CHICAGO | General Developments

[ithakas]

A minor detail I noticed on the train: Northwestern's new health clinic (?) in Bucktown next to the 606 has a large, empty roof basically at eye level with one of the trail's bridge over Milwaukee. Does anyone know if their plans include dressing that up in green somehow?

[streetline]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

I agree that the city should continue to make public investments that deliver high returns, even if it means taking on more debt, which seems highly counter-intuitive in the minds of those wanting to minimize financial risk. But I'm afraid we still aren't scrutinizing the projects enough to ensure they will provide the return that is promised. Don't get me wrong, I personally love so many of the current projects because they make the city beautiful and more desirable for me and many others, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should take top priority for Chicago's current financial position. At this point, Chicago investments need to be long-term sustainable.

For exmple, if you look at the study referenced earlier that reviews all of the economic benefits of Millennium Park, it tells you how the park generated "$428.5 million – $586.6 million for
hotels, from $672.1 million – $867.1 million for restaurants, and from $529.6 million – $711.1million for retailers." That's great for those industries, but that doesn't necessarily convince me that the project was a good investment for the city. Corporate tax and income tax revenues go to the state, as well as half of the sales tax... what does this mean for city revenues? I want to know the ROI specifically for the city, and I think if we had this figure transparently laid out before future projects are proposed, it would be far easier have a conversation with anyone opposed to making the investment for fiscal reasons.

Maybe the numbers are out there, and I just never come across them, but I would really like to see more analyses of how much extra tax revenue these projects are going to generate relative to costs. How much after 5-years, 10-years, 15-years? We should be demanding the empirical facts that support the decision for making each (at least major) public investment... right now, politicians can get away with broadly stating that this project will boost economic activity and provide jobs without ever getting into specifics. Without specifics, project support will fully depend on fiscal ideology rather than facts.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. That said, I do agree that the riverwalk/606 are highly likely to be worth the investments because of the federal funding. So this is more of a general comment for project like say, the new DePaul arena.

That same study tells you that "The city’s $270 million commitment ... came from $175 million in construction bonds ... paid by people who park in the 2,200-space Millennium Garage built beneath the park and $95 million in tax increment financing bonds provided by the Central Loop TIF." So, it's paid for by parking fees, and the increase in nearby real estate values due to it's presence. I don't know the details of the deal with the garage operator, but the only trouble I've heard of there is related to the city not being able to license other new nearby garages, rather than a lack of revenue. And given the boom of hotels, retail, and residential in the area, I'm thinking >$95 million in increased property tax receipts in the TIF district is reasonable.


Also, note that the river walk if being paid for with federal loans, which the city expects to pay back with fees from tour boats and rent from the business that will occupy the river walk over the next 35 years. I expect the river walk will still be worth it, but it isn't built on 'free' federal money.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

So this is more of a general comment for project like say, the new DePaul arena.

Not to pick you specifically, but people REALLY need to stop referring to this as the DePaul Arena. And let's look at the actual math for the Arena. DePaul, a private institution, is footing HALF of the bill for a structure that they will not even own and will use only 15 days a year. That leaves another 350 days during which the arena will be used for conventions or concerts which will not only generate economic activity in the city, but direct and very real rental revenues.

The entire "this is DePauls stadium and the city is just paying for it, how stupid" narrative needs to die. This is an arena that will be owned by the government authority and become a real and integral part of their convention business. This is not the city paying for half of DePaul's arena, this is DePaul paying for half of the city's arena. Aire Crown theater is OK, but this way better and necessary to keep McCormick Place competitive with cities like Las Vegas or Orlando. Considering that Milwaukee is paying for half the price of constructing a new Bucks stadium just to prevent them from leaving town and that's considered a relatively good deal (compared to most other stadium deals) I think we are doing pretty damn good here.

This is not your typical taxpayer subsidy for a rich playboy's hobby, this is a very real and positive investment in our city. Even if DePaul were using the stadium 65 days a year, the McPier would still be paying 50% of the cost and getting over 80% of the use of the structure. I don't understand in what bizzaro world the people who think that is a bad deal are living in.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Beyond just looking at the tourism draw, I think there's also just the added value of "public good".ests. You'd think they'd be paying for wider interstate highways or something.

