HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #34441  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 8:48 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,473
that 9 feet is the deal breaker huh
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34442  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 9:18 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Haverford College
Posts: 510
Here's a sketch of what the two suspects look like. The West Loop NIMBYs are going make sure that these two will get the proper punishment they deserve

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34443  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 10:09 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,017
Lol seriously, what a waste of space these people are. I can't wait until demand gets so pent up in the West Loop that all efforts to stop tall buildings are crushed by more connected and established developers. The highrises are creeping slowly in. Once the ones along 290 are done and that one across from the Parker that was just proposed is built, it's going to be awfully hard to say no to other landholders who want more density.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34444  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 12:14 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,349
Harpo Studios Demolition - 1058 W Washington

July 26, 2016





__________________
My Chicago Pictures
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34445  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 12:19 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,349
CA Washington - 27 N Aberdeen

July 26, 2016

__________________
My Chicago Pictures
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34446  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 1:37 AM
oshkeoto oshkeoto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 988
Quote:
I suppose occupancy is not really a public policy concern, but do we have real, hard evidence that TOD occupants own fewer vehicles or drive fewer miles? The minimum parking rules we're so anxious to sweep away were, after all, put in place for a reason.
Yes, we do--in the sense that there's lots of evidence that people will own fewer cars and drive less if they have less access to free parking. I believe this has a review of some of the literature: http://www.cnt.org/publications/stal...-affordability

Parking requirements were developed for "a reason," but that reason was certainly not an analysis of car ownership rates in 1950 or whatever, and an application of that level of ownership by neighborhood. Requirements have been mostly one-size-fits-all, and premised on fairly suburban levels of ownership: up until the TOD law, you had to build the same number of spaces next to the Wilson Red Line as on the city limits in Dunning.

On top of that, it's not a one-way influence: the number of parking spaces available greatly affects the number of cars people have. If we had never required off-street parking, obviously some developers would have built it anyway, but car ownership rates would probably be lower than they are now.
__________________
Yo soy un hombre sincero
De donde crecen los edificios.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34447  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 1:49 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by oshkeoto View Post
If we had never required off-street parking, obviously some developers would have built it anyway, but car ownership rates would probably be lower than they are now.

But where's the empirical proof that people living in no-parking buildings—and I'm one of them—have lower auto ownership rates than those in similar buildings with onsite parking? There's nothing in the CNT study about that; it only looks at whether some existing spaces are going unused.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34448  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 2:48 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 12,039
^ Where was the empirical proof in the 1950's that 1:1 parking spaces per housing unit in Chicago was reflective of actual car ownership, thus justifying the mandated ratio?

You are placing the burden of proof on a more recent policy that reverses an older policy which had never been justified to begin with. I'm hoping you're understanding what I'm trying to say
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34449  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 3:48 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 358
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Where was the empirical proof in the 1950's that 1:1 parking spaces per housing unit in Chicago was reflective of actual car ownership, thus justifying the mandated ratio?

You are placing the burden of proof on a more recent policy that reverses an older policy which had never been justified to begin with. I'm hoping you're understanding what I'm trying to say
There is a misconception that, like Athena, off street parking ratios sprung fully formed from the 1957 zoning code in some attempt to leave-it-to-beaverize the city.

Although less onerous ratios, (1/1 low density 1/3 high) they became a requirement in 1940.
The original '57 code's ratios were also less. (3/4 high density 1/2 efficiencies)

1/1 didn't start until 1971 when the census told us the nearly 50% of the total Chicago population drove themselves to work.

Parking ratios evolved in response to existing auto ownership, not the other way around.

Current census estimates say there are 1.1 cars per household.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34450  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 3:48 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Yeah, but this is only Phase I, which has zero usefulness. Walk along the lakefront trail by Ogden Slip and you will see the stub end of the bridge just hanging in mid air, with no work begun on the connecting piece (Phase 2) that makes it useful.
Are their any details or renderings for Phase 3? I have never seen any detailed description for how they are going to punch through the bridge houses on the Michigan Ave bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34451  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 4:14 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loopy View Post
Are their any details or renderings for Phase 3? I have never seen any detailed description for how they are going to punch through the bridge houses on the Michigan Ave bridge.
There was a rendering floating around. It's not that difficult, the bridge houses are built on a steel frame so you just have to strip the stone away and create an opening for the northbound lane of the path.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34452  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 5:08 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
^ I hope they can pull it off, but they seem like they are woefully underprepared for this kind of thing.

