CHICAGO | General Developments

[spyguy]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Kind of hard to get excited about the density when you've got this trash across the steet:

Trash across the street

Meh - it's getting better. There will be another 4 or 5 of these midrise buildings in the Parkside development plus the townhomes behind them. A little further away there's Jahn's SRO, Clybourn Point, and that 9 story Brininstool+Lynch building. Hopefully some day that Dominick's will be replaced with something more appropriate.

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^ Like a WTB!

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Kind of hard to get excited about the density when you've got this trash across the steet:

Trash across the street

To me, even the strip mall isn't as bad as what they did to Division street: widen it to about 7 lanes and make it basically uncrossable. The strip mall, while crappy, is at least -somewhat- accessible by foot, and -slightly- attractive as parking lots go (I know, scraping the bottom of the barrel here...) but Division is a suburban-arterial-nightmare now; it really needs an overhead pedestrian bridge or some such. I would almost suggest a tunnel, but maybe not right by Cabrini-Green.

[ardecila]

^^ What Cabrini-Green? By the end of '08, I believe, all high-rises will be torn down, leaving only the rowhouses, which are 3 blocks away and probably house only 1000 people tops.

A tunnel might be challenging to build around the Red Line subway, though.

ParkSide will be mixed-income, and any public-housing residents will be subject to the CHA's new stricter requirements, and hopefully less dangerous.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

To me, even the strip mall isn't as bad as what they did to Division street: widen it to about 7 lanes and make it basically uncrossable. The strip mall, while crappy, is at least -somewhat- accessible by foot, and -slightly- attractive as parking lots go (I know, scraping the bottom of the barrel here...) but Division is a suburban-arterial-nightmare now; it really needs an overhead pedestrian bridge or some such. I would almost suggest a tunnel, but maybe not right by Cabrini-Green.

Agreed. Between the strip mall and the crazy weird widening of Division, they have ruined that intersection for years to come. IMO, the Park Side development is significantly improving the intersection from what was there. Though it hides less dense townhomes behind the larger condo development, the entire development certainly gives the appearance of density. Given the proximity of this area to the loop and some of Chicago's hottest real estate markets, there needs to be more density here. Even if it is POMO crap architecture.

About the widening of Division...what exactly was the purpose here? Division was widened for a single city block. Orleans was widened for about half a block. From using that intersection, the only net benefit seems to be in extra right turn lanes off of Division onto Clyborn, Sedgwick and Orleans and an extra right turn lane off of Orleans onto Division.

It seems to be netting very little benefit for a confusing maze of streets. And in some places, the planning seems to be atrocious. Why, for instance, is there dead road going west on Division between the forward lanes and the two (TWO!?!?!) right hand turn lanes? Why, again, does there need to be two right hand turn lanes feeding into a single lane street (Orleans)? Also, going East on Division, the road splits from a single lane into three highly confusing lanes. Two of these are meant as forward lanes (again feeding into a single lane road: the rest of Division) and one of these is a right turn lane onto Sedgwick and Clyborn.

All of these are fantastically bad decisions, IMO, and improve the experience for neither autos or pedestrians. It was just a bad, bad move.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^^ What Cabrini-Green? By the end of '08, I believe, all high-rises will be torn down, leaving only the rowhouses, which are 3 blocks away and probably house only 1000 people tops.

Does anyone know the fate of these rowhouses? They seem like the last holdouts of the projects in the area and are (IMO) really out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and encroaching gentrified developments.

Will they fall? Stay?

Taft

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Taft

About the widening of Division...what exactly was the purpose here? Division was widened for a single city block. Orleans was widened for about half a block. From using that intersection, the only net benefit seems to be in extra right turn lanes off of Division onto Clyborn, Sedgwick and Orleans and an extra right turn lane off of Orleans onto Division.

It seems to be netting very little benefit for a confusing maze of streets. And in some places, the planning seems to be atrocious. Why, for instance, is there dead road going west on Division between the forward lanes and the two (TWO!?!?!) right hand turn lanes? Why, again, does there need to be two right hand turn lanes feeding into a single lane street (Orleans)? Also, going East on Division, the road splits from a single lane into three highly confusing lanes. Two of these are meant as forward lanes (again feeding into a single lane road: the rest of Division) and one of these is a right turn lane onto Sedgwick and Clyborn.

