CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

As far as urban planning best practices go, it's tough to beat Denver.

How do they handle public participation?

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Navy Pier's biggest flaws in my eyes are its relative inaccessibility (people don't decide to wander over there, it's a destination) and the lack of a cohesive "Chicagoey" feel.

Navy Pier has so many flaws. I'd say the biggest was the decision to only make one side of the pier pedestrian accessible, not to mention the fact that the best views of the skyline are usually blocked by docked ships. It will always be an isolated tourist trap but I just wish they would get the basic fundamentals correct.

[Justin_Chicago]

Bronzeville may get its boost from ‘FarmVille’ technology

Shoppers can use points to buy virtual goods, much like players do in “FarmVille” and “CityVille,” and to build up a “virtual” hoped-for vision of Bronzeville with sought-after retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s, says Ronnie Matthew Harris. He’s a community organizer and third-generation Bronzeville resident who proposed the idea for the app to help fight what he calls retail “leakage.”

The leakage — Bronzeville residents going outside of the neighborhood to spend their money — amounts to $151 million a year, according to a report by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.

A cruel twist to Bronzeville’s dilemma is that its neighborhood appears to have lost 14,000 people in the 10 years between 2000 and 2010, primarily because of Chicago Housing Authority project teardowns.

Yet the neighborhood is attracting an increasing number of upwardly mobile, young professionals, says Harris, who is one of what he calls the “returners” who moved away from Bronzeville only to return to help rebuild it.

“Ultimately, the mobile app game seeks to extract data that will be a source to articulate spending power in Bronzeville,” he says.

Engel, who moved to Chicago from Atlanta in August, is considering morphing Build It! Bronzeville with another app from the hackathon called Pivot, which lets people “virtually” explore vacant lots and buildings on Chicago’s South and Southwest sides and propose viable developments on those properties.



http://www.chicagogrid.com/reviews/t...le-technology/

[DonMendigo]

They've completed the new surface lot across the street from St Joseph's existing surface lot (SE corner of Sheridan and Surf). Now it appears that they've begun site prep for their new expansion project.


That's this: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1NzwkKXyDR...lding+2013.jpg

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Navy Pier has so many flaws. I'd say the biggest was the decision to only make one side of the pier pedestrian accessible, not to mention the fact that the best views of the skyline are usually blocked by docked ships. It will always be an isolated tourist trap but I just wish they would get the basic fundamentals correct.

I think access is most critical. Possibly even more important than a total overhaul. I could have settled for some basic upgrades but the experience of arriving and departing is not in tune with the "Chicago spectacle" that is very successful along Michigan Ave, the river, and Millennium Park. I wish more could be done to make Illinois and Grand great streets and as others have pointed the Riverwalk is important

[MayorOfChicago]

What's the status of the Navy Pier lakefront path flyover?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by MayorOfChicago

What's the status of the Navy Pier lakefront path flyover?

Currently out for bid, according to Gabe Klein's twitter feed.

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

How do they handle public participation?

http://www.denvergov.org/cpd/CPDHome...7/Default.aspx

[the urban politician]

Anyone else hear the news about the sudden death of chef Charlie Trotter? Quite a shocker today..

[Mr Downtown]

As for public participation, I don’t see anything very innovative on the Denver website:

Public Engagement

Key to every plan is a thoughtful public involvement strategy that is integrated into the planning process. A successful public involvement strategy includes a wide range of mechanisms for city planners to share information with the people, and for the people to share their ideas, questions and concerns. The goal is to engage as many citizens as possible in an efficient, effective and timely manner. Outreach may include:

• Public meetings in the community
• Meetings of a public stakeholder group or steering committee
• A web page on DenverGov.org with plan updates, meeting reminders and contact information
• Email updates
• Public hearings at Denver Planning Board and Denver City Council

Well, that's pretty much what any planning department would say and do, including Chicago's. It's exactly what Chicago has done with its community plans. Yet only yesterday in the highrise thread the very same SamintheLoop who called for strong planning involvement excoriated PDNA for expecting X/O to comply with the explicit numeric limits set out in an adopted neighborhood plan.

So as I understand this line of thinking: If a plan recommends more skyscrapers, good for planning! If a plan limits skyscrapers in any way . . . well, it must be a flawed plan and should be ignored.

[ardecila]

I've spoken with some consultants who worked in Denver on various local area plans. The overall strategy sorts the city into "areas of stability" and "areas of change", reassuring most NIMBYs in existing residential areas.

It helps to some extent that Denver's new LRT lines run through industrial corridors, so the goals of TOD and neighborhood preservation don't usually conflict. Therefore, when communities are consulted for input on TOD schemes, they don't show the same fierce opposition to density.

I'm unclear how Denver's planners handle NIMBYism in areas around downtown, where midrise and lowrise multifamily is common, but the DenverInfill blog shows extensive development in these existing neighborhoods as well.

[ardecila]

Also, while I agree with the sentiment that SSPers are excessively pro-density, I think the pro-X/O sentiments are based on the (valid) ideal that lakefront areas near transit should allow high densities.

I've also seen the low quality of a lot of the low-rise townhouses in the Prairie District, so I understand how a bold modern highrise is a compelling alternative.

[wierdaaron]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Also, while I agree with the sentiment that SSPers are excessively pro-density...

