CHICAGO | General Developments

[Nowhereman1280]

^^^
Well most places won't deliver most items. For example, I am basically limited to what I can carry or fit in my backpack while I ride my bike. If I want a cheep 15 dollar shelving unit from Target, its going to be a pain in the ass.

Also, most people own a car because of the sense of freedom it gives them. It doesn't matter to them how much they actually use it because they are getting a lot of utility out of knowing that, if they wanted, they could get in their car and drive to any place on the continent. I really think that many people own cars not because it makes financial sense, but because of the wonderful feeling it gives you. I mean who doesn't like to drive at least occasionally. You have to admit that it is a thrill and mini power trip...

Or, if I want to take a trip to Milwaukee, I have to take the train, get picked up by someone and then still don't have the independence a car gives you because Milwaukee has a virtually non-existant transit system. Any time you leave Chicago, there really isn't anything in the way of transit and car sharing really isn't an option because it would be extremely expensive. So when I go home to visit people, I like having a car, luckily my parents have a spare old one that I can use.

[Via Chicago]

Big projects may be pulled back to earth
High-end residential developments in Chicago and around the country feel the squeeze as lenders turn cautious in global credit crunch

By Susan Diesenhouse | Tribune staff reporter
September 26, 2007

The developer of the proposed Chicago Spire will host a preview and party for the global press Wednesday, but the celebratory mood could be dampened by the worldwide credit crunch and a postponement of the tower's preconstruction sales.

"If I didn't think I could deliver, I'd have a good excuse to pull out, but I'm not doing that," said Garrett Kelleher, who two weeks ago delayed the launch of sales from this week to Jan. 13, citing the complexity of the documents that must be filed with federal regulators. "I'm building an iconic building, using our own resources and doing exactly what I'd said I'd do."

Certainly, people with grand visions often can overcome adversity, but the preview of the $1.5 billion, 150-story building, slated to be the tallest in the U.S. and the highest residential tower in the world, comes at a tough time for high-end residential developments in Chicago and around the country.
.....
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,2106425.story

[sentinel]

^^ Wow - some people will never be satisfied; people like Diesenhouse seem to be inherently so negative about projects like the Spire that even when they top this sucker out a few years from now, they'll STILL be talking about whether or not it's a good idea!

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/5...seum26.article

Museum 'in a cave' might be OK with Ald. Reilly
GRANT PARK | Could be built in parking garage underground

September 26, 2007
BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com

A Children's Museum "in a cave" -- built in Grant Park, but totally
underground -- emerged Tuesday as a possible solution to the raging conflict between Mayor Daley and downtown Ald. Brendan Reilly (42nd).
When a reporter suggested the idea, Reilly agreed to consider it, even though he had trouble believing that the Children's Museum would "want all of their programming to essentially be in a cave."...........

But the alderman maintained that Navy Pier, Northerly Island and the museum campus are far better choices. He also questioned how much the city would have to pay to Morgan Stanley, which has a 99-year lease to operate the city's downtown garages.............
.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by sentinel

^^ Wow - some people will never be satisfied; people like Diesenhouse seem to be inherently so negative about projects like the Spire that even when they top this sucker out a few years from now, they'll STILL be talking about whether or not it's a good idea!

I think all the points in the article are 100% valid, and what a lot of people have been saying for a long time. I would be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

It seems an incredibly inefficient use of resources for so many residents to invest all this money in an asset that required alot of energy to produce and simply sits there depreciating even while not being used (not even counting the carrying costs like insurance and the opportunity cost of having not spent the money elsewhere).

And yet people will buy condos with a guest bedroom when there's a hotel right down the street . . .

Convenience, convenience, convenience. In an affluent society, people will pay a lot to save time. Going to the car rental place and filling out the paperwork and declining the upgrades and bogus insurance and inspecting for damage and then driving back to the condo to get the cooler and the beach stuff takes time, and you could already be half way to Michigan.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

^^^
Well most places won't deliver most items. For example, I am basically limited to what I can carry or fit in my backpack while I ride my bike. If I want a cheep 15 dollar shelving unit from Target, its going to be a pain in the ass.

Most places do deliver. And if you need a big ass truck rent it. And anyone ever hear of Taxis (they are already on the road).

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Also, most people own a car because of the sense of freedom it gives them.

Hogwash. Freedom is always worrying about gas and insurance and upkeep of the car. Where you will park it tonight? Dealing with traffic.....watching your investment get dinged up by all the other inconsiderate drivers.....so much "feedom". Man Madison Avenue has really got people in America believing their ads.