And you bring up another important point, these improvements make our city more livable and, I suspect, play a large part in attracting and retaining residents. Chicago was originally built as an industrial hellhole with almost zero in the way of any redeeming natural beauty or attractions. Our forefathers saw this and realized a need to create artificial beauty if we were to survive and grow beyond being what was basically one giant factory surrounded by worker's hovels. And thank goodness they did because otherwise I don't think Chicago would have made it through the deindustrialization like it has otherwise.

If the riverwalk even convinces another 10,000 people to choose to locate here, it is worth it. Those 10,000 people will pay back the cost of this park one hundred fold over their lifetimes and not just in the form of tax revenue, but in the form of citizen's daily and real contributions to the culture and lifeblood of this city. Not everything can be quantified in a proforma, sometimes you need vision to best the par. Just look at the 1893 World's Fair. Do you think that investment paid off a little bit? It was really the apogee of Chicago's self realization that no great city can simply exist as a place of doing business, as a barren prairie loaded with factories and commerce. And people are still talking about it today and it is still positively affecting the lives of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of citizens on a daily basis.

I support these projects not just because they increase tax revenue, but because, as a resident, I really enjoy walking through Maggie Daley Park through Millennium Park and into the Loop on a regular basis. I enjoy living in what is the greatest, most livable, city of this size on the planet and it's only that way because the dreamers who build this place have actively pursued that noble and unquantifiable end game.

Originally Posted by harryc

Zurich North America HQ:







All images from Clayco's website claycorp.com

It's really a shame they couldn't be convinced to locate in Chicago, especially considering the investment in design they were apparently willing to make. I suspect they will regret this boat anchor they've thrown down in Schaumburg in the years to come as the suburban office market continues to wilt.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

Beyond just looking at the tourism draw, I think there's also just the added value of "public good". Even if zero tourists come to town specifically for the riverwalk or any new park, it still contributes to the value of the city by making people happy, making people willing to pay more to live and work near them, making workers stay in the area for longer before going home and thus spending more money, and benefits on and on.

Yep! I just wanted to touch on tourist revenue, but this is absolutely true and interests me a ton. All of these things add up to making a city more livable (and also getting more full time residents)

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I support these projects not just because they increase tax revenue, but because, as a resident, I really enjoy walking through Maggie Daley Park through Millennium Park and into the Loop on a regular basis. I enjoy living in what is the greatest, most livable, city of this size on the planet and it's only that way because the dreamers who build this place have actively pursued that noble and unquantifiable end game.

This quote deserves to be etched in stone somewhere along the next section of riverwalk.

As for Zurich; yes, it's a shame for the missed property taxes, but along the lines of not quantifying everything proforma, let's be happy that this massive HQ is only 40 minutes from downtown, where these workers will inevitably spend a fair portion of their disposable income and time. We're all familiar with Chicago's draw for working suburbanites.

[Ryanrule]

suburban office parks should be straight up banned.
or build into the cost of the land the cleanup costs of tearing the damn thing down, and the cultural/political/economic costs of having people live in the burbs.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

For exmple, if you look at the study referenced earlier that reviews all of the economic benefits of Millennium Park, it tells you how the park generated "$428.5 million – $586.6 million for
hotels, from $672.1 million – $867.1 million for restaurants, and from $529.6 million – $711.1million for retailers." That's great for those industries, but that doesn't necessarily convince me that the project was a good investment for the city.

The numbers from that study don't simply represent a benefit to those industries. They represent jobs for people who live in and thus spend money in Chicago.

According to city park alliance a 2005 study (1yr after MP was fully opened) found that buildings located in proximity to the park generated over $10 million more in annual taxes than pre-park amounts, and $24 million more in sales taxes. To put that in perspective if nothing else changed since 2005 the park would have already paid for itself.

However it should be noted that 2005 is before most of the construction boom caused by the park... like pretty much all of LSE, legacy, Trump, heritage, etc. That construction of course means more jobs more property tax, sales tax etc.

Add tourism to that and Millennium Park has paid for itself many times over already.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

suburban office parks should be straight up banned.
or build into the cost of the land the cleanup costs of tearing the damn thing down, and the cultural/political/economic costs of having people live in the burbs.

