CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[Arm&Kedzie]

^ Stellar page of updates to come home to. Thanks you two!

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by takascar

No offense, but why does that attitude not smack of NIMBYism? They wouldn't build the parking podium unless there was a demand for parking at these kinds of buildings.

Why do you think you have a right to restrict potential renters from their choice of transportation.

This is America. We drive cars. It is offensive nanny-statism for elite snobs to dictate to citizens what kind of transportation they can have.

If they didn't drive cars, there wouldn't be a market for a large parking to unit ratio.

I find anti-auto parking "nazis" to be exceedingly annoying.

Signed - a native Detroiter from a proud UAW family.

^ There is a mandated parking minimum here, not a maximum. In other words, the nanny state is telling developers to build more parking than they necessarily feel they need. This goes against what you're saying.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I'm amused by the idea that a single-purpose parking garage in the area is better urban design than a parking podium that has ground floor retail and residential lobbies activating the sidewalk.

^ Single purpose garages can be demo'd and replaced with something "better" later down the line

[harryc]

July 26


Aug 02


Aug 11


New deck - a post tension slab on top of an existing building.

[SamInTheLoop]

Awesome work, Harry and Solar.

215 W. Lake is on track to be a stunner.....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I should say that most people who think like me (and I assume ardecila) just want developers to be able to build the amount of parking that the market demands. Giant podium? Shrug. OK. Row after row of garage-free townhomes? Sounds great. It's been illegal to build the kind of housing that a lot of people want to live in for decades. I just want to see the government-mandated parking minimums go away so we can build the kind of residences the market wants.

I for one certainly don't think that developers should be able to build however many spaces they think the market wants, because in some (many) cases, this will still definitely be too many from a good planning/public externality management perspective. What I think we need are parking maximums - not parking minimums. Take for example 1001 S. State. Parking maximum should probably fall somewhere in the 140-180 stall range I'd think, taking into account all aspects of its location/transit access, neighborhood density/amenities, walkability, and unit count, etc....

[emathias]

Originally Posted by takascar

No offense, but why does that attitude not smack of NIMBYism? They wouldn't build the parking podium unless there was a demand for parking at these kinds of buildings.

Why do you think you have a right to restrict potential renters from their choice of transportation.

This is America. We drive cars. It is offensive nanny-statism for elite snobs to dictate to citizens what kind of transportation they can have.

If they didn't drive cars, there wouldn't be a market for a large parking to unit ratio.

I find anti-auto parking "nazis" to be exceedingly annoying.

Signed - a native Detroiter from a proud UAW family.

If only what you wrote were true historically.

Until this year, almost every building built in Chicago was required by your nanny-state to build parking whether the developer wanted to or not, whether residents drove or not.

There is rarely a market for large parking-to-unit ratios in the central parts of Chicago, but there have frequently been laws imposing them on developers.

If you want to fight for developers to have the right to build as much parking as possible in the name of freedom, then you should equally fight for developers to build as *little* parking as possible when they feel that's what the market wants. Do you?

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by takascar

No offense, but why does that attitude not smack of NIMBYism? They wouldn't build the parking podium unless there was a demand for parking at these kinds of buildings.

Why do you think you have a right to restrict potential renters from their choice of transportation.

This is America. We drive cars. It is offensive nanny-statism for elite snobs to dictate to citizens what kind of transportation they can have.

If they didn't drive cars, there wouldn't be a market for a large parking to unit ratio.

I find anti-auto parking "nazis" to be exceedingly annoying.

Signed - a native Detroiter from a proud UAW family.

Uhhhh, so go comment on a car forum already....?

[harryc]

July 15
Curb Appeal








July 27


Aug 11

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by takascar

No offense, but why does that attitude not smack of NIMBYism? They wouldn't build the parking podium unless there was a demand for parking at these kinds of buildings.

Why do you think you have a right to restrict potential renters from their choice of transportation.