Or, if I want to take a trip to Milwaukee, I have to take the train, get picked up by someone and then still don't have the independence a car gives you because Milwaukee has a virtually non-existant transit system. Any time you leave Chicago, there really isn't anything in the way of transit and car sharing really isn't an option because it would be extremely expensive. So when I go home to visit people, I like having a car, luckily my parents have a spare old one that I can use.

The car isn't the only answer to all those "enslavement" issues.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

In an affluent society, people will pay a lot to save time. Going to the car rental place and filling out the paperwork and declining the upgrades and bogus insurance and inspecting for damage and then driving back to the condo to get the cooler and the beach stuff takes time, and you could already be half way to Michigan.

And the affluent in society should pay more and more for this convenience. The tolls and all the other charges need to be based on income...that way we do not tax/fee out the poor and working class from using our roads. Take that extra money and put it all into Public Transportation.

Since the cities own the streets we should start taking back lanes from many of our streets and making them into mini liniar parks that run along the streets and help clean out our air.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

Most places do deliver. And if you need a big ass truck rent it. And anyone ever hear of Taxis (they are already on the road).

Why would I buy a 15 dollar cheepo shelving unit and pay 15-30 dollars for a cab? Why would I buy a 100 dollar futon just to pay 100 dollars to rent a truck?

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

Hogwash. Freedom is always worrying about gas and insurance and upkeep of the car. Where you will park it tonight? Dealing with traffic.....watching your investment get dinged up by all the other inconsiderate drivers.....so much "feedom". Man Madison Avenue has really got people in America believing their ads.

You apparently have never driven outside of Chicago or a big city. When you are on an open country road and only see 1 car every 3 or 4 miles, inconsiderate drivers aren't really an issue, don't forget people from Wisconsin are much nicer and better drivers!

Besides, nothing drives me more nuts than being in a hurry and having to wait for the stupid el to show up. I've been trying to catch a train at union station on a friday night at like 5pm and the train wouldn't show up for at least 10 min, then I got fed up and stormed upstairs and got a cab, just barley caught the train with about 30 seconds to spare...

Remember cabs and transit do not exist in 99.9% of the country and offer limited service just about everywhere else.

Cars aren't an investment, so don't call them that, they are a money pit. Also, not everyone owns a nice car that they care if it gets dented up. IE my best friend and his 1992 Honda Accord with 385000 miles on it. Who cares if it gets dented?

Another example, dealing with inconsider drivers or dealing with vommit, crazies, and general filth on the El or getting a nuts cab driver or, if you rent a car or zipcar, dealing with the same idiot drivers anyhow!

Traffic? Cabs and busses get stuck in traffic as well. Trains? Well they only come so often and, yes, durring rush hour they get caught in traffic because there are so many people getting on and off that they take forever at each station. Not to mention the el is notorious for delays due to choke points.

Where will I park my car? In my parking space or driveway?

So really the only valid point there is that cars are more expensive than mass transit. Though renting a car or zip caring it is actually more expensive unless you use a car once in a blue moon. And again, Transit is way worse on a variety of issues, such as cleanlyness, speed, frequency, and limited options.

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

The car isn't the only answer to all those "enslavement" issues.

Ok, then give me one alternative that I can use that offers me anywhere near the flexibility of the car. And I am not talking about using it in superdense environments such as Downtown Chicago. I am talking, if I want to live in my small town home town back home and work in Milwaukee...

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by Chicago3rd

And the affluent in society should pay more and more for this convenience. The tolls and all the other charges need to be based on income...that way we do not tax/fee out the poor and working class from using our roads. Take that extra money and put it all into Public Transportation.

Since the cities own the streets we should start taking back lanes from many of our streets and making them into mini liniar parks that run along the streets and help clean out our air.

Tell me, what exactly is so awful about the concept of individual transit? Is it the smog that is created? What if all cars were zero emission fuel cell or electric cars? Would you have such an issue then?

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Why would I buy a 15 dollar cheepo shelving unit and pay 15-30 dollars for a cab? Why would I buy a 100 dollar futon just to pay 100 dollars to rent a truck?

Why would you spend an average of about $8K per year for a car that you only need about 50 times that year? (assuming $7K national average plus Chicago parking premium). That's over $150 per trip in the car. Makes an occasional cab ride seem like a good deal. For tax purposes, driving costs about $.50 per mile (and it's probably slightly higher than that now that gas has increased), and that's not including the acquisition cost of the car and assumes a relatively low insurance burden. That includes gas, depreciation, maintenance, and insurance. If drivers had to pay to buy the car, then paid a flat $.50 per mile to operate it (which includes gas/insurance/etc), how would that change behavior? Would such a large percentage of Americans choose a lifestyle that involves 50+ miles of driving per day? And if development were more compact, would everyone driving seem like such a great idea if there were to be space for anything other than roadways?