I'm a fan of smart regulation, but I think this one would be a) difficult and inefficient to enforce and b) not a good idea. We can all agree that, say, farms or businesses that require large greenhouses may not be economical to place in urban areas. There's a whole spectrum of uses between law firm and hog farm that might be perfect for sub-urban areas. I think one place where markets work great is deciding the value of land and how it should be used.

Before we ban sprawl, let's just permit density and mixed use in the places that already have it. It's illegal to build Lincoln Park or Georgetown just about anywhere in the country. Then let's stop subsidizing single family home construction and not subsidizing multifamily development. Then let's invest in transportation that makes it easier for people to get around instead of harder.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by rlw777

However it should be noted that 2005 is before most of the construction boom caused by the park... like pretty much all of LSE, legacy, Trump, heritage, etc. That construction of course means more jobs more property tax, sales tax etc.

Add tourism to that and Millennium Park has paid for itself many times over already.

^^^ Bingo, I would go as far as to posit that a large driver of the massive population boom downtown was the construction of Millennium Park. It's impossible to ever tease out the exact portion of that boom attributable to Millennium Park, but the number is certainly far from zero. Every single one of those residents is constantly adding value to the city beyond just the tax revenue they are generating. The presence of each of those residents in turn makes city more appealing to additional residents and you have a virtuous cycle which, at it's core, is directly attributable to improvements in the built environment.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I think one place where markets work great is deciding the value of land and how it should be used.

Except when the value of land has been massively distorted by the government as it has in American suburban areas. The only reason there are office parks at all is that the Federal government rammed freeways though urban areas and engaged in wildly racist and destructive policies for decades totally decimating inner city land values and inflating values along previously non existent and boarder line impossible travel corridors.

I highly recommend listening to this NPR piece on how the Federal government systematically destroyed inner cities and created ghettos through brazen, systematic, racist policies. There is nothing "free market" about that:

http://www.wbur.org/npr/406699264/hi...ed-the-ghettos

[msu2001la]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Updated proposal for the Apollo Theater development on Lincoln:



In other news, NIMBY's continue to devolve and become increasingly less intelligent:



Or maybe it's just DNAinfo since they go on later to say that only one resident asked such a mind numbingly stupid question.

This looks great!

I'm assuming this replaces the "tennis court" building with the sunken retail spaces along Lincoln? That stretch of Lincoln is terrible right now and a development like this could really help kick-start some new restaurant/retail along there.

[brian_b]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I think the teachers academy has quite a few neighborhood slots, as I often hear it being used as the reason we don't need any new schools down here.

Sometimes I fantasize that the city will use eminent domain or manifest destiny to seize the new south loop British School and make it a neighborhood school. I might start writing alternate reality city planning fan fiction for stuff like that.

NTA is a neighborhood school, but gets the majority of its students via the Options Lottery and the "new" RGC program. Most of the RGC kids are coming from the South Loop and Hyde Park and the Options kids are from other areas on the south side. It also was a receiving school during the giant school closure debacle.

Unlike most neighborhood schools, however, it is run by AUSL using the "turnaround school" legislation. Illegally, I might add, because it never met the criteria for failing since it was built from scratch and handed over. There is no elected local school council and as such the principal and his staff have no accountability to the neighborhood.

It's a great facility, though. It has a nice zero-entry swimming pool and the art and music rooms have two-story windows that give an inspiring view of downtown. I've spent a lot of time over there and it's obvious that it's a well cared-for campus; just not intended for serving the needs of the neighborhood.

[lu9]

Blair Kamin with a write-up in yesterday's Trib...

Excellent set of pics here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...htbox=83651167

I think this park, at this point, is extremely under-hyped and will be considered underrated very quickly.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...mn.html#page=1







All pics credit to Nancy Stone, Chicago Tribune

[Ryanrule]

they need to punch it across the highway.
or just cap and bury all the highway. that works too.

[SamInTheLoop]

Just to add to the love this redesign is getting......sometimes it's good to be wrong! (I was very skeptical when I heard some comments about this - more brick etc - to 'reflect' neighborhood..............this looks quite nice.....would be a great piece of infill.....

