CHICAGO | Lincoln Yards

[the urban politician]

^ Ive argued that for a long time, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards for Chicago.

Nobody seems interested in doing this from a city leadership standpoint. And I feel that is precisely why so many large swaths of land sit empty.

[galleyfox]

As a cyclist in Chicago, I think Lincoln Yards will be quite vital. The 606 terminates just across the freeway, and a riverwalk would be a real destination for its users. Add some refreshments, seating, public bathrooms, and green space along the river (which could potentially attract birds and other wildlife), and you have a decent little corner of the city.
Also, the South park area is a perfect compromise location for Millennials involved in sports meetups. In my activity group at least, the West siders always get frustrated with the North siders for scheduling Lincoln Park fields.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

As a cyclist in Chicago, I think Lincoln Yards will be quite vital. The 606 terminates just across the freeway, and a riverwalk would be a real destination for its users. Add some refreshments, seating, public bathrooms, and green space along the river (which could potentially attract birds and other wildlife), and you have a decent little corner of the city.
Also, the South park area is a perfect compromise location for Millennials involved in sports meetups. In my activity group at least, the West siders always get frustrated with the North siders for scheduling Lincoln Park fields.

I think everyone agrees the area should be improved. It is only how to go about it that is in quesiton.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

I think everyone agrees the area should be improved. It is only how to go about it that is in quesiton.

Of course, but the implication that it won't be a vital area without a specific sort of density is a false one, I think. It could be just glass superboxes and chain stores, and its location along the river would still give it life in spite of it all.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The way you get lively (but sometimes messy) vitality is with multiple owners and small parcels. Lincoln Yards simply shouldn't be permitted much density at all, because it has no transit access. But the way to redevelop an area the size of Lincoln Yards is for the city to make it a true urban renewal project, use TIF to put in a street grid and pipes, then sell quarter-blocks to a variety of developers. Be open if a developer wants two adjacent parcels, but don't let any one developer have more than 20 of the parcels out of the 55 acres.

Does it have to be the city as master developer? No, it could be Sterling Bay, but only if they put in place a specific plan showing how they'll avoid superblock development, and that they're committed to a complete and permeable network of streets. Battery Park City is a good model for that.

For all the accolades, I'm not sure even Battery Park City is all that great if judged against traditional urbanism. Individually, the buildings are handsome and the public spaces are pleasant, but it doesn't have any of the "messy vitality" that we're talking about.

Chicago developers hired the same city planner (Jacque Robertson) and had all the same aspirations for Cityfront Center back in the early 1980s, and look how that turned out, even as the parcels were split up among several developers.

On the other hand, if Lincoln Yards did turn out with the same quality as Battery Park City I would consider it a major victory... I don't know if we can build traditional urbanism anymore, there's no way we will ever allow market forces to operate in a totally unshackled manner, so Battery Park City might be the best we can hope for. IMO Lakeshore East has developed into quite a fascinating neighborhood despite a handful of mediocre Loewenberg buildings, and that was with a single developer.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by ardecila

For all the accolades, I'm not sure even Battery Park City is all that great if judged against traditional urbanism. Individually, the buildings are handsome and the public spaces are pleasant, but it doesn't have any of the "messy vitality" that we're talking about.

Chicago developers hired the same city planner (Jacque Robertson) and had all the same aspirations for Cityfront Center back in the early 1980s, and look how that turned out, even as the parcels were split up among several developers.

On the other hand, if Lincoln Yards did turn out with the same quality as Battery Park City I would consider it a major victory... I don't know if we can build traditional urbanism anymore, there's no way we will ever allow market forces to operate in a totally unshackled manner, so Battery Park City might be the best we can hope for. IMO Lakeshore East has developed into quite a fascinating neighborhood despite a handful of mediocre Loewenberg buildings, and that was with a single developer.

Battery Park City may not be quite a return to the past. But from what I have seen, it takes a traditional approach. And a building could be picked up and plopped down in another area of NYC and not seem entirely out of place.
The LY Master Plan calls for heavy use of 4-6 story podiums at street level with towers then set back off the street. Some towers share podiums. I am not entirely sure how this approach would even look executed over a wide area but am picturing something that lacks that traditional urban charm.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by k1052

It will take six days to get from the Kennedy to the lake. People will die of dehydration and cholera. The oxen will perish stranding us in the mountain passes. Wolves will stalk our party taking the slower women and children to their slow painful demises.

Am I reaching the appropriate level of motorist hysteria yet?

You forgot about dysentery, damn it!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

As a cyclist in Chicago, I think Lincoln Yards will be quite vital. The 606 terminates just across the freeway, and a riverwalk would be a real destination for its users. Add some refreshments, seating, public bathrooms, and green space along the river (which could potentially attract birds and other wildlife), and you have a decent little corner of the city.
Also, the South park area is a perfect compromise location for Millennials involved in sports meetups. In my activity group at least, the West siders always get frustrated with the North siders for scheduling Lincoln Park fields.