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Tell me, what exactly is so awful about the concept of individual transit? Is it the smog that is created? What if all cars were zero emission fuel cell or electric cars? Would you have such an issue then?

I don't think individual transit is bad, per se. The problem is that it creates a ton of external costs that aren't borne by drivers, but rather by everyone in society. A more auto-dependent society consumes alot more land, which has a ripple effect on all kinds of things including air quality, local and global heating effects, food prices because of reduced agricultural land, the requirement for more emergency/police/fire services to deal with accidents and enforcement, the higher insurance costs because of damaged property, premature deaths, and chronic health problems, etc. etc. Further, an additional driver on the road who drives by choice is causing additional congestion and delay for those drivers who have to be on the road, resulting in more wasted gas and emissions while idling.

I'd be fine with individual transport if those who used it paid their fair share; and if they did, alot fewer people would choose to do so because they'd see how expensive it actually is (and yes, in my ideal world, all roads would be tolled, with tolls charged for actual mileage used using a transponder and/or tamperproof odometer, but I wouldn't tie it to income like C3rd).

You would get to the point where only those who really need the individual transport will pay the premium for it, and pay for all the external costs it imposes. Would many still choose to use it? Of course. Would it still even be a majority? Possibly, but that's getting very speculative.

All this is not to say that the private automobile hasn't had many incredibly positive effects for our overall quality of life. Nor is it even to say that the transit systems in the USA are structurally perfect (they require large subsidization as well, obviously). But I maintain that auto-use is not only subsidized, but priced in such a way as to conceal users of how much it's actually costing. $8K/year on average is alot of money; billions of dollars per year. Now imagine if instead of $8K, the household spent something like $2K for a non-ownership lifestyle (transit+taxi+carshare). That's $6K of additional spending money for lower-income households, and $6K of additional investment income for higher-income households, investment money which can then create further societal wealth. Instead, we sink billions annually into assets that consistently lose value. And that's not even scratching the surface of tax money spent maintaining such a huge road network....

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Tell me, what exactly is so awful about the concept of individual transit? Is it the smog that is created? What if all cars were zero emission fuel cell or electric cars?

^ But they're not. So why create the straw man to begin with?

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ But they're not. So why create the straw man to begin with?

In 30-50 years hydrogen or some other form may make it possible.

But regardless I admit while the environmental factors have importance the primary reason I don't like it is because I think the aesthetics that is brings is isolating, ugly, and somewhat depressing which all of course is my subjective opinion. It is rather a vein way of looking and goes against libertarian sympathies but so be it. If sprawl and car dependency actually made the urban fabric look nice and was more enviromentaly sensative I would be in a bit of dilema.

Should we carry over these post over the transit section? This is worthwhile discussion but I don't want to see them get them deleted for being off topic.

[budman]

^Sounds like nobody here has kids, or responsibility for anyone but themselves. I dont mean that in a bad way, but when you have a family, you will need a car. Or at least really want one. I dont have kids, by the way, but I truly enjoy driving...I probably drive in the city, just to drive, several times a week, just like other people bike or run. And Mr. D is right on about convenience too. I dont want every errand I have to run to be a chore. In fact, I dont want any errand I run to be a chore, and if I have to take the bus (or two busses, or the bus then the train) to go to Best Buy to return the camera I just bought that doesnt work when I could be out on my friend's boat, well...you can probably finish that sentence yourself.

[Nowhereman1280]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ But they're not. So why create the straw man to begin with?

That's not a straw man in any way. Are you serious? That was a question, not an arguement and a straw man is a type of arguement, so I don't see where you are getting that from.

I seriously want to know why he is so vehemently against it. Lets face it, in some situations it is the most efficient type of transit, some people aren't willing to accept that for some reason.


Viva, I am not saying that I personally would ever own a car whilst living in downtown Chicago, I don't now and I never will living where I do. I am merely trying to explain what motivates some people.