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Except when the value of land has been massively distorted by the government as it has in American suburban areas. The only reason there are office parks at all is that the Federal government rammed freeways though urban areas and engaged in wildly racist and destructive policies for decades totally decimating inner city land values and inflating values along previously non existent and boarder line impossible travel corridors.

I highly recommend listening to this NPR piece on how the Federal government systematically destroyed inner cities and created ghettos through brazen, systematic, racist policies. There is nothing "free market" about that:

http://www.wbur.org/npr/406699264/hi...ed-the-ghettos

This is what the private market desperately wanted at the time - it wanted the 'freedom' of the car, the half-acre and larger lot, the space, a very large element of racism, the mall, the suburban office, etc etc. Of course it was heavily aided and subsidized by government - that's what government investments do.....but to chalk this all up to the government destroyed our cities, because that is what reinforces your narrow default world view, and doesn't make you think too hard about the implications of libertarianism is, well, not unexpected, I suppose......

[the urban politician]

^ Gotta agree here.

That myth gets old.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

This is what the private market desperately wanted at the time - it wanted the 'freedom' of the car, the half-acre and larger lot, the space, a very large element of racism, the mall, the suburban office, etc etc. Of course it was heavily aided and subsidized by government - that's what government investments do.....but to chalk this all up to the government destroyed our cities, because that is what reinforces your narrow default world view, and doesn't make you think too hard about the implications of libertarianism is, well, not unexpected, I suppose......

Well, of course the "private market" wanted huge investments from the government that would open up new areas to development. Why wouldn't they? If the government paid me millions to tear down a historic building and build a strip mall, I would feel bad as I did it, but be super happy about my inefficient, seven figure windfall.

It may or may not be true that cities are very different because of government meddling in the past. The fact is that there are several significant interferences that hurt market urbanism:

1) I can build a single family home and the buyer can expect about a $10,000 rebate from the government each year on his taxes when he purchases it. There's no similar subsidy to rent. If you consider both scale and sheer stupidity, the mortgage interest deduction is one of the worst policies I can think of since slavery was eliminated. [I benefit from this policy.]

2) It's illegal to build desirable urban environments in most places, artificially suppressing supply of Lincoln Park-like development, thus increasing costs and making suburban developments relatively and artificially cheap by comparison. The Gold Coast is great because it's full of high-rises near the lake with little or no parking. It's now illegal to build like that where people want to live. Some people prefer pears and others prefer apples. If we made construction of new pear orchards illegal and apples are thus 1/3 of the price, it's not necessarily true to say, "See, the private market prefers apples", even many more of them are sold. Apples are cheap and are purchased more because that's what's available.

3) Because of America's rural bias, more government money is spent on unneeded six lane bipasses around towns of 50,000 people than on transit that would serve many more for less cost. The highway projects have unpriced negative externalities (promoting inefficient land use, damaging coherence at the city center, making human-scaled development impractical, hard to be a pedestrian, etc); the transit projects have unrealized positive externalities.

4) Most parking is inefficiently unpriced. Everyone I know who hates government "interference" in stuff also happens to be the people who are most loud about expressing their feelings that the government should create lots of special zones of public space where they can store their private vehicles.

[SamInTheLoop]

^ I don't necessarily disagree with any of your points, as they're all good ones. My basic point was the simple truth, though, that hordes and hordes and hordes - perhaps even a very solid majority - of the post-war population did in fact desire suburbia (let's not kid ourselves, a very significant part of the population does to this very day)....90% of it being what you, I and most everyone on this forum detest (maybe except for that one weird dude that always defends large amounts of parking in new developments).......to try to argue that suburbia became popular largely because of government policies (rather than with a significant assist by government policies) is borderline ludicrous......it's okay to admit that the American populace wanted the suburban lifestyle, and they wanted it bad, man - and it was push, as well as pull, too - city living was out: for World War II generation and early-mid baby boomers, the suburbs delivered a much more appealing lifestyle, than remaining in, or moving two urban neighborhoods (and yes, politicians were all to eager to help deliver it to them)........but hey, times and lifestyle preferences do change.....as we all know, they're changing now (trends which will likely continue for some period of time), and then they will change again in the future - in ways that are not widely predicted now. And over time government policies will change too -