CHICAGO | General Developments

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I really don't understand why nobody once, ever, has ever discussed taking existing land and selling it off as individual prezoned lots. . . instead of turning over huge swaths to Antunovich and Hines

If you mean land in the IMD, it's because that's a state commission with a specific mission. They can only develop land in the district as medical facilities, though I guess there's some wiggle room that allows things like the Costco and FBI building.

If you mean the city in general, it's because of the transaction costs in qualifying the bidders, doing the ordinance and transfer paperwork, and particularly in overseeing the results to make sure things actually get built in a timely fashion rather than an endless mire of quick-flip transfers to brothers-in-law, projects bogged down in probate or divorce proceedings, construction liens, etc., etc. It's proven much more reliable to transfer 12 acres at a time to a developer with the wherewithal to actually build, and for a projects with the gravity to change the course of a neighborhood quickly.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Relatively large development proposed for Wicker Park at Division/Ashland/Milwaukee:

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20151...hool-189-homes

This should be fantastic.

Took the blue line out to o'hare for the first time in a little while recently. Even though I'm of course passionately following all this near nw-side tod development here, it was really exciting to see all this construction along the blue line/milwaukee actually beginning to take shape.....I think this is the beginning of a real pivot in Chicago neighborhood development to something more appropriate, more urban, more dense, more tod, and more walkable......exciting times....

[spyguy]

Student center to be developed through student eyes




---
Also saw that the parking lot at 1631 S. Indiana is for sale. The listing states the site could be developed with over 220 units, so I'm assuming we could see a potential highrise here someday.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Student center to be developed through student eyes




---
Also saw that the parking lot at 1631 S. Indiana is for sale. The listing states the site could be developed with over 220 units, so I'm assuming we could see a potential highrise here someday.

Thanks, Spyguy! Always get excited to see your name come up.

Though I must say, for a second I thought you'd gotten the intel on the SAIC lot nearby. This is a pleasant surprise as well...

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Student center to be developed through student eyes




.

Hopefully SCB can do a good job at this site.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ Man, all corners of the South Loop are on fire!! (with Chicago's history, I suppose I should refrain from this specific language.....I digress). With this and the coming SAIC development coming very near this site, this area in particular is really going to be filling in with a lot of very active/pedestrian traffic-enhancing uses..........

Can't wait to hear which architect will be designing the SAIC complex......

[harryc]

After careful positioning with the surveyors - "nailing" down the guide for a caisson.

[SolarWind]

November 23, 2015

[SolarWind]

November 23, 2015

[UrbanLibertine]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

November 23, 2015

What's going on at 375 N. Morgan?

[streetline]

Originally Posted by UrbanLibertine

What's going on at 375 N. Morgan?

I believe they're widening Kinzie. They rebuilt the street from Ogden to Carpenter a couple of years ago, replacing a bunch of ancient infrastructure under it. Now they're doing phase II: Carpenter to Desplaines.

That part of Kinzie is elevated because there used to be a bridge over the railroad at Sangamon. Now that the neighborhood is getting filled in with tech and design offices and trendy restaurants, it'd be interesting to see that bridge rebuilt (perhaps for pedestrians only), to make the area more walkable...
Perhaps something like that could bee included when the lots surrounding the old bridge are redeveloped.

[ardecila]

That's a shame. That limestone retaining wall is awesome and should be preserved. The traffic problem is easy to solve... ban parking on Kinzie in the narrow stretch.

[harryc]

Originally Posted by ardecila

That's a shame. That limestone retaining wall is awesome and should be preserved. The traffic problem is easy to solve... ban parking on Kinzie in the narrow stretch.

Vista from the top of the "bridge" (2008)

[King of Chicago]

So, back to the BRT discussion, I was thinking, that one of the main reasons that Ashland BRT was unpopular, was the configuration...the "No Left Turn" concept was a poor decision. The reason they initially had the BRT lane planned for the left lane, was because the city needs to retain a parking lane for the private company that bought the rights to that, years ago. So instead, what the city should do, is reconfigure the plan....the auto lane should actually be in the left hand lane (allowing for left hand turns). So, the correct configuration should be sidewalk > protected bike lanes > BRT lane > parking > auto transit lane > Landscaped median. This configuration would give the city a BRT lane on Ashland, plus have the ability to park, plus have the ability to turn left.

Also, I think that Emergency responders should be allowed to use the BRT lane...since the BRT bus would only come every 5 mins or so, then there isn't always a bus in the lane...emergency response vehicles could use the lane to more quickly respond.