In most places (by land area, not population) in this country mass transit, carshare, and taxi doesn't make sense. It would be undoubtedly less expensive for everyone in Chicago to use mass transit, taxi, and car share, but most people own a car anyhow. How can we can explain that? Its simple, people don't make decisions based solely upon what is cheaper, they make decisions based on what they want. Cars aren't a necessity, they are a luxury and people should be allowed to have that luxury if they are willing to pay for it. People are going to want that luxury at a pretty consistent rate regardless of whether or not they can use transit, its that simple. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[honte]

I don't mean to sound like an "azz" (thanks for the cool word, Piz), but shoudn't this discussion be happening in the Transit Developments thread?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by budman

^Sounds like nobody here has kids, or responsibility for anyone but themselves. I dont mean that in a bad way, but when you have a family, you will need a car. Or at least really want one. I dont have kids, by the way, but I truly enjoy driving...I probably drive in the city, just to drive, several times a week, just like other people bike or run. And Mr. D is right on about convenience too. I dont want every errand I have to run to be a chore. In fact, I dont want any errand I run to be a chore, and if I have to take the bus (or two busses, or the bus then the train) to go to Best Buy to return the camera I just bought that doesnt work when I could be out on my friend's boat, well...you can probably finish that sentence yourself.

^ Car ownership and creating a car-dependent community are two different things. Surely you recognize that.

Accommodating everybody's car has made the streetscape both uglier and less safe for pedestrians. Everybody, including yourself, should be striving to create a community in which more trips can be made by foot than by car, and allowing for more density is the way to achieve that.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by budman

^Sounds like nobody here has kids, or responsibility for anyone but themselves. I dont mean that in a bad way, but when you have a family, you will need a car. Or at least really want one. I dont have kids, by the way, but I truly enjoy driving...I probably drive in the city, just to drive, several times a week, just like other people bike or run. And Mr. D is right on about convenience too. I dont want every errand I have to run to be a chore. In fact, I dont want any errand I run to be a chore, and if I have to take the bus (or two busses, or the bus then the train) to go to Best Buy to return the camera I just bought that doesnt work when I could be out on my friend's boat, well...you can probably finish that sentence yourself.

...and that's totally fine, like I said there's nothing wrong with private automobiles per se (I love driving too, just not in traffic or when I have to be somewhere at a certain time). The problem is that people don't perceive paying the true cost of owning and using them and building a society dependent upon them, so decisions are distorted. I don't want to take away your right to drive, but I think you should pay more for it. And family's would too; they'd factor that into their calculations of where and how to live, etc.

Originally Posted by nowhereman

Its simple, people don't make decisions based solely upon what is cheaper, they make decisions based on what they want. Cars aren't a necessity, they are a luxury and people should be allowed to have that luxury if they are willing to pay for it.

I completely agree. But I think people aren't paying for it, and it totally distorts their decisions. If autos were priced more appropriately alot more people would choose not to own one, especially given the commensurate increase in demand for taxis/carsharing/pedestrian environments would also increase the supply thereof and make them more accessible. My point is that real pricing would definitely change the mode split and fewer people would drive and more would take transit/taxi/carshare.

.....and all this does have some relevance with Chicago General Development because auto-dependence, as noted, has a drastic impact on the streetscape and on development guidelines.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Why would I buy a 15 dollar cheepo shelving unit and pay 15-30 dollars for a cab? Why would I buy a 100 dollar futon just to pay 100 dollars to rent a truck?

Why would you want to own a car just to pick up cheapo shelving?

You apparently have never driven outside of Chicago or a big city. When you are on an open country road and only see 1 car every 3 or 4 miles, inconsiderate drivers aren't really an issue, don't forget people from Wisconsin are much nicer and better drivers!

Statement based on false assumptions about my personal life. I wanted to use the big "I" word but felt I should be nice.

Besides, nothing drives me more nuts than being in a hurry and having to wait for the stupid el to show up. I've been trying to catch a train at union station on a friday night at like 5pm and the train wouldn't show up for at least 10 min, then I got fed up and stormed upstairs and got a cab, just barley caught the train with about 30 seconds to spare...

3 to 7 minute wait on the el....wow that is so awful. How about 15-30 minutes trying to find parking? We all know the el needs to be corrected. But you seem to be ignoring all this issues owning a car in a cities entails.

Remember cabs and transit do not exist in 99.9% of the country and offer limited service just about everywhere else.

I am sorry but is this not the CHICAGO: general development threat?????

Me thinks somebody needs to move out to Fargo.

[Chicago3rd]

Originally Posted by Nowhereman1280

Tell me, what exactly is so awful about the concept of individual transit? Is it the smog that is created? What if all cars were zero emission fuel cell or electric cars? Would you have such an issue then?

Cars and cities don't mix well. I get tired of having my walking interupted at each corner. I get tired of having to dodge cars as they come out of their garages or cut into the crosswalk. An urban loving high density lover understands all this. Fine to love suburbs and car worship. But I have chosen most of my life to not be involved with any of that....thus I chose to live in dense urban cities that have a sustanible transit system.

Besides...I hate cars.