As I said before, perhaps the best feature of this terrible plan will be to make the automobile all but useless for Lincoln and probably Wicker Park residents. As a cyclist I love it because it provides much in the way of grade separated access to our ilk. As a motorist I think it's probably the dumbest plan ever. As a transit rider there's literally nothing it in for me except guaranteeing that the Armitage bus will take 45 minutes to get from Ashland to Halsted between the hours of 7 AM and 7 PM.

Originally Posted by k1052

It will take six days to get from the Kennedy to the lake. People will die of dehydration and cholera. The oxen will perish stranding us in the mountain passes. Wolves will stalk our party taking the slower women and children to their slow painful demises.

Am I reaching the appropriate level of motorist hysteria yet?

Not even, but you are right that the effect will essentially be that people will have to turn regular traffic jams into a "circling of the wagons" as they hunker down for an overnight stay on their way from Wicker Park to Lincoln Park.

In all seriousness, why can't we oppose something for being a horrendous planning error with zero transit that will also cause unnecessary automobile congestion?

Most importantly why are we permitting more density nowhere near existing infrastructure when we have vast swaths of underdeveloped land elsewhere in the city where you can buy many square blocks of totally vacant land literally next to existing train stations (Green Line, Pink Line, Red Line, Forest Park Blue Line etc.)?

[k1052]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Not even, but you are right that the effect will essentially be that people will have to turn regular traffic jams into a "circling of the wagons" as they hunker down for an overnight stay on their way from Wicker Park to Lincoln Park.

In all seriousness, why can't we oppose something for being a horrendous planning error with zero transit that will also cause unnecessary automobile congestion?

Most importantly why are we permitting more density nowhere near existing infrastructure when we have vast swaths of underdeveloped land elsewhere in the city where you can buy many square blocks of totally vacant land literally next to existing train stations (Green Line, Pink Line, Red Line, Forest Park Blue Line etc.)?

The focus on moving cars perhaps loses the point when arguing about permitting too high a density when the issue really is moving people. The street grid largely as is could do this if we had even a moderately more efficient bus system. Absent some really unexpected federal largess we are unlikely to see a major heavy rail expansion in our lifetimes. I'm skeptical that pushing down density in non-rail adjacent sites to accommodate heavier auto utilization should be the solution.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

why are we permitting more density nowhere near existing infrastructure when we have vast swaths of underdeveloped land elsewhere in the city?

If I understand the arguments being made by the Tribune and Crain's editorials, it's because the big rich company promised that it would use our money to buy shiny new buildings. And we need all the shiny new buildings we can get.

If I understand the discussion on page 31, it's because the evil schoolteacher union came out in opposition. So it must be approved!

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Terrible.

Although I don't have a problem with the idea to use TIF funds to build substantial infrastructure, I agree that the city deserves a better deal if there will be zero transit.

Let's hope The 78 steals its thunder

Agree....this ‘plan’ is a joke. Should not have been approved in this form. Hopefully the 78 and other large projects beat it in the marketplace following another demonstration of Chicago’s absent planning functions.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by k1052

The focus on moving cars perhaps loses the point when arguing about permitting too high a density when the issue really is moving people. The street grid largely as is could do this if we had even a moderately more efficient bus system. Absent some really unexpected federal largess we are unlikely to see a major heavy rail expansion in our lifetimes. I'm skeptical that pushing down density in non-rail adjacent sites to accommodate heavier auto utilization should be the solution.

But you have the causation backwards, this isn't about changing our planning to accommodate cars. This is about making stupid planning decisions that will encourage car ownership and therefore increase negative effects of increased car ownership and usage such as giant gridlock clusterfucks right under a freeway and next to the few critical north side river crossings.

The issue is not that people should be able to use cars freely as they please, the issue is that this development, being nowhere near transit and right on top of a freeway, is going to be massively auto-oriented and have all sorts of nefarious impacts it wouldn't have if it had a new subway stop like the 78 or even some sort of LRT through Goose Island to Union Station.

And yes, we all hate the American obsession with cars, but I doubt anyone thinks perpetual North and Clyborn style gridlock is beneficial in any way besides "punishing those nasty drivers"...

[k1052]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

But you have the causation backwards, this isn't about changing our planning to accommodate cars. This is about making stupid planning decisions that will encourage car ownership and therefore increase negative effects of increased car ownership and usage such as giant gridlock clusterfucks right under a freeway and next to the few critical north side river crossings.

The issue is not that people should be able to use cars freely as they please, the issue is that this development, being nowhere near transit and right on top of a freeway, is going to be massively auto-oriented and have all sorts of nefarious impacts it wouldn't have if it had a new subway stop like the 78 or even some sort of LRT through Goose Island to Union Station.

And yes, we all hate the American obsession with cars, but I doubt anyone thinks perpetual North and Clyborn style gridlock is beneficial in any way besides "punishing those nasty drivers"...

