Elevated train lines and commercial corridors

[harryc]

Originally Posted by sharkfood

I have a related question - - especially for the New York and Chicago posters:

Are residential apartments viable next to an elevated train line?
I saw examples of residential in some of the pictures, but I want to hear from people who actually live here.

In Philadelphia, there is a school of thought that residential next to an elevated line is out of the question.

Yes - very viable - very valuable as they are close to a station. The only real problem is the squeel at the turns. The supports can be used to pull engines ;-)

[BIMBAM]

Some pics of the mentioned No. 3 road in Richmond, BC.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by sharkfood

I have a related question - - especially for the New York and Chicago posters:

Are residential apartments viable next to an elevated train line?
I saw examples of residential in some of the pictures, but I want to hear from people who actually live here.

In Philadelphia, there is a school of thought that residential next to an elevated line is out of the question.

My bedroom window is right up against the rail tracks. You regret the first two weeks, but stop noticing it after that. I've actually never slept better since I moved from a highrise downtown. I'd probably never buy a place next to the tracks but it's nice renting 1400 sf gut rehab against the rails vs a 600 sf cramped apartment in a tower. I think people think it's miserable to deal with the noise but it's tuned out after a couple weeks

[Busy Bee]

Wuppertal


><><


Like most of Germany it is relatively clean, safe and thriving.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by sharkfood

I have a related question - - especially for the New York and Chicago posters:

Are residential apartments viable next to an elevated train line?
I saw examples of residential in some of the pictures, but I want to hear from people who actually live here.

In Philadelphia, there is a school of thought that residential next to an elevated line is out of the question.

they are rebuilding tons of new, mostly subsidized residential infill apt bldgs right next to the el subway lines in the bronx. whats left of the old 'bronx is burning' era lots. it seems they can't build 'em fast enough in the 'ol bx, because they are instantly filled.

[nei]

opening scene of Saturday Night Fever has some great shots of a commercial boulevard with an El:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FphcAh3T8

also note all the extras in the background are (1) white and (2) have dark colored hair

[nei]

Originally Posted by sharkfood

I have a related question - - especially for the New York and Chicago posters:

Are residential apartments viable next to an elevated train line?
I saw examples of residential in some of the pictures, but I want to hear from people who actually live here.

In Philadelphia, there is a school of thought that residential next to an elevated line is out of the question.

there's plenty of older apartments next to them

[Randomguy34]

Does anyone know how the Cottage Grove branch of the Green Line in Chicago is doing? I'm also curious how much the commercial activity has changed since they tore down the Jackson Park extension 15 years ago. I've heard that a new cafe opened up there and has become extremely but not much else since I was last there.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by nei

opening scene of Saturday Night Fever has some great shots of a commercial boulevard with an El:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FphcAh3T8

also note all the extras in the background are (1) white and (2) have dark colored hair

yes that is bay ridge, brooklyn. it was a mostly italian neighborhood. still is, but not to the same extent. i think that is one of the best opening scenes of all in movies. i dont get out there too often, but i should - it deserves a photo thread.

[nei]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

yes that is bay ridge, brooklyn. it was a mostly italian neighborhood. still is, but not to the same extent. i think that is one of the best opening scenes of all in movies. i dont get out there too often, but i should - it deserves a photo thread.

Bay Ridge doesn't have an elevated (R is underground). That scene is in Bensonhurst /Bath Beach.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Yeah, that's right. I wonder to what extent the Honolulu proposal was influenced by the strong Asian ties to the place? Surely many Honolulu residents are familiar with the big concrete viaducts in many Asian cities. That's a different way of thinking than America, where elevated structures are instantly a blight, eyesore, etc

A gigantic seismically active volcano in the middle of the Pacific probably isn't the best place to dig tunnels for a subway. I have a feeling its probably just significantly cheaper to build it above grade than to dig a tunnel that needs to account for frequently shifting ground below grade.

Originally Posted by UPChicago

Those areas are not really shining examples they under-perform when compared to their respective areas, especially Wabash.

Disagree about Wabash, Wabash certainly doesn't under perform for the area. Sure it's no State Street or Michigan Ave, but those are the main drags and compared to other side streets in the area it is much more vibrant.

Originally Posted by sharkfood

I have a related question - - especially for the New York and Chicago posters:

Are residential apartments viable next to an elevated train line?
I saw examples of residential in some of the pictures, but I want to hear from people who actually live here.

In Philadelphia, there is a school of thought that residential next to an elevated line is out of the question.

