HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #34381  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 6:19 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
^ Yes, Division does have street parking but also had the sidewalk width I was indicating. I was going to use a Parisian example but didn't want an apples-orange comparison.
But the example you gave is not an apples to apples comparison either, one street is far less commercial than the other which is why one is two lanes with wider sidewalks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34382  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 7:22 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
The folks who contend that car ownership will largely go away in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.
The folks who contend that autonomous vehicles will be proven practical, successfully implemented and universally adopted in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34383  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 7:35 PM
UPChicago's Avatar
UPChicago UPChicago is offline
Vote for me for Mayor!
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
The folks who contend that autonomous vehicles will be proven practical, successfully implemented and universally adopted in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.
edit, missed autonomous lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34384  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 7:47 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
I'm loving that Clayco project. Logan square still has some horribly underutilized or auto-oriented lots, but slowly we are eating away at them
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34385  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 8:22 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
The folks who contend that autonomous vehicles will be proven practical, successfully implemented and universally adopted in 15-20 years are smoking some strong stuff.
Here we go again with blowing benign statements about sea change shifts that are already in process totally out of proportion again. I never said anything about ownership of cars ending and I certainly never said that autonomous vehicles would be "universally adapted" in 20 years. I observed that this technology is coming and will be here in the next two decades. When it arrives things change forever because it fundamentally alters what cars do and how we interact with them. It doesn't take total rejection of car ownership or universal adaptation of new technology to fundamentally shift society, it only takes a small, but significant, percentage of society choosing these new lifestyles or technologies to have a huge impact. If 10% or 20% of car owners today shift to Uber like autonomous car services by 2035, that creates a huge shift in overall demand for parking, traffic patterns, and automobile ownership models. It doesn't take everyone, it only takes a few.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34386  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 8:39 PM
marothisu marothisu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,883
Not sure if this was talked about yet:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/reale...w-west-loop-hq
Quote:
Condos planned next to new McDonald's West Loop HQ

Peerless Real Estate Investment plans two 109-foot-tall buildings with 28 units each at 15 N. May St. and 1111 W. Washington St., according to a zoning application filed with the city. The condos would be big, with three and four bedrooms and as large as 5,000 square feet,

Peerless needs a zoning change from the city for its project, which will cost $50 million. That process begins with meetings with community groups and aldermen, who traditionally have veto power over developments in their wards.

Complicating matters for Peerless, its project straddles two Chicago wards, the 25th, represented by Ald. Danny Solis, and the 27th, represented by Ald. Walter Burnett.

Neighbors of the West Loop, meanwhile, thinks the Peerless project, at 109 feet, is too tall. The group's development committee wants the project to be no taller than a Belgravia Group condo project under construction a block away, which rises 100 feet, Matt Letourneau, chairman of the committee, said in an email.
So they want it to be no taller than the 100 foot building nearby - so 109 feet is too tall? Kind of weird, but yeah...I guess if it's 100 feet it won't be the end of the world. That's still OK density, height, etc.
__________________
Chicago Maps:
* New Construction https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...B0&usp=sharing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34387  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 8:48 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
that 9 feet is the deal breaker huh
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34388  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 9:18 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,349
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
     
     
  #34389  
Old Posted Jul 26, 2016, 10:09 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
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
     
     
  #34390  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 12:14 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,471
Harpo Studios Demolition - 1058 W Washington

July 26, 2016





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34391  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 12:19 AM
SolarWind's Avatar
SolarWind SolarWind is offline
Chicago
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,471
CA Washington - 27 N Aberdeen

July 26, 2016

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34392  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 1:37 AM
oshkeoto oshkeoto is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 990
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
     
     
  #34393  
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: 4,385
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
     
     
  #34394  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 2:48 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ 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
     
     
  #34395  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 3:48 PM
PKDickman PKDickman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 565
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
     
     
  #34396  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 3:48 PM
Loopy's Avatar
Loopy Loopy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
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
     
     
  #34397  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 4:14 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
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
     
     
  #34398  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 5:08 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
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
     
     
  #34399  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 5:10 PM
Jibba's Avatar
Jibba Jibba is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,909
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
     
     
  #34400  
Old Posted Jul 27, 2016, 5:15 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,421
Edit: repost
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 2:49 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.