All of these are fantastically bad decisions, IMO, and improve the experience for neither autos or pedestrians. It was just a bad, bad move.

Taft

Well put. What's pathetic is that it didn't even accomplish moving the congestion farther downstream like most widening projects do. That intersection was VERY congested before....and it still is, because of multiple idiotic design choices that you point out. What once sucked for cars but was at least passable by pedestrians is now dreadful for both, and is aesthetically hideous to boot.

[honte]

Originally Posted by Taft

Does anyone know the fate of these rowhouses? They seem like the last holdouts of the projects in the area and are (IMO) really out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and encroaching gentrified developments.

Will they fall? Stay?

Taft

I am fairly certain that the rowhouses are on the National Register... meaning that they cannot use federal money to tear them down. My understanding is that will be rehabbed therefore. I don't have time to get on the NRHP web site to verify, but it's easily done if anyone is motivated to do so.

Concerning the two traffic turn lanes on Division, it seemed fairly obvious to me that the city is expecting major traffic eventually to come down Clybourn and Division Streets, and head down Orleans toward the Ohio Feeder. Division is a big bottleneck there because it narrows leading into the GC and the GC people surely don't want all of that traffic heading into their 'hood.

I have read that the City intends to tear down the two beautiful bascule bridges on Division Street from Goose Island, widening them to two lanes each direction. This surely will cause major traffic leading to this location. However, I am very saddened to see those great and historic bridges come down; there should have been a way to reuse them either in place or elsewhere in the city.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by honte

Concerning the two traffic turn lanes on Division, it seemed fairly obvious to me that the city is expecting major traffic eventually to come down Clybourn and Division Streets, and head down Orleans toward the Ohio Feeder. Division is a big bottleneck there because it narrows leading into the GC and the GC people surely don't want all of that traffic heading into their 'hood.

I just wonder where they expect that traffic to go (from a commute-in perspective). They can't feasibly widen Division east of Orleans, which makes it a poor feeder street for La Salle or Inner Lake Shore. I guess they could possibly widen Orleans between Division and Chicago...but is there room? Personally, I don't think the problem was with the intersection. Rather, there just aren't compelling reasons to use Orleans, Clyborn or Sedgwick. Orleans doesn't feed cleanly into other commuter streets until Ohio (thanks to the messed up street grid around Moody Bible College and the cluster f' that is Chicago/Orleans) and Sedgwick is useless unless you live in Old Town.

As it stands, the backups I see at this intersection are Division-related. Traffic headed West on Division backs up behind the Orleans intersection and the bridge and Halsted. Traffic headed East on Division backs up behind the Orleans intersection and the numerous other lighted intersections to the east. Orleans and Clyborn backups are far less common at this intersection, due to (comparatively) limited use of Sedgwick and Orleans.

I agree that they are planning for something...but I think the city has a lot of work do to if they are trying to get people off of Division. They put the cart before the horse, IMO, and now we've got a needlessly confusing, fancy new intersection leading to no good alternative traffic routes. Big waste o' money.

Way off topic here... this should probably go in transportation...

Taft

[Taft]

Originally Posted by honte

I am fairly certain that the rowhouses are on the National Register... meaning that they cannot use federal money to tear them down. My understanding is that will be rehabbed therefore. I don't have time to get on the NRHP web site to verify, but it's easily done if anyone is motivated to do so.

I've never used the NRHP website before, but I couldn't find the Frances Cabrini Homes anywhere in their database. I think that is their official name. Even if it isn't, I couldn't find anything in the registry on Cambridge street in Chicago either.

So I'm going to say they aren't on the registry.

Taft

[BWChicago]

Originally Posted by Taft

I've never used the NRHP website before, but I couldn't find the Frances Cabrini Homes anywhere in their database. I think that is their official name. Even if it isn't, I couldn't find anything in the registry on Cambridge street in Chicago either.

So I'm going to say they aren't on the registry.

