CHICAGO | General Developments

[i_am_hydrogen]

Originally Posted by austin_bound009

so when are they supposed to be done with the remodel? and where did all those residents go who cannot afford the new homes?

I don't think a date certain has been set. Where did all of the residents go? That's a complicated question. Some of them are given the ability to buy/rent in the homes that are replacing the old buildings, but they must meet certain conditions: no one in the family can be convicted of a felony, no history of drug abuse, must be working 30 hours a week (which automatically eliminates the senior citizen residents who made up a large portion of the public housing population), and so on. Some get Section 8 vouchers. But many have just resettled in other poor neighborhoods.

[austin_bound009]

^ Really? Like where?

[the urban politician]

^ A lot of them moved to Carney Gardens, from what I heard

[i_am_hydrogen]

And the beat goes on... From the Chicago Sun-Times:

Board chief: Museum opposition is racial
CHILDREN'S MUSEUM | Calls Grant Park site 'critical'

September 20, 2007
BY ANDREW HERRMANN AND FRAN SPIELMAN Staff Reporters

Jean "Gigi" Pritzker has produced more than 10 movies -- including an upcoming flick called "Living Hell'' -- but these days she finds herself in the midst of a real life drama.

Pritzker, the billionaire president of the board of the Chicago Children's Museum, which is planning a controversial move to just east of Millennium Park, said the uproar is "just killing me.''

Read the rest here.

© Copyright 2007 Sun-Times News Group

[the urban politician]

Last updated: September 20, 2007 08:38am
Morningside Plans $30M Mixed-Use Development
By Gina Kenny


Chelsea Street

OAK PARK, IL-Morningside Equities Group Inc., based in Chicago, is planning a $30-million, mixed-used development at the intersection of South Boulevard and Harlem Avenue. Morningside and the village of Oak Park recently announced they reached an agreement for the Chelsea Street development, which will have 96 condominium units and 12,500 sf of retail space. The development will also have 245 public parking spaces in addition to parking for condominium owners.
http://www.globest.com/news/996_996/.../164181-1.html

[harryc]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Last updated: September 20, 2007 08:38am
Morningside Plans $30M Mixed-Use Development
By Gina Kenny


Chelsea Street

OAK PARK, IL-Morningside Equities Group Inc., based in Chicago, is planning a $30-million, mixed-used development at the intersection of South Boulevard and Harlem Avenue. Morningside and the village of Oak Park recently announced they reached an agreement for the Chelsea Street development, which will have 96 condominium units and 12,500 sf of retail space. The development will also have 245 public parking spaces in addition to parking for condominium owners.
http://www.globest.com/news/996_996/.../164181-1.html

Odd that the rendering doesn't showcase the CTA station across the street.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by honte

Yes, precisely. You can smell something else is up when this is what pulls his chain. Can't get the guy this fired up about virtually anything of real importance - public transit, affordable housing, traffic congestion, what have you. Chicago has many real and rapidly escalating problems at the moment. This is about a power trip, and pleasing a certain segment of the population.

no kidding. he said something to the effect of "this is a fight for the future of chicago". the kids museum going/not going in GP is suddenly the end all be all? the man needs get a grip...he comes off as a child whos not getting his way

[Alliance]

Moving the Childrens Museum to grant park is a HORRIBLE idea. That are of the park needs to be redeveloped (meaning un-developed in to PARK).

End of Story imo. The Park should be immutable.

[Ecker]

The Gino's East building has been gutted


Site of the new Barney's

[forumly_chgoman]

I forget how tall is that barney's supposed to be...is it 5 stories?

[budman]

Originally Posted by forumly_chgoman

I forget how tall is that barney's supposed to be...is it 5 stories?

^I am still bummed that Papa Milano's is gone, and that tiny bar, Mondelli's, next to it.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by forumly_chgoman

I forget how tall is that barney's supposed to be...is it 5 stories?

7 I believe.

My cousin is 18 and worked there in Dallas, now he is going to school here and plans to start working at the Chicago one next semester. He was the top sales person in Dallas (I know its hard to believe, and 18 year old the top salesperson at a Barneys?), I wonder how he'll do here in Chicago?

[Chicago2020]

BARNEY

[nomarandlee]

AI's bridge ground breaking.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...i_tab01_layout

Institute's addition donations, costs rise

By Charles Storch Tribune staff reporter
8:58 PM CDT, September 20, 2007

The projected cost of the Art Institute of Chicago's Modern Wing continues to mount but so, too, does the amount raised for the project.

