CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

^ I take it June 5th was the date Ald. Burns received the check?

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Can one of you building geniuses figure out what this might mean? I snapped it this morning on the fence around the small grass lot on Polk between Dearborn and Federal.



I've always thought that lot had potential, but I'd hate to see it turn into something stupid.

That planned development dates to 1990 for a 20 story building.
I don't think it got built and it probably expired decades ago.
I think the alderman is just cleaning up the zoning map and resetting the parcel to comply with the surrounding area.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by pip

They aren't tearing down that building to the left right? Just that portion that is being demolished now in the pic?

They're tearing everything down. A small, nothing building, immediately to the east of this is all that will remain.

...I just wanna go on record saying I have very mixed feelings about this. Whereas I really like the new building, I feel the same way about this as I did the old Dana hotel... Really bad loss IMO. Oh well...

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

That planned development dates to 1990 for a 20 story building.
I don't think it got built and it probably expired decades ago.
I think the alderman is just cleaning up the zoning map and resetting the parcel to comply with the surrounding area.

Judging by the address, this isn't even about that lot then, I'm guessing. I like the whole public notice system, but it's pretty rare that I can ever tell what they actually mean. I should save my excitement for building permits, I guess.

[the urban politician]

I was just thinking about this, and I actually think there is a legitimate argument to be made that the speed cameras will disproportionately harm neighborhood commercial districts over downtown.

For drivers, at least, I am going to be scared shitless of driving in the city's streets, lest I get slapped with one of those photo tickets for being a few mph over the speed limit when I wasn't paying attention for a few seconds.

People like me will choose to use the expressway and go straight downtown, park, and then walk downtown. So downtown won't get hurt to the same degree.

But neighborhood shopping corridors like Clark, Southport, Devon, etc may suffer. Sure you can drive downtown and take the L, but not only do some of these districts not even have good L service, who in their right mind is going to go to that much of a hassle to visit the Southport Corridor? Most people who don't live next to CTA L lines, or who live in the suburbs, are going to be discouraged from taking the routes through the city necessary to get to many of these neighborhood destinations.

Thoughts?

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Thoughts?

It's funny watching you turn into a grumpy old reactionary.

As for the Printers Row lot, it was purchased last winter by an architect (who does admirable modern stuff). The (really awful) PD had long since expired, but its sunset clause said the property would revert to C3-5—which no longer exists due to the 2004 zoning reform. So the guy now owns a piece of property with no zoning classification; the Zoning Division said that wasn't their problem. Ald. Burns agreed to introduce an ordinance to make it DX-12, which is similar to surrounding parcels.

The owner claims he hasn't a design in mind yet, but my guess is it will probably be around 8 to 10 stories. It's in the Printers Row Landmark District, but I'm hopeful he can make use of traditional materials in a modernist building.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's funny watching you turn into a grumpy old reactionary.

Funny or tedious?

[LaSalle.St.Station]

Originally Posted by george

6-11

Nature Boardwalk at Lincoln Park Zoo
The pond ecology, living shoreline keeps water clean and provides shelter for frogs, fish, insects and birds. I get all that but the water quality 'looks' like a stagnant cesspool and these shots were taken in early June. I actually preferred the larger pond footprint before the rehab, as well as the water quality 'looked' better. The natural plants, design and the boardwalk are much improved. It's just the look of the algae/ seaweed choked water that scares me, just me.

Just have to love the naturalist movement. Let's recreate the randomness of nature in a planned way. I like the marriage of man's design and nature. Look at any street with mature trees of the same species lining it , Man's order plus nature's beauty, can't we get back to it. After all man is part of the environment and his order of it.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's funny watching you turn into a grumpy old reactionary.

^ How was there a liberal/conservative spin on my question? I remain a huge mass transit advocate, but this is a legitimate concern.

Unfortunately, too many of Chicago's neighborhood commercial strips are not easily accessed by mass transit (nor do most people arrive by mass transit anyhow). Downtown is a completely different animal--if you make it harder to arrive by car, people will still find a way to get there anyhow.

But neighborhood commercial strips do not have that advantage, and anything that discourages drivers from arriving, without significant improvements in mass transit access, could harm businesses.

