CHICAGO | General Developments

[wierdaaron]

Plus I think if you want rich people to move in, they need a place to park their weekend car. You're never going to get anywhere advocating no parking, but getting lower parking ratios to be a topic of discussion along with TOD and LEED certification is good for everyone.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Is it really that difficult for you (among many others) to comprehend that a lot of people in Chicago and its peer cities manage to lead perfectly happy, functioning lives without owning a car?

No; after all, I'm one of those people. Nowhere have I suggested that auto ownership be required.

But in an affluent society, people often find it convenient to own automobiles, just as they find it convenient to own their own computers rather than visit a nearby public library. Unlike Zipcars or taxis, private autos can be used to visit relatives in the suburbs for the day, to transport pets or work equipment, to reach jobs or shopping that isn't well-served by transit, or to reach weekend homes.

Saying there should be no parking at all is dictating to the developer that he must limit the market for his project to a small group people who live a particular kind of life.

[ardecila]

I still believe in a laissez-faire policy... Strip the parking restrictions and look at what developers choose to build. The structural elements required to mix parking and dense residential are not cheap, so we may see parking demand satisfied in freestanding garages instead of ugly podiums, where those with means can pay to store their vehicles. This is basically how Manhattan works.

Downtown Chicago is finally becoming a self-sufficient community. What kind of trips would the residents of this building make that require a car? All manner of services are available within a 5-block radius and even more by bus or train, including furniture and appliance shopping.

[wierdaaron]

Though perhaps the notion that parking is not strictly required might be liberating to some developers?

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Downtown Chicago is finally becoming a self-sufficient community. What kind of trips would the residents of this building make that require a car? All manner of services are available within a 5-block radius and even more by bus or train, including furniture and appliance shopping.

I've been thinking about this of late. How the idealized urban center is supposed to be a kind of self-contained oasis, where there's stuff to eat and buy and green space to sit down in, where it's easy to get around quickly from destination to destination... it's almost like we strive toward turning the cities into Disney World, where the experience is designed for the person on foot to be able to do as much as he/she wants and see all of the sights and sounds in a small area by exploring.



If Disney World is what we're striving for (in a non-derogatory way), imagine a universe where everywhere in Disney World is accessible via automobile, and the people who want to drive their cars through Disney World get upset (a la Tom Servo) when people propose that maybe Disney World would be better if they didn't have to accommodate everything toward drivers.



It wouldn't be a very good Disney World.

You can still own a car and go to Disney World, you just park it somewhere outside and then use your feet (or maglev!) to move around once you're there.

That really kind of helps me frame my understanding of the human scale movement and bike/pedestrian advocacy. Not to paint either side of the argument as cartoonish, but I think when people talk about those things they aren't having the same conversation. There's one side who believes that if cars were removed from the equation or pushed way down the priority list we could be living in Outer Heaven, a promised land full of milk and honey. And there's another side, who just wants to get to work and back without being bothered.

I think this, along with the strong towns movement and new urbanism in general, kind of butts heads against the generally-American ideology of individualism. Smooth-paved 12-lane intersections and suburban tract-homes are kind of the ultimate expression of that mindset. "I've got my house and my car, leave me the hell alone!" The idea that we could forego individual conveniences in exchange for an communal good is kind of the opposite of the entire American post-war mindset up until now.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Though perhaps the notion that parking is not strictly required might be liberating to some developers?

absolutely...as a former developer, step one is planning around parking req's before anything else....no requirements leave the risk to the developer, and instill a real market-driven strategy...the implications on non-subsidized market affordability are huge too - units without parking are harder to sell typically, which lowers their price naturally to a point that people will buy and suck it up to have life without a car (or rent a space elsewhere...a third benefit!)

in the meantime, let's stick with parking minimums, gov't forced affordability, and queered market forces.

boom, out, peace!

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ Yes, the current parking minimums make it physically impossible to build more than 3 residential units on a city lot even if the FAR and MLA requirements would allow 6 units. Don't even get started on larger projects where the minimums require ramps which totally crap on any attempt to build a mid-market highrise for people who don't want to pay $5,000/Mo.