The institute said Thursday private donors have given $300 million toward the $373 million now being sought to build the wing and a companion bridge and to endow the structures. Last October, it said it had raised $267 million of a then-goal of $350 million.

The updates came at a groundbreaking ceremony held in Millennium Park for a planned $30 million pedestrian bridge across Monroe Drive. The bridge would link the south end of the park and the third floor of the Modern Wing.......................

[Alliance]

Good to hear that's getting started. I actually like the profile of the bridge. Reminds me a bit of the Millennium Bridge in London.

[2PRUROCKS!]

I sent this email to Bob O,Neil of the Grant Park Conservancy. boboneill@grantparkconservancy.com

If anyone wants to send a similar one feel free. I would also like to send one to Reilly, does anyone have his email?

Feel free to post this over in SSC as well, I can't post there.

Mr. O,Neil,

I want to thank you for you tireless and valiant efforts on behalf of Grant Park and for the good of Chicago to make Grant Park all that it can and should be. I have attended a number of you "park-archeture" meetings in the Daley Bi plaza building and have been impressed by your desire, work, and progress in improving Grant Park. I also strongly agree with your desire to surround and frame Grant Park with tall and thin towers with great design.

I have also been closely following the debate about the Children's Museum possible relocation to Grant Park. I have seen the latest designs and I love the overall design and concept. I love Krueck + Sexton's work especially the stunning Spertus Museum. I feel another work of theirs near Grant Park would be wonderful. I am however concerned about the precedence this might set for buildings in Grant Park. I know that the proposed Children's Museum is mostly underground and the above ground faceted glass is beautiful but I wonder if a better location may be possible. I believe building the Children's Museum over the rail road tracks that bisect Grant Park between the Art Institute and Roosevelt Rd. might be such a location.

There are many advantages to building the museum over air-rights of the tracks. (1) It would help cover what is now a blemish that cuts though Grant Park like a chasm. One of the great things about Millennium Park is that it took what was a blemish and hindrance to Grant Park and turned it into a great asset and beautiful green space. (2) It would add to land and green space in Grant park. In addition to the actual Museum an outdoor playground and green space could be built with the museum as part of it but open to the public. (3) Krueck + Sexton's brilliant work could be more fully displayed above ground instead of being forced underground and it would be closer to their Spertus Museum. (4) It would allow for a more centrally located Grant Park field house. Instead of rebuilding the field house in Daley Bi a new field house could be built over the tracks. The field house needs to serve all of Grant Park, so one that is more centrally located within the Park would be better than one on the northern border. (5) By building over the tracks the neighborhood controversy should be avoided. I don't agree with NIMBY pandering nor the New East-side residence complaints of increased traffic. This is all of Chicago's park not just their local play-land. However, avoiding confrontation on this matter may be beneficial in the long term. (6) The location over the tracks would protect the Ward "open, free, and clear" spirit and actually add land, green space and usable areas to Grant Park for all of Chicago's benefit. (7) This location would still offer the benefits to the Children's Museum of being in or near Grant Park.

I am sure that by building the Children's Museum over the tracks there may be some logistical issues but these could be worked out and the overall benefits would make it worth it. I just want to say in closing that I am not against the Children's Museum current design proposal and location but I believe that placing it over the rail road tracks would be a better location and offer more gain for all involved.

Thank you for all of your time and effort for Chicago.

[Marcu]

Originally Posted by Alliance

Good to hear that's getting started. I actually like the profile of the bridge. Reminds me a bit of the Millennium Bridge in London.

Any images?

[VivaLFuego]

Following-up on a correspondence from the "over-12" thread

Originally Posted by tup

^ Thanks for clarifying. I hate to use pathetic anecdotal points, but I am aware of at least a handful of car owners in Chicago who still use transit. I realize that the total lack of car ownership is the ideal situation in which to support transit use, but I'm not sure if car ownership and transit usage are necessarily mutually exclusive. I'm curious to see the data regarding the percentage of people who use the L who also own cars.

and

Originally Posted by harryc

Own a car, have off street parking, still ride my bike to the El and take the El downtown.

When I lived in LakeView ( next to the Sheridan El ) 2/3 or better of the people owned cars, most took the El anyways.