Let me rephrase: do some of our more pragmatic forumers (ie not the ideologues who roll their eyes whenever somebody mentions cars) have any thoughts?

[Beta_Magellan]

Honestly, I don’t think that red light cameras discourage people from driving any more than speed limits discourage people from taking highways. They may change driving behavior, but they won’t cause people to shift modes and in my experience with red light cameras it just makes you a little more paranoid(/cautious) around that intersection and it doesn’t cause you to avoid that part of the city altogether.

[the urban politician]

^ I never mentioned red light cameras. I mentioned speed cameras. You know, the one that clocks you going 35 in a 25 mph zone and sends you a $100 ticket. Raise your hand if you've never 'speeded' before

[Rizzo]

I find it pretty hard to go above 30 in Chicago's congested neighborhoods. I'm one of those "go with the flow drivers". And I don't ever find myself speeding in traffic in Chicago. More like stuck. Freeways though, I'd admitedly be in trouble.

Speed tickets are nothing. Drivers who break laws will be slammed by prohibited turns, red light running and car door opening into traffic...which is now a $1000 fine.

Raise your hand if you ever had a car door swing into your path.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I never mentioned red light cameras. I mentioned speed cameras. You know, the one that clocks you going 35 in a 25 mph zone and sends you a $100 ticket. Raise your hand if you've never 'speeded' before

My only concern is the school zone enforcement, because the speed limit changes depending on the time of day, and originally, the cameras were to be in effect until 8pm on weekdays, long beyond traditional school hours, with a 1/4 mile buffer zone (meaning, you may never even see the school).

In El Paso, TX; the school zones are very clearly marked and I noticed everyone obeys them. When the zoned speed limit is in effect, yellow lights flash and the limits of the speed zone are stripped across the street. You know what the speed is, where it begins and were it ends very clearly, and the speed reduction is graduated with whatever the base speed limit was on that street, i.e. a 45MPH zone only reduces to a 30MPH zone in school hours.

Source

I think this is a very fair way of implementing it, with giving drivers plenty of notice; really leaving them with no excuse to speed in those zones. The city should look at El Paso as an example/case study.

If signs are well marked, driving culture in the city will adapt without too much trouble and the net effect on businesses should be minimal.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Let me rephrase: do some of our more pragmatic forumers (ie not the ideologues who roll their eyes whenever somebody mentions cars) have any thoughts?

Its just another element to adapt to. I don't imagine many entrenched commercial corridors being affected, since as others have pointed out, long as you don't go 6-10mph over the limit, you wont be at threat to get ticketed. Which, considering the automotive congestion most thriving corridors receives, seems like a rarity. Go drive Clark between Fullerton and Addison at 2pm on a Saturday... how many chances do you imagine you will get to hit 30+mph?

What I find more questionable is how dependent you feel these commercial corridors are on patrons arriving by private vehicles. I cannot fathom that areas like Clark, Halsted, Armitage, Southport, Wells, Lincoln, Milwaukee, 26th, etc rely on customers arriving via private vehicles. With high localized densities, often with a matching economic base to the service provided, most patrons seem to arrive on foot or by bus. It would seem to me that the biggest "threat" is for areas which have fully devolved into car centric land use patterns or have seen commercial strips vacated. Wherever there is overabundant road capacity is typically where people speed, and is most susceptible to the speed ticketing.

[emathias]

RE: Speed cameras

I don't really own a car. I use transit or my bipedal appendages for most travel.

That said, I generally acknowledge streets are important and necessary.

In a city like Chicago you have at least four clear tiers of roads: 1) Expressways, 2) High-capacity main streets (like Western or Archer), 3) Commercial neighborhood streets (like Division in Wicker Park, or Lincoln across most of the North Side, or Milwaukee for most of its run in the city), and 4) Residential streets

Any time you make it harder to drive in one tier, you will see an increase in traffic in the next lower tier. So if we make it harder or riskier to drive on commercial streets we could easily see more traffic on neighborhood residential streets. And that would be worse than a moderate amount of speeding on commercial streets, in my opinion. Anyone who has looked at the reduction in traffic deaths on the West Side after the installation of the Eisenhower Expressway will justifiably be cautiously skeptical about the potential for "push-down" traffic on residential streets.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