Well... it's SSP, not SFHP.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Justin_Chicago

Bronzeville may get its boost from ‘FarmVille’ technology

I was at CNT's 35th anniversary event a few weeks ago and this was presented as the winner of that hackathon. Interesting concept.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

As for public participation, I don’t see anything very innovative on the Denver website:

Public Engagement

Key to every plan is a thoughtful public involvement strategy that is integrated into the planning process. A successful public involvement strategy includes a wide range of mechanisms for city planners to share information with the people, and for the people to share their ideas, questions and concerns. The goal is to engage as many citizens as possible in an efficient, effective and timely manner. Outreach may include:

• Public meetings in the community
• Meetings of a public stakeholder group or steering committee
• A web page on DenverGov.org with plan updates, meeting reminders and contact information
• Email updates
• Public hearings at Denver Planning Board and Denver City Council

Well, that's pretty much what any planning department would say and do, including Chicago's. It's exactly what Chicago has done with its community plans. Yet only yesterday in the highrise thread the very same SamintheLoop who called for strong planning involvement excoriated PDNA for expecting X/O to comply with the explicit numeric limits set out in an adopted neighborhood plan.

So as I understand this line of thinking: If a plan recommends more skyscrapers, good for planning! If a plan limits skyscrapers in any way . . . well, it must be a flawed plan and should be ignored.

Oh, the Near South Community Plan......shall we cover this ground again? Alright, let's do it.

Those absurdly low 400-450' or thereabouts height 'limits' for the South Loop, blocks from lake are nothing short of preposterous (I can see nothing short of 30-40% or so higher, with the exception of park 'wall' towers, which could be twice that height (up to 900-950' perhaps). Does anyone really think such upper height guidelines as in the NSCP are reasonable? They were clearly a mistake...it was foolish for the 'planning' dept to put them in there.....I'd assume that at least some in the dept surely realized this, and probably thought that it really doesn't matter in any case because of 1) aldermanic prerogative, ie if an alderman happens to support taller projects they'll of course happen (and it just so happens that that is consistent with good urban planning, despite contradicting NSCP guidelines), and 2) well, after they're just guidelines anyway, and despite any assertions to the contrary, do not in any remote way have any legal significance......

It's not that only plans that call for much denser and taller are the 'good' ones, but let's be honest - in 2013 Chicago, we don't have any plans (well, as DeVries and Hunt point out, we really don't have that many plans, period) that call for too much density and height, and very few if any that call for enough of both....

[ardecila]

^ As far as I see it, the city can either enforce plans to its overall benefit or succumb to the rule-of-the-mob money-talks NIMBY corrupt bargain that is the current system.

If planners don't have the ability to advocate for density, the citizens certainly won't.

[Pilton]

"rule-of-the-mob money-talks NIMBY corrupt bargain"

An overstatement? NIMBYs generally have more votes than developers. In a democracy, the voice of the people matters and must be taken into consideration in decision-making. We do not live in an autocratic system of elites (although sometimes I wonder). Unless the "rule-of-the-mob" relates to 1st Ward tactics, I'm not sure what you mean by "rule-of-the-mob." lol!

But, the "money talks" and "corrupt bargain" of NIMBYs doesn't match the facts. Developers generally have much more money to spread around than NIMBYs and the corruption indictments of aldermen seem to mention developers much more often than neighborhood opposition groups.

The real problem seems to be insufficient communication to convince the NIMBYs that the benefits of a specific development outweigh the detriments. It might help if the City had a team of planners from an existing City department specifically discuss how developments fit in (or not) with the existing City master plans.

Wrong or right, the public's suspicion is that if you have the money, the right to build the development is for sale. The City needs to work on changing that. Re-creating a competent, responsible City Planning Department is a way to start. "Planning Chicago" was written to focus attention on the paradox that Chicago (of all cities!) has no existing planning department and the Kamin article merely highlighted this surprising situation.

And, I agree with Sam. High density zoning areas need automatic taller heights so that every developer does not have to go "hat in hand" (lol!) to the alderman to get PD approval to build something other than a midget building.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Doesn't sound like all that much of an overstatement to me.

So the single largest problem (to play the broken record) is in fact aldermanic prerogative. It's the perfect system for both pandering to the public and corruption. It needs to go (just because this is an extralegal tradition in Chicago, doesn't in any way make it right, or mean it should be respected and maintained. It's nonsense, and the worst possible system - no system is perfect that's out there, but Chicago's is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in many respects. Yes, this is a democracy, but the city itself writes the zoning laws, and puts the systems in place, and determines which are ‘sham’ and which are real, etc, and who really makes the decisions (certainly professional planners in Chicago have next to zero real say)….

It would take some time no doubt I assume to actually rebuild - or build actually - a planning department that has world class expertise and is respected, and has enforcement powers (not to mention a Plan Commission as well)....once that were to happen, then they could put together quality plans with power to enforce (ie without the major blunders such as the far too low height guidelines in the near south community plan)...

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

So the single largest problem (to play the broken record) is in fact aldermanic prerogative. It's the perfect system for pandering to the public and corruption. It needs to go (just because this is an extralegal tradition in Chicago, doesn't in any way make it right, or mean it should be respected and maintained. It's nonsense, and the worst possible system - no system is perfect that's out there, but Chicago's is pretty much the bottom of the barrel in many respects.

And it's not just planning/construction.

Liquor licenses, live music licenses, business hours of operation, signage, public right of way infringement, loading zones, etc. all go through this backwards, backroom process.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ absolutely preposterous, not practices of a 'city that works', not in the least....

[marothisu]

Anyone have any details on this? $15 million building permit for an interior buildout of a restaurant at 2331 W Madison (around Madison & Western). Says it's owner occupied under "Justin Ford."

Is there even a building at this location anymore? Pretty sure this is where the old Imperial Theater was