infuriating thing is that there's a great example of how to do it right little more than a mile and a half down Lawrence:



There's your density upgrade, there's your filled corner, there's your dual entrances and your de-emphasized parking. And a not-bad contextual design.

Excellent example. Thank you.

Originally Posted by marothisu

I sure hope that wasn't your definitive list of places in town where people live without cars or while not using theirs very much, because if it is then you don't know this city as well as you think you do.
.

Lol, okay, guy. Learn how to read more carefully, and read my post again. In any event, I drive almost everyday and to most places... because I can. I hate the damn busses. I only reluctantly take the nasty train to Cubs games or to bars. And for the record, I also drive to my parents house, which is in the city, the same place I lived in high school. Most of my friends share the same car usage... as was my original point: it is absurd to claim that the majority of Chicagoans walk or take public transit.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

To me, the really infuriating thing is that there's a great example of how to do it right little more than a mile and a half down Lawrence:



There's your density upgrade, there's your filled corner, there's your dual entrances and your de-emphasized parking. And a not-bad contextual design.

Thank you.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

it is absurd to claim that the majority of Chicagoans walk or take public transit.

Avg number of daily CTA rides: 1.7 million.

I think its safe to say around 1 million people in a city of 2.8 million are taking the CTA each day. That doesn't include those who walk or bike to work (i.e. most of river north/loop area).

I think it is safe to say a majority of those in the city use transit or walk on a daily basis.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by XIII

Avg number of daily CTA rides: 1.7 million.

I think its safe to say around 1 million people in a city of 2.8 million are taking the CTA each day. That doesn't include those who walk or bike to work (i.e. most of river north/loop area).

I think it is safe to say a majority of those in the city use transit or walk on a daily basis.

Probably less, you can divide that number in half at least to get the true amount of people due to multiple rides per person per day. However it does not account for Metra from the burbs, walking and biking like you already said. The point is, i think we all would like to see more TOD development, it just makes sense. HOWEVER, the car isn't going anywhere so businesses must make allowances for them. It's just a matter of them doing so in a way that fits with each particular location. I think BWChicago already provided a good example of what we would all like to see...now can we please stop the petty bickering about this stupid parking lot and get back to the business of thinking up a better chicago! That being said, i really think that plan for the old Childrens memorial hospital location is pretty good!

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Lol, okay, guy. Learn how to read more carefully, and read my post again. In any event, I drive almost everyday and to most places... because I can. I hate the damn busses. I only reluctantly take the nasty train to Cubs games or to bars. And for the record, I also drive to my parents house, which is in the city, the same place I lived in high school. Most of my friends share the same car usage... as was my original point: it is absurd to claim that the majority of Chicagoans walk or take public transit.

First, I never claimed that the vast majority of Chicagoans walk or take public transit. Even though, there is a semi large percentage of people who use public transit on a daily basis. The daily ridership of the CTA is about 1.7 million. If you halve that to get the number of unique people riding public transit everyday, that amounts to over 30% of the population of Chicago. Even if you say 200,000 of those people are tourists or suburbanites riding the system everyday, that's still about 25% of the population. Is it the MAJORITY of the population? No, but it's still a lot of people and a sizable chunk of the population. This is also not counting people whose lives revolve around small areas and have the ability to walk almost everywhere in their daily lives. There's also thousands of people who bike everywhere, which will only continue to rise in small amounts in some areas thanks to Divvy.

Secondly, everyone has a differing of opinion. Just because you don't like public transit doesn't mean that everyone else is in the same camp as you. I certainly understand people who don't enjoy it, and I understand people who do "enjoy" it. It comes in all shapes and sizes, and shitting on someone because they like to ride public transit is not the way to go. I have friends who are former VPs of large companies who moved to Chicago (no, not from Michigan) who are multi millionaires, who don't even own cars here. They ride public transit and walk everywhere.

Personally, I enjoy the ability to be able to walk to places, or take a 5 minute train or bus ride to some place. I enjoy the ability to be social by walking on the street or taking public transit and perhaps striking up a conversation with people using these modes of transportation. Being spontaneous, actually slowing down and being able to explore an area with all my senses. I can't do any of that through a car. For the record, I love driving, but I enjoy actually being outside and being social, exploring, and stopping to actually look at things more. Hell, I even enjoy seeing the vast amount of personalities on the bus or train. It lets my imagination go even more freely and has made for some funny stories.