Taft

I'm going to take this opportunity to advertise the HAARGIS system, which encompasses a variety of surveys, including NRHP, CHRS, and several more obscure ones. Some even have pictures from the 70s.

http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/

[honte]

Originally Posted by Taft

I've never used the NRHP website before, but I couldn't find the Frances Cabrini Homes anywhere in their database. I think that is their official name. Even if it isn't, I couldn't find anything in the registry on Cambridge street in Chicago either.

So I'm going to say they aren't on the registry.

Taft

Yeah, interesting. I took a quick look and didn't see them either. I could be remembering this incorrectly - was it a failed attempt, or another listing, etc? I'll try to look into it more closely if I can find time.

In any case, the CHA's policy seems to be to rehab all of the low-rise units. I can't remember any instances of small walk-up units coming down, except the Prairie Courts and Ida B. Wells, if those counted. There probably are others I am forgetting, but it seems like significant effort is being put into retaining the very small units, such as Wentworth Gardens, etc.

[Eventually...Chicago]

I agree that the Dominick’s development on division is terrible city development but considering they were the first ones into a neighborhood no one wanted a part of earns them some credit. Like it or not, big, evil national (or super regional) retailers are often the only ones who can afford to take the risk like that. There wasn't even a "west town" further down division when they came here. As much as we would all like development to take a different pattern sometimes we have to swallow our pride until the economics of an area take over. (A similar situation to the BP, jewel & starbucks at wabash and roosevelt)

Eventually, the land consumed by the parking lot will grow too valuable for its current use and the crappy retail building will deteriorate. Hopefully, by that time the area will have appreciated so much that it inspires traditionally planned city development. Look what happened at the North & Clybourn BP. The land grew too valuable for a gas station and now you're getting an apple store and other retail. Hopefully, the same thing will happen to that strip mall across the street.

Sometimes you have to be patient, the city wasn't built in a day. I'm just happy cabrini green is (almost) gone.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by honte

In any case, the CHA's policy seems to be to rehab all of the low-rise units. I can't remember any instances of small walk-up units coming down, except the Prairie Courts and Ida B. Wells, if those counted. There probably are others I am forgetting, but it seems like significant effort is being put into retaining the very small units, such as Wentworth Gardens, etc.

I can see that policy making sense in other neighborhoods, but here it seems daft. Cambridge will continue to be a mini-cabrini if the only thing lining the street is CHA low rises. Given how valuable (and central to the neighborhood) that land is, it just seems crazy.

I mean, by just throwing up 3 flats along the whole street, you could probably fit the same number of CHA units while diversifying the neighborhood.

Taft

[ChiPsy]

Originally Posted by BWChicago

I'm going to take this opportunity to advertise the HAARGIS system, which encompasses a variety of surveys, including NRHP, CHRS, and several more obscure ones. Some even have pictures from the 70s.

http://gis.hpa.state.il.us/hargis/

Thanks -- that's a cool system. Here's what it says about the Frances Cabrini rowhouses:

"This property is formally determined eligible for the National Register."
"This property is within a CLG."

CLG = Certified Local Government??? http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/clg/clg_p.htm

[Tom In Chicago]

From today's Crains Chicago Business about this new Jahn building:

University of Chicago unveils plans for Joe and Rika Mansueto Library

May 12, 2008
(AP) — Authorities at the University of Chicago unveiled plans Monday for a striking new glass-domed library — most of which will be underground.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=29392

[aaron38]

^^^ Is there a ground floor under the dome? Or is it basically puting a dome over U of I's underground undergrad library, and that's a domed atrium?

[spyguy]

[Taft]

Originally Posted by ChiPsy

Thanks -- that's a cool system. Here's what it says about the Frances Cabrini rowhouses:

"This property is formally determined eligible for the National Register."
"This property is within a CLG."

CLG = Certified Local Government??? http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/clg/clg_p.htm

Good find. So it isn't on the National Register, but it is eligible? I'm guessing this has been nominated for inclusion, but hasn't been put on the list.

Taft

[Tom Servo]

wow, that u of c library addition is supercool! i had seen these drawings on the wall at helmut jahn before, but never new it was for a CHICAGO PROJECT!! cooooool!