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I think this, along with the strong towns movement and new urbanism in general, kind of butts heads against the generally-American ideology of individualism. Smooth-paved 12-lane intersections and suburban tract-homes are kind of the ultimate expression of that mindset. "I've got my house and my car, leave me the hell alone!" The idea that we could forego individual conveniences in exchange for an communal good is kind of the opposite of the entire American post-war mindset up until now.

I think it's a bit bizarre to associate the suburbs with American individualism. Perhaps with latent feelings of manifest destiny, but the story of the suburb is simply that of our short history and geography. If we had been around a few hundred more years before the automobile was invented and had ten times the population, then it wouldn't have happened. There is no other country on earth with the sheer scale and wealth and low density as the United States and suburbs are the logical result of that.

Also, remember that the ideals behind the suburb were also driven by a desire for a "communal good". The idea being that people needed to leave what were viewed as (and in reality) unhealthy, crowded, polluted, places for a refuge surrounded with nature. Of course, just as with the city, what you were seeking wasn't always what you got. Instead of FLW's Broadacre city populated by beautiful Coonley Houses, we got an awful lot of suburban tract housing on lots that were really not all that much bigger than what you find in the city.

If anything the attitudes you described were more of a result of the move to the suburbs than a cause. People never had that much of a "I've got my horse, I've got my house, leave me alone" mentality back when "small town america", the prototype of the suburb, still existed. It was the advent and implementation of the technology and wealth that caused those attitudes IMO.

[UrbanLibertine]

I vote for "RiNo,No"

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Looks like Chicago Ave is turning into a pretty hot corridor. Upper River North is going to need a name.

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

If anything the attitudes you described were more of a result of the move to the suburbs than a cause. People never had that much of a "I've got my horse, I've got my house, leave me alone" mentality back when "small town america", the prototype of the suburb, still existed. It was the advent and implementation of the technology and wealth that caused those attitudes IMO.

Could be. I wasn't around at the time and the book I recently bought about suburbanization has sat unread since purchase, but my feeling was that post-war when money was flowing and financing was cheap, the evacuation of the family from cities to suburbs was pushed as a way for everybody to "get theirs". You can have a house with a front yard and a patio and a driveway and make that your own dominion.

There's obviously myriad of social and economic issues at work here, but I've been rolling around the idea of individualism in my head since I first heard about how the analog of that in Australia is the concept of "mateship" that's baked into their society -- this sense of "we're all in this together" that supposedly dates all the way back to the first boats of inmates sent to that land -- and how it conflicts with the mindset here that's always deified the potential and accomplishments of the individual. If you don't let me drive my Oldsmobile through Epcot then you're trampling on my liberties.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I've been thinking about this of late. How the idealized urban center is supposed to be a kind of self-contained oasis, where there's stuff to eat and buy and green space to sit down in, where it's easy to get around quickly from destination to destination... it's almost like we strive toward turning the cities into Disney World, where the experience is designed for the person on foot to be able to do as much as he/she wants and see all of the sights and sounds in a small area by exploring.

I tend to think/hope we're striving towards a level of local stability akin to that of European cities that were built more for pedestrians and horses than for cars.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I still believe in a laissez-faire policy... Strip the parking restrictions and look at what developers choose to build. The structural elements required to mix parking and dense residential are not cheap, so we may see parking demand satisfied in freestanding garages instead of ugly podiums, where those with means can pay to store their vehicles. This is basically how Manhattan works.

Downtown Chicago is finally becoming a self-sufficient community. What kind of trips would the residents of this building make that require a car? All manner of services are available within a 5-block radius and even more by bus or train, including furniture and appliance shopping.

I definitely have a different philosophy......letting the market build however it wants results in individual actors doing everything in their own interests, with nobody to clean up the inevitable major externalities. We have Houston as the ultimate example - how do you like that result? I believe that we should have smart parking maximums, not parking minimums.

The back and forth between weirdarron and lvdw is interesting. There's definitely truth in both of your positions I think.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Crain's reporting that there are two apartment projects planned for the NW corner of Chicago and Wells, and a reuse of the landmarked Bush Temple of Music at the NW corner of Chicago/Clark.

http://e.ccialerts.com/a/hBUPm-SB852...AAAtbg26/ccb53

The Wells site is under contract to Loukas Development, which has been on a tear lately when it comes to design. It's a TOD site so we may get something modern and low-parking. The Bush Temple is Cedar Street, who will have to restore the building... maybe this is why Smithfield decided not to "Adopt-a-Landmark" as part of their rental tower next door.