I know it may come as a surprise to many people, but before the 1940s or 1950s, the use of the car was not that great. Shitting on people for wanting to be in a walkable community and public transit driven community is not only shitting on the millions upon millions of people who live that way around the world currently in a variety of different economies, but also shitting on the millions upon millions of people who lived that way once upon a time even in this country who had zero problems with it.

Again, I'm not saying the car is a terrible, terrible thing. I really enjoy driving. However, there's many people who live in this city, not to mention millions upon millions around the world, who enjoy not using a car to get everywhere. I could easily have a car - I live in a high rise downtown and go on international vacations every year. However, I actively choose not to because the advantages of not owning one outweigh the disadvantages to me.

[LouisVanDerWright]

This discussion is getting boring, but don't forget that not all citizens of Chicago work. 25% or more of the city probably take transit each day, but probably close to 50% of the population is not working because they are retired, children, a stay at home spouse, or unemployed. I am willing to bet mode share for the automobile is probably around or just under 50% with the rest using bikes, transit, or walking.

[Pilton]

Cars v. Transit Today's Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,7409997.story

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

Probably less, you can divide that number in half at least to get the true amount of people due to multiple rides per person per day. However it does not account for Metra from the burbs, walking and biking like you already said. The point is, i think we all would like to see more TOD development, it just makes sense. HOWEVER, the car isn't going anywhere so businesses must make allowances for them. It's just a matter of them doing so in a way that fits with each particular location. I think BWChicago already provided a good example of what we would all like to see...now can we please stop the petty bickering about this stupid parking lot and get back to the business of thinking up a better chicago! That being said, i really think that plan for the old Childrens memorial hospital location is pretty good!

Does a Walgreens with a parking lot (replacing an existing mixed use building) next the Kimball Brown Line station make for a better Chicago?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Pilton

Cars v. Transit Today's Tribune:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...,7409997.story

It seems awkward to me that people in government would bitch about emissions, traffic, etc and then basically downgrade an incentive to help deal with it.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by marothisu

It seems awkward to me that people in government would bitch about emissions, traffic, etc and then basically downgrade an incentive to help deal with it.

I'm so used to the Tribune practically being a suburban paper that I'm a bit speechless to see this as their editorial.

[marothisu]

Restaurant build-out at 1219 N Wells (just north of Division) belonging to Edward Smolyansky, who's the CFO of Lifeway who is the largest producer of Kefir in the world. $800K and it's zoned for basement, first, and second floor for a restaurant. Work includes patron area and a bar (amongst restrooms, kitchen, etc). I wonder what's going in there? Hopefully not a sports bar..

Interestingly enough, the LoopNet listing says there's going to be a Trader Joe's and Movie Theater built adjacent to this. Is there anything to this or is it just old?

[pilsenarch]

just to add my two cents:

Mr. D is right, Walgreens thinks this design will maximize profit and it would be hard to argue that any other design would be as efficient in making money for them.

But do we want Walgreens, or for that matter Walmart, Target, any other international conglomerate, etc. in charge of urban planning in our city?

Of course not... I would argue that zoning at the terminal of the fastest growing rail line in the city should prohibit any parking. If that keeps Walgreens from building, so be it. Somehow, I think they will still find a way to build, though and conform to good city planning - there are too many examples of these corporations conforming to good planning when it is required.

And Servo, anyone who lives in a city in Chicago and argues that public transportation is disgusting does not have much ground to stand on when criticizing development across from a station...

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

just to add my two cents:

Mr. D is right, Walgreens thinks this design will maximize profit and it would be hard to argue that any other design would be as efficient in making money for them.

But do we want Walgreens, or for that matter Walmart, Target, any other international conglomerate, etc. in charge of urban planning in our city?

Of course not... I would argue that zoning at the terminal of the fastest growing rail line in the city should prohibit any parking. If that keeps Walgreens from building, so be it. Somehow, I think they will still find a way to build, though and conform to good city planning - there are too many examples of these corporations conforming to good planning when it is required.

And Servo, anyone who lives in a city in Chicago and argues that public transportation is disgusting does not have much ground to stand on when criticizing development across from a station...

That was worth much more than $0.02.