This would also set the precedent for a uniform city-wide BRT standard.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

So, back to the BRT discussion, I was thinking, that one of the main reasons that Ashland BRT was unpopular, was the configuration...the "No Left Turn" concept was a poor decision. The reason they initially had the BRT lane planned for the left lane, was because the city needs to retain a parking lane for the private company that bought the rights to that, years ago. So instead, what the city should do, is reconfigure the plan....the auto lane should actually be in the left hand lane (allowing for left hand turns). So, the correct configuration should be sidewalk > protected bike lanes > BRT lane > parking > auto transit lane > Landscaped median. This configuration would give the city a BRT lane on Ashland, plus have the ability to park, plus have the ability to turn left.

Also, I think that Emergency responders should be allowed to use the BRT lane...since the BRT bus would only come every 5 mins or so, then there isn't always a bus in the lane...emergency response vehicles could use the lane to more quickly respond.

This would also set the precedent for a uniform city-wide BRT standard.

or tell the private company (probably owned by some daley relative) to fuck off.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by King of Chicago

So, back to the BRT discussion, I was thinking, that one of the main reasons that Ashland BRT was unpopular, was the configuration...the "No Left Turn" concept was a poor decision. The reason they initially had the BRT lane planned for the left lane, was because the city needs to retain a parking lane for the private company that bought the rights to that, years ago. So instead, what the city should do, is reconfigure the plan....the auto lane should actually be in the left hand lane (allowing for left hand turns). So, the correct configuration should be sidewalk > protected bike lanes > BRT lane > parking > auto transit lane > Landscaped median. This configuration would give the city a BRT lane on Ashland, plus have the ability to park, plus have the ability to turn left.

Also, I think that Emergency responders should be allowed to use the BRT lane...since the BRT bus would only come every 5 mins or so, then there isn't always a bus in the lane...emergency response vehicles could use the lane to more quickly respond.

This would also set the precedent for a uniform city-wide BRT standard.

Parking was not why they chose center running.

The dirty little secret, is that it isn't traffic that slows buses down, it's passengers. Loading and unloading passengers is what keeps the bus from being as fast as a car.

Center running was the plan all along. That way prepaid passengers would be corralled on the platform and enter the bus from all doors at a rapid pace. Just like the EL.

When you include the cost of the new left boarding buses, They could build curbside running on Western for half the price.
Western curbside vs Ashland center running
Bus speed 15.6mph 15.9mph
Increased boardings 9549 new riders 8440 new riders
Average late bus 39secs 22secs
Pedestrian space 30ft 43 ft (inc 14ft station)
Traffic capacity lost 0% 50%
Cost 110 million 165 million + 45mil vehicles

There were only 532 CPM spaces on all of Western and they could have saved most of those by eliminating the median.

[ardecila]

If you agree that the enclosed shelters are desirable, both to speed boarding and to increase passenger comfort, then why would you build a curbside design that requires twice as many shelters, where those shelters take away from existing valuable sidewalk space?

You've also got the concerns of businesses along the route, who will be very miffed at losing all street parking and curbside loading, and having large, bulky shelters placed right in front of their storefronts? CDOT already dealt with that challenge in the Loop... The result may be visually open, but it provides no shelter at all except from sunlight.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If you agree that the enclosed shelters are desirable, both to speed boarding and to increase passenger comfort, then why would you build a curbside design that requires twice as many shelters, where those shelters take away from existing valuable sidewalk space?

The median takes up space the entire length of the route, the only usable portion is one bus length every 1/2 mile. Even with twice as many stations, they don't need to be as wide and are only as long as needed. Better yet, why bother. Why not make the ventra card actually work reliably and use it at both doors.

Originally Posted by ardecila

You've also got the concerns of businesses along the route, who will be very miffed at losing all street parking and curbside loading, and having large, bulky shelters placed right in front of their storefronts? CDOT already dealt with that challenge in the Loop... The result may be visually open, but it provides no shelter at all except from sunlight.

Obviously, you've never been on Western. From one end to the other it's lined with hospitals, high schools, shopping centers and burger joints. In fact there are only a half dozen blocks on the entire length that consist of street fronting businesses without their own parking lot.

Again, the median on Western is a stripe on the asphalt, get rid of that and you only need to lose parking on one side of the street

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Why not make the ventra card actually work reliably and use it at both doors.

Yes. Found that San Francisco articulated buses with three entrances, all with card readers, could move more quickly.

[i_am_kyry]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

November 23, 2015

Am I the only one who thinks that old shed in the background would make a badass indoor market?

Peoria St. Market? It sells itself.