Looking forward to both of these. Glad to see that someone is taking on Bush after Smithfield abandoned it. Also very interested to see what Loukas comes up with for their site....

[ardecila]

This ain't Houston - we have an extensive transit system, a huge core of transit accessible jobs and shopping, endless walkable blocks, and the density needed to support amenities within walking distance.

Also, FYI: Houston has huge parking minimums despite its lack of zoning. Their excess of parking is not necessarily a market outcome. They even require parking for ALL retailers regardless of size, which is why they have no truly walkable commercial strips.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Also, FYI: Houston has huge parking minimums despite its lack of zoning. Their excess of parking is not necessarily a market outcome. They even require parking for ALL retailers regardless of size, which is why they have no truly walkable commercial strips.

Most egregiously, for apartments I believe they require over one parking space per bedroom in Houston. 1.25 or something like that. Houston is ready for a 1000 year parking event.

[Jibba]

Interview with Gina Ford of Sasaki Assoc. about the riverwalk. Lots of insight into the development of the concepts. This could end up being a spectacular urban space given all of the thought put into it (as recounted in the interview).

http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/...at-That-Means/

[bcp]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I definitely have a different philosophy......letting the market build however it wants results in individual actors doing everything in their own interests, with nobody to clean up the inevitable major externalities. We have Houston as the ultimate example - how do you like that result? I believe that we should have smart parking maximums, not parking minimums.

The back and forth between weirdarron and lvdw is interesting. There's definitely truth in both of your positions I think.

we also have a zoning code in place to prevent that....and a process for changing zoning....houston is a great example of what can go wrong, but unshackling developers by NO WAY means chicago turns into houston.

parking maximums? aboslutely agree with you...how about no parking requirements if you are 1/4 mile from a metra or el station? would the world end in a decade? nah.

finally...what on earth does this mean?

"the inevitable major externalities"

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by ardecila

This ain't Houston - we have an extensive transit system, a huge core of transit accessible jobs and shopping, endless walkable blocks, and the density needed to support amenities within walking distance.

Also, FYI: Houston has huge parking minimums despite its lack of zoning. Their excess of parking is not necessarily a market outcome. They even require parking for ALL retailers regardless of size, which is why they have no truly walkable commercial strips.

I was just throwing Houston out there as an extreme example to make a broader point to those that get seduced by Ayn Rand/lassez faire/libertarian adolescent fever dream fantasies. Despite its parking minimums, that's your model.....how do you like it? Tastes a bit rancid. Of course Chicago is unique, as are all cities, and part of that is simply physical geography. However, never pretend that transit is in itself anything of a market outcome (ergo in part no useful transit in US cities that do it really lassez faire.....

[Ryanrule]

what we need are parking garage max prices, or requirements to include the parking space in the rent/sale. FAR too many garages 1/3 full at $300 a month with cars on the streets crammed in every damn hole available.

[Mr Downtown]

^That might tell us that street parking is underpriced rather than that garage spaces are overpriced.

But there are clumsy things about the parking market. The only method we have to price street parking currently is "meters," which are quite inefficient to administer and inconvenient for residential users. If we sell residential street parking permits, there needs to be an easy-to-use mechanism for visiting guests. The mayor's increase in parking taxes on garages also seems to send the wrong message: in my opinion, residents paying for garage spaces by the month should be exempted, as done in New York. Theirs is the behavior (living in dense parts of the city) we should be encouraging, not discouraging. For the most part, they're not the ones creating rush-hour congestion.

[bcp]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I was just throwing Houston out there as an extreme example to make a broader point to those that get seduced by Ayn Rand/lassez faire/libertarian adolescent fever dream fantasies. Despite its parking minimums, that's your model.....how do you like it? Tastes a bit rancid. Of course Chicago is unique, as are all cities, and part of that is simply physical geography. However, never pretend that transit is in itself anything of a market outcome (ergo in part no useful transit in US cities that do it really lassez faire.....

ignoring the silly name calling....how do you think great cities and old housing stock came about? demand, profit motive, and very limited oversight is what provided for massive amounts of dense, pedestrian-focused neighborhoods to develop quickly...not extra regulation on parking.