They're also looking at St Adalbert's in Pilsen and Epiphany Church in West Loop, for simultaneous expansions. That's crazy. Well-managed nonprofits just don't expand that fast. Each one of those sites is a highly complex project, and their org chart is pretty lacking in people with the right experience in construction, project management, or even fundraising. It seems like just a bunch of musicians.

The Academy's applied for state grants to renovate St Adalberts, so I'm hoping they get the grant and do the needed restoration work to keep the building standing before it topples onto 17th St.
skepticism warranted. fencing has gone up. people seem to think demo is imminent.

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/7/26/...pdate#comments
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34453  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 5:10 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
But where's the empirical proof that people living in no-parking buildings—and I'm one of them—have lower auto ownership rates than those in similar buildings with onsite parking? There's nothing in the CNT study about that; it only looks at whether some existing spaces are going unused.
All other variables being equal, buildings with on-site parking reduce the threshold of ownership. There is a certain amount of friction that has to be eased before car ownership will be worth someone's while. Of course, if there is exclusive primacy of the commute to their employment in their decision-making, and they are dead set on living where they live, then they're likely to grind through the friction and search for a street space every time they need to access their vehicle. But there must be a large amount of those whose situations place them very near the threshold of ownership, in which cases our current parking policy is pushing them to own, when they'd be quite comfortable not owning a vehicle. The TOD residents may bring vehicles into the fold, but perhaps they'll bring enough of them to create the pivotal amount of friction in the street-parking domain to get the marginal cases to ditch their cars, whether they live in a TOD or not.

Last edited by Jibba; Jul 27, 2016 at 5:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34454  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 5:15 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 683
Edit: repost
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34455  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 6:03 PM
Hayward's Avatar
Hayward Hayward is offline
Living under the L Tracks
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I suppose occupancy is not really a public policy concern, but do we have real, hard evidence that TOD occupants own fewer vehicles or drive fewer miles? The minimum parking rules we're so anxious to sweep away were, after all, put in place for a reason.
Yes, there is. And there was a study put together for the city last year that they cited in the meeting. I'll see if I can search for it online. Otherwise I'll ask at the next meeting.

Also, the occupants in the building would be forbidden to park their vehicles on neighborhood streets. They'd have to rent out a private garage from a nearby property or park in another neighborhood. For example, my apartment building rents out spaces to nearby residents. I'm in a 90 year old 8-unit building and only 1 of the 6 garage spaces are actually used by a building resident
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34456  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 6:14 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 7,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayward View Post
Yes, there is. And there was a study put together for the city last year that they cited in the meeting. I'll see if I can search for it online. Otherwise I'll ask at the next meeting.

Also, the occupants in the building would be forbidden to park their vehicles on neighborhood streets. They'd have to rent out a private garage from a nearby property or park in another neighborhood. For example, my apartment building rents out spaces to nearby residents. I'm in a 90 year old 8-unit building and only 1 of the 6 garage spaces are actually used by a building resident
One aspect of relying on street parking is the incentive to use public transit, once you get a good parking spot. I would leave the beast parked for a week at a time, partly because the L was faster, partly because I had a good spot and didn't want to loose it.
__________________
Harry C --- Picassa ---- PrairieSchool Traveler
Curbed Chicago
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34457  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 11:01 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 7,269
30 E Balbo

July 23


__________________
Harry C --- Picassa ---- PrairieSchool Traveler
Curbed Chicago
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34458  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2016, 5:26 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 224
30 E Bablo is going to be around 18 stories, wrong thread Harry
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34459  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2016, 10:07 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,631
Anyone know what's going on at 3819-31 N Broadway (between Sheridan and Grace)? There's wrecking permits for around 4 or so buildings there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9522...8i6656!6m1!1e1
__________________
* Check out my 2014 - 2016 New Construction building permits map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...k.kXSch1pWpvKw

* Check out my 2015 Chicago conversions, rehabs, and additions map at https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...k.kyJajGMvzhcE
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34460  
Old Posted Jul 28, 2016, 10:30 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,470
^^That's very interesting, I am not aware of anything going up at that location

Not sure if these renderings have been posted before, but the new Chicago Plumbers Union training facility at 1400 W. Washington broke ground last month, and it's designed by Gensler:







(All images and many more come from the Curbed article http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/6/28/...ining-facility).
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.