[Jibba]

The real issue with the Walgreen's, to me, is that it's an affront to the social contract that everyone is invariably subject to when they move to a municipality (or live in any civilization with even a primitive form of government, of course, but the point being that cities have more elaborate and numerous stipulations because of the closer proximity of every person residing within one and the inevitable increase in conflicts of interest that arise).

Anyway...of course Walgreen's has an incentive to pave half of the entire development site with asphalt, because, of the two main factors that shape development, economics (cost) and policy, cost is not an issue for them. The cost of providing the parking lot is probably so marginal for them that they figure, "Hey, why not? It's certainly not going to decrease sles." And if the policy underpinning the site allows for such a thing, then of course they're going to build it, because they will make every effort to ensure they grab as many potential customers as possible even if the additional amount of customers that use the parking lot is marginal. Since they cost to them is so marginal, too, then it's worth it to them.

Also, they will exploit the economics and policies in place if for nothing more than to ensure that each new store is consistent with the experience of the brand that Walgreen's wants everyone to have, and this is wholly for their benefit only. Are we willing to give up developable space for an entity's branding prerogatives?

And the costs of the parking lot, mind you, are not marginal to everyone else, as the externalities are many: increased traffic, loss of population density, increasingly hazardous pedestrian environment, loss of historic building stock, etc. It is complete self-interest and disregard for the urban environment under the pretense of convenience for their customers, and I'm calling bullshit. There is no way that this store wouldn't be 99% as successful without the parking lot than with it, and yet it decimates more than 80% (or more) of the functionality of the parcel (when accounting for the 50% taken up by the asphalt plane and the loss of the upper stories of the existing building et cetera).

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Does a Walgreens with a parking lot (replacing an existing mixed use building) next the Kimball Brown Line station make for a better Chicago?

Depends, is your only definition of a better Chicago more TOD. Maybe a better Chicago is a Walgreens generating far more taxes than the current structure probably does. Or maybe a better Chicago would be to turn it all into a public plaza since its near public transportation. Maybe the owner can't secure financing for a bigger building. There is a relatively new condo building right next to this, maybe the units are not selling/renting. I for one would not want to live right across the street from a noisy L station/tracks.

[r18tdi]

So why did Lincoln Elementary School need to be expanded in order for CMH to move forward when 75% of the proposed units are single bedroom? I'm confused by this one.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

So why did Lincoln Elementary School need to be expanded in order for CMH to move forward when 75% of the proposed units are single bedroom? I'm confused by this one.

To buy off the neighborhood who shit a brick at the density and went into full "think of the children mode" when the initial proposal came out. I assume the mayor and Ald Smith made a deal to try and smooth this over. Given the batshit insane NIMBYism over where a couple trucks might unload down at that Webster project I make no predictions as to the success of this strategy.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

As the saying goes, pics or it didn't happen.

I wasn't sure the Ferragamo store was fully complete yet, but in any event night shots of lighted things can be a little difficult and I await the eventual brilliant efforts of our crack team of expert photogs.

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

These particular examples make me happy though. The design of 645 North Michigan is much more palatable than the mutilated Realtor Building.

I'm very satisfied with them too.

Originally Posted by denizen467

A small tower crane has popped up / is rising alongside the W Lakeshore hotel building. I wonder if they are refurbing the facade, or hopefully doing something drastic and productive with the lower parking levels - those could serve as a nice overlook onto the lake.

Looks like it might be a facade refurb. The almost-tower-crane thing ended up not rising any further and seems to be just for hoisting material up to the roof of the parking podium. From there, there are further tracks/rails going up the entire tower facade. With HVAC punchouts for every room currently, the W Lakeshore has a drab '70s facade and it must look especially ugly on their website, amongst all the other W hotels. Plus, this prominent but overlooked stretch of LSD would be a great location for a signature re-do, or even just an understated, elegant one. (Anyway, all this is just speculation, and hoping that it's not just fixing leaks or something.)

[Mr Downtown]

The more I study the Walgreens rendering, the more puzzling it is. I don't see how zoning would permit a parking lot on the corner rather than to the west, where the current parking lot is. And of course the new condo building to the south isn't shown in the rendering. Are we sure we're looking at an actual rendering for the site in question?

If so, only one of the three corners at Lawrence & Kimball would be held by a building (the CTA terminal). Well, I guess that would make it easier to install a roundabout . . .

[ardecila]

Yes. Full documentation, including site plans, can be found at the 33rd Ward website.

http://www.33rdward.org/our-communit...nd-development