CHICAGO | General Developments

[rlw777]

New Mixed-Income, Mixed-Use Development on Its Way in Woodlawn - curbed

Good to see the southside getting some development

[harryc]

Any Ideas ? Looking N NW from 321 N Clark

[J_M_Tungsten]

^Lincoln Park hospital conversion. Getting new walls and windows now. Webster Square.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^More of this everywhere please!

Totally agree. I was at the west lakeview neighbors meeting recently and some grumpy lady actually said "have we proven that TOD works? Shouldn't we wait before always approving these to see if people will actually move in?" I nearly spit out my beer in disbelief that someone would ask that. Kind of got a chuckle from the crowd.

[UrbanLibertine]

More of this (in every underdeveloped part of the city)!

Originally Posted by rlw777

New Mixed-Income, Mixed-Use Development on Its Way in Woodlawn - curbed

Good to see the southside getting some development

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I was at the west lakeview neighbors meeting recently and some grumpy lady actually said "have we proven that TOD works? Shouldn't we wait before always approving these to see if people will actually move in?" I nearly spit out my beer in disbelief

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.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^More of this everywhere please!

Um. No thanks. This shit is horrible.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Webster Square has taken forever...

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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.

The fact that they are having no problem leasing up pretty quickly is good evidence.

Not sure, beyond that, why one would believe there should be a burden of proof laid down on car-lite buildings. If the market "approves" of it, then you have your answer.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Um. No thanks. This shit is horrible.

It's been awhile since I've posted—very busy lately. I've just been reminded why you are so unpopular here.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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.

Permit parking is a lot more widespread than it was in the era of the 4+1 parking hysteria.

The 1611 W Division building has been fully leased despite the fact that virtually all surrounding blocks are permitted, and building residents are ineligible. If those residents own cars, they are walking many blocks to find street parking. The more likely explanation is that the residents just don't own cars, or at least don't use cars enough to need them in nearby parking places.

The other TODs are really too new to show results.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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.

The lack of parking in this city is issue #1. All parking lots in this city should be vigorously defended, by legal means, if necessary.

Img

/s

[the urban politician]

I do think there needs to be a balance, with some off street parking mandated in all but the densest areas. But I have no doubt that 1:1 parking for each residential unit is far too high.

Anecdotally, only about 1 in 5 of my rental tenants own cars

[LouisVanDerWright]

Why should the government mandate anything that has negative externalities? If developers don't want to build parking, why should they have to? Makes absolutely zero sense to force them to build something that unquestionably has negative impacts on the entire environment from natural environment to built environment. If developers see a demand for parking, let them build it, if not then leave them alone.

Parking is going to be all but irrelevant in 10-20 years. Uber has all but taken over in our generation. Do you know how absurdly cheap Uber has gotten? My girlfriend, who is a staff accountant making "middle class" wages, uses it almost as much as she uses the train to commute. Why? Because Uber pool is almost as cheap as the train during all but the highest peak hours. She can get from the Loop to Logan Square for $3.50 or $4 and only have to wait for one or two other people to be dropped off at most. I guarantee that's what everyone in the TOD does too. If they need or want direct auto transport, it's cheaper and faster and more convenient to get picked up by an Uber. They are there faster than you could go find your car parked on the street and probably as fast as it would take for you to wind your way out of a parking garage with your own car. Most of these people probably commute to their jobs on transit and use Uber for groceries or other errands that require cargo capacity. It has totally eliminated all the last inconveniences of not having a car while the inconveniences (parking tickets, maintenance, trying to find parking, etc) of owning a car remain the same or are increasing.

This is just the start, someday in the not too distant future cars will be self driving and Uber will be even cheaper (no driver, more efficient routing) and there will be even less demand for parking as the Uber vehicles circle in the city all day and vacate at night or off peak hours to the outskirts of town for maintenance or storage. I suspect that there will be a profitable cottage industry in a couple of decades of figuring out how to deconvert all these parking podia into actually useful space.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

It's been awhile since I've posted—very busy lately. I've just been reminded why you are so unpopular here.

The density of it is decent, but I agree with Tom Servo - it doesn't look that good at least right now. I've been waiting and hoping they're going to make the facade better but I am doubting it somehow. Not a fan of it other than the decent density of it and how it replaced a one story dunkin donuts + parking lot.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Why should the government mandate anything that has negative externalities? If developers don't want to build parking, why should they have to?

To minimize disputes over use of the commons.

For better or worse, Chicago was laid out with 66-foot streets, far more than needed for passage. So there's a strong tradition of using the sides for auto storage that even the most ardent carhater will not be able to dislodge any time soon. Ironically, curb parking is an important tool in making streets more pedestrian-friendly, because it both slows through traffic and shields those on the sidewalk from the vehicles speeding past.

Perhaps one day soon, we'll be able to seamlessly charge rent for using curb space, in the same way we now have boothless tollways, but it's not here yet and it won't be popular in most neighborhoods. Introduction of such a system might retire quite a few aldermen.

For folks who want to encourage development (and redevelopment), it's counterproductive to have the folks who live in a neighborhood view any new arrivals as stealing a scarce resource.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Parking is going to be all but irrelevant in 10-20 years.

Yea I'm very doubtful given the priorities of our local, state and federal governments when it comes to transportation spending I highly doubt this will be a reality at least not in my lifetime (late 20s btw).

But I will admit your vision of the future sounds awesome!

[Via Chicago]

i think you guys are underestimating how many people are going to want to own self driving cars. theres still going to be a need for parking whether we like it or not. in fact, i see public transit funding taking a serious hit as the infrastructure for self driving vehicles takes off and solidifies the existing auto culture.

the notion that theres just going to be autonomous vehicles circling everywhere without congestion is pretty idealistically utopian. they still need streets to drive on, and if everyone abandons the train and bus because the alternative has gotten so cheap and easy...youre still going to have massive gridlock. it dosent change the math at all. if anything it makes it worse.

[Via Chicago]

on another note, surprised theres been no mention of the Lawrence Sears redevelopment

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...housing-retail


https://assets.dnainfo.com/photo/201...extralarge.jpg

looks great except for...yup, 90 parking spaces on the second floor. right across from a metra station.

[Mr Downtown]

^Not really "another note." How is the proximity of a Metra station relevant to whether residents will want to own automobiles? Do you assume that the only trips anyone ever makes is to an office in the Loop?