The Chicago requirement for parking w each unit is a bit misleading, often that parking is at the expense of the on street parking that is now gone because of a stupid little driveway for each unit ( e.g. Fletcher W of Racine ).

Right, these people will take transit to the central area; for those trips, car ownership isn't very useful. If the marginal cost of a car trip doesn't have a parking cost component, a car owner will probably drive, otherwise why even bother with the expense of owning a car? the only other potential motivator for a car owner to take transit, other than parking cost, is travel time, and traffic in that corridor isn't bad enough, nor transit service frequent and accessible enough to a critical mass of trip origins and destinations, for that to be true for many people.

Given the above, how would the Circle Line help car-owning residents who live along it, who already have bus service and in many cases, rail service to a variety of destinations including downtown? Even if building the Circle Line will somehow generate new transit riders for work trips, additional rush hour ridership alone isn't adequate justification for a multi-billion dollar heavy rail rapid transit line that will also have major ongoing capital and operating costs. I only see it working if the Ashland corridor along which the Circle Line would run were majorly upzoned to high-rise residential and office densities to generate origins and destinations in several time periods throughout the day.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

^Because most of Chicago isn't dense enough to actually support rail rapid transit (other than as a trunk line with feeder service, e.g. the Dan Ryan Red line).....and unless you create trip destinations along the line (e.g. significant office and retail density) there simply won't be a significant net gain in system ridership by building a new line where there is already bus and rail service.

Also, with modern zoning, I think a forest of highrises (Vancouver-style) actually is necessary when we're talking about a new-construction neighborhood supporting rail transit and pedestrian livelihood. Modern zoning has very high parking requirements, high open space and setback requirements, high minimum unit size, and a small maximum percentage of efficiency units (like 20%). All of these translate to both a low effective population density, and a general friendliness to automobile use. A neighborhood full of 3--story subdivided old flats with no accessory parking (Wicker Park, Lincoln Park) and 4+1s with inadequate parking (Lakeview, Lincoln Park) can clearly support transit, but in terms of new construction most zoning districts just won't cut it, since those lowscale transit-supportive land uses in those neighborhoods (or in European cities like you mention) are currently unbuildable.

You can't build new 4+1s full of efficiency units, and you can't build a 4-flat without 4 parking spots (or, if you're within a generous 600 ft of a transit station entrance, you can provide a mere 3 parking spots). And once you've got a neighborhood where basically every resident car-owner has off-street parking, then there's not much of an on-street (free) parking crunch, and you quickly lose incentives to take transit.

^ One other point I'd like to make--again, this is weak anecdotal crap, but I want to bounce it off you to see what you think.

Currently I own a car here in Queens. I live within a 5 minute walk of the subway. There is a shopping mall about 2 miles away with a huge garage that fits plenty of cars (for a small charge), but it's also near a subway stop. I drove there twice, but now I've decided it will probably be more convenient to just take transit. Plus, I already have a paid for parking space at my job (which is NOT in Manhattan), but I've chosen to take the subway there every day instead.

That's just me, but I'm pretty sure a lot of other people would make such a choice. In Chicago, for example, even with car ownership in place, I can imagine that at least some people living in the WLCO-fied west loop would consider taking a train to North/Clybourn instead of driving if they had a quicker option, such as the Circle Line, no?

In other words, transit is about density, but it's also about selling itself as an alternative to driving. Even when parking is abundant, driving can still be a hassle--traffic congestion, rude drivers, the fear of getting into an accident (especially in a big city), the cost of parking in a garage, etc. We talk about "free parking", but I think that eventually the market will force property owners to charge money to use their garage. I'm betting that the underground garage in the Roosevelt Collection won't be entirely free (although it may be so in the beginning)

[harryc]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ ...snip... We talk about "free parking", but I think that eventually the market will force property owners to charge money to use their garage. I'm betting that the underground garage in the Roosevelt Collection won't be entirely free (although it may be so in the beginning)

The term FREE PARKING is not used in Chicago, there is no such thing.

An interesting local law is that if there is no meter there is no parking. If you say "but hearing officer ( NOT Judge ) there were no signs saying no parking" the response is " No meter means no parking ". Chicago can also write you a ticket for expired State plate sticker. Yet another fund raiser is to tow cars from "SNOW ROUTES" even when there is no snow forecast for weeks.