What I find more questionable is how dependent you feel these commercial corridors are on patrons arriving by private vehicles. I cannot fathom that areas like Clark, Halsted, Armitage, Southport, Wells, Lincoln, Milwaukee, 26th, etc rely on customers arriving via private vehicles. With high localized densities, often with a matching economic base to the service provided, most patrons seem to arrive on foot or by bus. It would seem to me that the biggest "threat" is for areas which have fully devolved into car centric land use patterns or have seen commercial strips vacated. Wherever there is overabundant road capacity is typically where people speed, and is most susceptible to the speed ticketing.

^ I guess I'd like to see the data on mode share in some of these neighborhood retail strips. I actually think the neighborhood retail strips would benefit from attracting more out of town visitors (which includes suburbanites) who would often arrive by either cab or car. The most obvious solution is to improve & expand Chicago's rail system, but we all know how unlikely that is going to be in our lifetimes.

Either way, I think making driving in the neighborhoods "riskier" is probably not going to help these retail districts, and I suspect it will only drive the wedge in further between downtown's commercial vibrance and that of the neighborhoods.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I guess I'd like to see the data on mode share in some of these neighborhood retail strips. I actually think the neighborhood retail strips would benefit from attracting more out of town visitors (which includes suburbanites) who would often arrive by either cab or car. The most obvious solution is to improve & expand Chicago's rail system, but we all know how unlikely that is going to be in our lifetimes.

Either way, I think making driving in the neighborhoods "riskier" is probably not going to help these retail districts, and I suspect it will only drive the wedge in further between downtown's commercial vibrance and that of the neighborhoods.

Speeding is inherent of the road's design. For example if these were installed on Broadway, I doubt very few people daytime would ever be capable of getting a ticket. It's just not possible with all the crosswalk stanchions, bus and cab traffic, narrow road width flanked by parking. I think the same could be said for plenty of other commercial streets.

It's the thoroughfares where people will get tickets. Western Ave is is a massive expanse of concrete making it look like racetrack. Without all those obstructions, people psychologically feel there is less risk to travel faster.

I think placing overhead signs with a flashing speed limit is a better solution than the traffic cameras. They usually have a good effect at getting people to slow down and are probably less expensive than the cameras.

Even things like landscaped medians and bold painted crosswalks get people to slow down. You would think major streets after-hours like Michigan Ave would have speeding problems, but it doesn't. 30mph seems fast to most people driving on this street.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I actually think the neighborhood retail strips would benefit from attracting more out of town visitors (which includes suburbanites) who would often arrive by either cab or car.

I agree wholeheartedly, but there is a difference between attracting new users and retaining current ones, which makes me think that the speed cameras will not hurt these districts. Might they hinder out of town (suburban) visitors? Maybe, but if someone is interested in trekking from DuPage County to 26th in Little Village is the prospect of speed cameras going to stop them? I don't think so. If they get a ticket will they curse the city and vow never to return? ...thats the big question.

However, whats makes you think visitors arriving by cab would be deterred? Or that patrons of downtown hotels would be utilizing rental/personal vehicles instead of taking cabs or public transit to reach these districts? ...or for that matters, how many trips of that nature actually occur? It seems every time someone tells me about their "trip to Chicago" they never went outside of the mega Loop. And when I manage to convince someone to head to LP, WP or Pilsen they tell me they took a cab or the train.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Either way, I think making driving in the neighborhoods "riskier" is probably not going to help these retail districts, and I suspect it will only drive the wedge in further between downtown's commercial vibrance and that of the neighborhoods.

Like I said earlier, it is of my opinion that the only districts which might suffer are those aligned with large capacity thoroughfares.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I think placing overhead signs with a flashing speed limit is a better solution than the traffic cameras. They usually have a good effect at getting people to slow down and are probably less expensive than the cameras.

^ The problem is, the actual goal of the speeding cameras is what is questionable. Are we really trying to make the city "safer for the kids" or are we trying to raise revenue?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ The problem is, the actual goal of the speeding cameras is what is questionable. Are we really trying to make the city "safer for the kids" or are we trying to raise revenue?

We all know the answer to that question.