This is America. We drive cars. It is offensive nanny-statism for elite snobs to dictate to citizens what kind of transportation they can have.

If they didn't drive cars, there wouldn't be a market for a large parking to unit ratio.

I find anti-auto parking "nazis" to be exceedingly annoying.

Signed - a native Detroiter from a proud UAW family.

In very dense locations more public transit (or maybe more accurately more diverse options for transit), less parking, and as a result less cars often means every mode of transportation is more efficient and the location is more livable.

Cities absolutely do have the right and should exercise the right to create ordinances defining what can and cannot be built for particular locations. For a city to represent the interests of it's citizens and be a place that businesses and people want to move to it requires smart efficient design and planning. This is not elitism it's just the reality of a dense city.

[harryc]

July 26




Aug 10






Looking N on Wells - 635 and 640 N Wells framing the street.


Aug 13
Taking it's place in the skyline (directly over the blue sign)

[Near North Resident]

They are assembling the tower crane at 311 W. Illinois this morning, saw the flatbeds with the huge counterweights on them and the crane installing the base as I passed by on the El

also, I took a picture of the 3 Orleans St. Amigos this morning, interesting sky (can also see HoJo tower!)

[harryc]

Aug 13

[harryc]

Jul 26






Cutting corners

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by takascar

No offense, but why does that attitude not smack of NIMBYism? They wouldn't build the parking podium unless there was a demand for parking at these kinds of buildings.

Why do you think you have a right to restrict potential renters from their choice of transportation.

This is America. We drive cars. It is offensive nanny-statism for elite snobs to dictate to citizens what kind of transportation they can have.

If they didn't drive cars, there wouldn't be a market for a large parking to unit ratio.

I find anti-auto parking "nazis" to be exceedingly annoying.

Signed - a native Detroiter from a proud UAW family.

Not to pile on, but the law in 99.9% of America requires parking to be provided with housing.

That means those of us who can't or don't want to own a car have to pay hard-earned money for a parking spot we will never use. It's just a hidden tax, really, that only benefits car owners. That's a problem, since people who don't own cars tend to be lower-income and have less money to throw around.

In a perfectly free market, the corner of State and 9th would be an ideal location for people who choose not to drive, for the reasons I outlined. In the South Loop, it's already possible and often even pleasant to commute to work and perform all of life's tasks without climbing in a car. But, until recently, the law still required developers to provide excessive parking for residential buildings, increasing the cost of housing for everyone.

Car owners still have the freedom to buy housing with parking virtually anywhere they want, but now non-motorists have the freedom to avoid the "parking tax" by choosing to live in TOD buildings.

[mattshoe]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Car owners still have the freedom to buy housing with parking virtually anywhere they want, but now non-motorists have the freedom to avoid the "parking tax" by choosing to live in TOD buildings.

Which are currently all 'luxury' buildings.

[swacker233]

Originally Posted by mattshoe

Which are currently all 'luxury' buildings.

Hey, not the ones from the 1920s, they aren't!

[Mr Downtown]

I've never heard of a Loop or South Loop highrise bundling free parking with units, except possibly as a short-term promotional gimmick. You're not paying for a parking spot you'll never use.

It's fine to oppose parking podiums just as a matter of principle, but I encourage you critics to actually walk the reopened sidewalk past 1001 South State, as I did tonight. I think it's exceptionally good from a pedestrian standpoint: no curb cuts, active frontage the entire length, interesting design and materials at eye level, a welcoming overhang that shelters and welcomes passers-by. No severe delineation of private space until you actually enter the lobby. Unless you're across the street, you'd never have any idea that the building has a parking podium.

[the urban politician]

^ You pay for the parking spot by virtue of the fact that it cost the developer money to build it. And the expenses borne by the developer in some way get passed along to the consumer (renter or condo owner)

[mattshoe]

Originally Posted by swacker233

Hey, not the ones from the 1920s, they aren't!

Oops, very true.