I honestly don’t think that improving transit will be tried here (or really anywhere in the city) absent gridlock infill rail stations (some of which used to exist) notwithstanding. It’s just not really in us to address the problem until it reaches a critical mass that would seem beyond absurd to the citizens of basically any other modern country. I think LRT to union might be somewhat useful but theoretically many of most the people working in this thing will won’t be coming from there. LY sits on more than enough arterial bus routes to make it work just fine if the service was close to halfway decent.

[skysoar]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Agree....this ‘plan’ is a joke. Should not have been approved in this form. Hopefully the 78 and other large projects beat it in the marketplace following another demonstration of Chicago’s absent planning functions.

I will withhold my criticism of LY until I see the final product. There has been numerous times I felt negative about a project until I saw it come into fruition, such as OBP, and some others. None of us know the behind the scenes conversations to make this the best product it can be. One thing is not debatable, it will be much better than what is there now. I believe transit issues and things of that nature are probably being worked out as we speak. To do great projects you cannot wait till you hear every voice from the peanut gallery. There was substantial negativism when Millenium Park was first unveiled, its cost, etc, but look at its beauty and its popularity now. We know debate is good, but at some point you must move forward, because developers also have their requirements and timelines. So I agree with the Aldermen, full steam ahead and make some adjustments as you go.

[the urban politician]

In the end, the market will determine how well this does, not a bunch of city planners.

Large amounts of office will almost certainly want to be accessible, and that's why I think the 78 will do better with that. Related Cos seems to have their heads on straighter about this.

To this day, I'm not sure about Sterling Bay. Despite all of their successes, I find them to be a bit less disciplined. It almost feels like they came into real estate at just the right time and got lucky, and are now riding this out expecting to keep turning everything into gold.

They should've kept focusing on the West Loop which, while booming, still has a long ways to go to get fully built out. By trying to divert their energy towards Lincoln Yards, I still think they are effectively cannibalizing their own efforts elsewhere.

The big New York developers are all focused on the West Loop, with the exception of the 78 as mentioned above. But correctly, Related wants to build a subway stop there to ensure its long term success. I think the New York guys see the forest for the trees and are playing this right.

As far as Lincoln Yards, I think what we will end up seeing is mostly residential--apartments and condos. You might get a bit of commercial here or there, but I don't expect it to be substantial.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

As far as Lincoln Yards, I think what we will end up seeing is mostly residential--apartments and condos. You might get a bit of commercial here or there, but I don't expect it to be substantial.

agreed.

every company seems to want to be in the Loop or very near Loop.

unless you get a company that wants to have control of an urban campus type thing, which is basically what amazon has in Seattle.

even then, LY is so far from the action of the Loop.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

If I understand the arguments being made by the Tribune and Crain's editorials, it's because the big rich company promised that it would use our money to buy shiny new buildings. And we need all the shiny new buildings we can get.

..!

I was disappointed in the Tribune editorial so devoid of depth. It amounts to: 'Chicago needs to show it can develop so any development is good.' No concept of urban planning, a sophisticated analysis of tax consequences, subsequent costs such as transportation, that developments cannibalize each other or that Chicago is sitting on more land than it knows what to do with, much of which can better accommodate this scale. And analogies to Amazon in NYC are ridiculous. If the paper wants to make a favorable argument, make a sophisticated effort that considers alternatives for this site and the ripple effects in the city. It isn't this plan vs. nothing. It is this plan vs the best alternatives anyone can devise

So much of this process seems to have devolved into an ideological fight. And has taken the focus away from a discussion of sound planning practics, perhaps how best to fund infrastructure and just plain common sense.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

So much of this process seems to have devolved into an ideological fight. And has taken the focus away from a discussion of sound planning practics, perhaps how best to fund infrastructure and just plain common sense.

Couldn't agree more. This comment could be used to describe nearly all political discussions in our country today.

[the urban politician]

^ I don't think the 'ideological fight' thing has any legs to it.

The CTU stuff is really just a distraction. The real issue here is NIMBYism. Everybody knows that if this project didn't have a champion like Rahm, that nothing remotely of this scale will be built.

Now sure, we all agree that the plan is greatly flawed--the lack of transit access and road access, and the city is dropping the ball by not pushing for that.

But lets not kid ourselves--if we let Rahm's tenure lapse before approving a project of this scale, it's almost certain that this project will be ripped to shreds by hyenas when turned over to the NIMBYs and their every little demand; something certain to happen with a newer administration. We'd likely end up getting townhomes on cul-de-sacs and perhaps a grocery store.

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

If I understand the arguments being made by the Tribune and Crain's editorials, it's because the big rich company promised that it would use our money to buy shiny new buildings. And we need all the shiny new buildings we can get.

Please don't demonize those of us who like taxpayer subsidized shiny new buildings. . . we're human too. . .

. . .