Not really a problem at all. They even build condos right up against the L here. I'm sure the noise slightly depresses the prices, but the proximity transit and a small subset of the market that actually wants the character of having trains rumbling by their balcony probably cancels it out. I know more than a few people here who think that having the L in their alley is the greatest feature in the world. I own a building that I'm renovating that has an alley L behind it and the trains pass within 2 feet of the back wall. I just bricked up all the windows on that wall and you can hardly even hear it inside. You feel it more than you hear it.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by nei

Bay Ridge doesn't have an elevated (R is underground). That scene is in Bensonhurst /Bath Beach.

yep it was bensonhurst -- you got it!

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by nei

opening scene of Saturday Night Fever has some great shots of a commercial boulevard with an El:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0FphcAh3T8

also note all the extras in the background are (1) white and (2) have dark colored hair

That opening scene is filmed on 86th Street in Bensonhurst, which, in the late 70's (when movie was filmed) was probably 80%+ Italian, and 98% white. If the same scene were filed 5-10 years earlier, it would have been a more Jewish neighborhood, but the more secular Jews had left Bensonhurst for the burbs by the late 70's. A Sicilian wave of immigration in the early 70's turned the area from Jewish-Italian to basically all Italian.

That movie is a bit strange if you know Brooklyn. It's supposed to be Bay Ridge, but most of the filming in in Bensonhurst, not Bay Ridge, and Bay Ridge was never thought of as a working class Italian American neighborhood. Bay Ridge is higher income, always more diverse and more educated, fewer immigrants, and now gentrifying.

But the aerial in the opening scene of the movie is obviously Bay Ridge.

That street-level scene wouldn't look that radically different nowadays, BTW. I think there's still a pizzeria on that corner, and the street scene in Bensonhurst is still immigrant, upwardly mobile working class, but now with Chinese and Russians alongside the Italians.

[losername]

1

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

A gigantic seismically active volcano in the middle of the Pacific probably isn't the best place to dig tunnels for a subway. I have a feeling its probably just significantly cheaper to build it above grade than to dig a tunnel that needs to account for frequently shifting ground below grade.

Well sure, but most other American cities would just build a slow-ass surface light rail because subways are too expensive and els are just too horrifying - won't somebody please think of the children?!

LA has ridiculous congestion, but they've never gotten very far building elevated structures. There are a few long bridges, but most of the system is at grade. Maybe the x-factor in Hawaii was the Asians, I dunno.

[llamaorama]

Before I visited Chicago for the first time and rode the CTA I thought people who said their apartments were right near the tracks were just exaggerating. Then I realized there are actually residential buildings right up against the tracks.

My bedroom window is right up against the rail tracks. You regret the first two weeks, but stop noticing it after that.

"How often does the train go by?"

"So often you won't notice it"

• Video Link

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That movie is a bit strange if you know Brooklyn. It's supposed to be Bay Ridge, but most of the filming in in Bensonhurst, not Bay Ridge....

That seems to be the nature of movie-making. The early 90s film "Pacific Heights" is set in the Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco, but was actually filmed in Potrero Hill. Also, the 1991 version of "Father of the Bride" is set in San Marino, California, but was filmed in adjacent Pasadena; it's like, why didn't they just use a house in San Marino, or when they decided to update the film from the original 1950 version, why didn't they just set it in Pasadena?

Also, many films set in Los Angeles are hilarious to Angelenos when geography is not taken into account; the "Terminator" films are one example. They show chase scenes that are edited to look like they are in one location or are progressing in geographical sequence, when in actuality, they jump from one locale to other locales that are miles and miles apart, and then jump back to the previous locale, something that would be physically impossible to do; from a film-making standpoint, it's almost like bad continuity.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

That seems to be the nature of movie-making. The early 90s film "Pacific Heights" is set in the Pacific Heights neighborhood of San Francisco, but was actually filmed in Potrero Hill. Also, the 1991 version of "Father of the Bride" is set in San Marino, California, but was filmed in adjacent Pasadena; it's like, why didn't they just use a house in San Marino, or when they decided to update the film from the original 1950 version, why didn't they just set it in Pasadena?

Also, many films set in Los Angeles are hilarious to Angelenos when geography is not taken into account; the "Terminator" films are one example. They show chase scenes that are edited to look like they are in one location or are progressing in geographical sequence, when in actuality, they jump from one locale to other locales that are miles and miles apart, and then jump back to the previous locale, something that would be physically impossible to do; from a film-making standpoint, it's almost like bad continuity.

yep saturday night fever is set in bay ridge. its the movies folks. i believe the classic example of that is love story from the 1960s, where the scenes jump around all over harvard in real life. hollywood was just breaking out of the studio back then, so it got a lot of notice at the time. love story wasnt the first of course, but real location settings were used more often after that.

[bobdreamz]

[bobdreamz]