^ As a total transit novice, it really seems that the power of a revamped CTA train / rapid transit system would be to break up the grid, not reinforce it. I think you would see more of the "European style" ridership, which would be a great thing, if Chicago could figure out what centers it wants to enforce, and bring the people to them more directly. That's why I really love the Circle Line concept, even though I think its route is flawed.

I don't buy the fear that Chicago's CBD is going to be hurt by better interconnectivity. Sure, if you put a line from O'Hare to Oakbrook with no stops in between... But there are other logical reasons to have a dense and clustered downtown area besides the fact that people can't get anywhere else on the train.

^ I don't think a grid system would hurt downtown, so much as just not be very cost-effective. It would be a great thing to have, but given relatively low employment densities, it would require a truly massive subsidy to support it given the very capital costs for rail.

I'm not saying we want to (or even could) change the current pattern overnight. I also don't believe that it's an either/or question. We can have a dense office district AND a high-density central city like Paris/Madrid/London, etc. It's already trending that way where zoning allows, so really all it would take to continue that trend of dual patterns is to keep zoning things in such a way as to keep it possible. If London and Paris can create a high-density office center as part of their already high-density city centers (Canary Wharf and La Defense, respectively), then there's really no reason we can't do the reverse - create a high-density city center to augment our high-density office center. Besides, since the Loop is the second-biggest office district in the U.S. (the first and third being midtown and downtown Manhattan), even a "concentrated" district is pretty geographically big. The central part of Paris - the part most people think of when they think "Paris" is only 6-7 miles across - essentially, if it were squished square, it could fit in an area from Diversey on the north, the Lake on the east, Pulaski on the west and 26th Street on the south. In that model, a conversion of Jefferson Park to "downtown NW" would be very similar in scope and proximity to La Defense.

The draw of the Lake in Chicago forces us into a shape that's not as circular as Paris, but adding the Circle Line and some sort of downtown circulator/distributor system would go a long way toward enabling the sort of dense, meshed neighborhoods that people think of when they think of European capitals or even cities like Tokyo or Buenos Aires.

Old Town, the Gold Coast, and the eastern portions of Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Uptown, Edgewater, all are already not far off the densities found in european central cities.

The South Loop and Near North are, for the most part, filling in at densities not that far below those found in central Paris. The West Loop can support that trend, too, if the City keeps the johnny-come-lately residents from preventing the efficient use of that area (with either 1 or 3 major expressways depending on whether you include the Dan Ryan and the Kennedy, and two major rail lines (and the possibility of a commuter rail connection if Metra ever added stops) and lot of buses, and it should be allowed to be even more dense than Streeterville).

The Ukranian Village, Humbolt Park, Garfield Park, Wicker Park, Pilsen, Hyde Park, Chinatown and maybe even Bronzeville, McKinley Park, Lawndale and Jefferson Park could handle densities like those that already exist along the north lakefront with just a few choice investments in rail transit linking them both better to downtown and to neighboring areas.

Downtown is great for larger businesses that require proximity to a lot of similar services or need to draw from the entire region for workers, but there are hundreds of businesses that don't need to be in a dense office district - that maybe are even more efficient if they're not. Allowing the mixed use and European density to develop over the next 50 years, while planning for transit to support it, doesn't mean abandoning the Loop. If anything, it would probably mean bolstering it by creating a strong urban environment that pulls in people, businesses and taxes that keep the city vibrant and attractive.

I very intentionally used the word "mesh," as opposed to "grid" to indicate that transit solutions shouldn't only align with the existing street grid. Even at the surface street level, transit competes even more poorly with the automobile if you put them in direct route competition. Transit should primarily supplement a walking lifestyle and not compete against the auto when possible. In that regard, Chicago's grid street system actually benefits certain possibilities with transit, as it's easier (or less disruptive anyway) to make a (deep tunnel) diagonal subway than it would be to create a new diagonal street. Doing that when the only surface possibilities involve right-angle turns cuts distance traveled by about 1/3 and gives transit an advantage the auto won't often have.

Love the idea, I have had very similar thoughts myself, but Its just not going to happen. Particularly with Jefferson Park and West Loop Gate.

Jefferson Park has alderman fat-fuck Levar, the biggest pander hack in the city usually opposing everything outside of single family homes. This guy actually tried to downzone the ENTIRE stretch of Milwaukee Avenue through the 45th ward from Irving Park to Devon. The neighborhood is also filled with a major suburban mentality, where most household obsessively need to have at least two cars, drive everywhere and pray to the parking god daily. The place is a lost cause until that worthless alderman retires, and the neighborhood undergoes a generational change coupled with a severe energy crises.

West Loop Gate, well I harp on that one enough. But its a lost cause as well until the realm of planning is striped from the alderman's fingers. I have been to a WLCO meeting were people demanded single family homes 6 bocks from Sears Tower.

^ I just can't understand how he wins eeeevvvverryy single time! I saw him wandering down my street in some stupid mini-parade after he won again last year, and i just wanted to throw something at him. Problem is, you go down any business street and EVERYBODY has Levar signs up

I can't wait to make a photo thread of what he's done to my neighborhood :yuck:

The one thing we do have going for us is that the downtown area of chicago (central area+ south loop, gold coast, river north and bits of the west loop) is growing at a great rate. As long as we can keep the new buildings in this area increasing in size, they will force surrounding areas to become more dense. It may not be the 5-6 story block busters that a european city has, but as long as there is a healthy demand for downtown residences and the general population of the city grows, we'll be fine.

The one thing that has to power to cream WLCO and any other community group is unbridled demand and money. Because as powerful as those people may be, when a new 12 story building is on the blocks for the west loop, there are 100's of new voters waiting behind. And not one politician can resist getting more power.

First, the anger of current residents is much more palpable and politically powerful than a vague sense of appreciation from new residents--who, by the time of the next election, will themselves be mad at the alderman for something like letting a highrise go across the street from them.

Second, wards get reconfigured every decade to keep them the same size.

^ Damn you FAT FUCK LEVAR!!

http://www.charybdisarts.com/Images/facesoflevar.jpg

Yeah, I lived there for three years, and I know it all too well. You see the billboard yard signs because his precinct captains bully and intimidate people to put them up. They did it on my old block and gave everyone a hard time who signed a petition to put Boykie on the ballot. Outside of election season he uses zoning issues to gather support by always keeping the neighborhood the same and "friendly to families", which means very few condos and never any new apartments or rental homes. If a parcel has a zoning higher than R3, he will work to downzone it, just so any changes must come before him where he can provide favors to the developer (only the ones he has a friendship with though), to the neighbors or to anyone who shrieks the loudest in the name of votes. He refuses to draft a compressive plan with DPD, because "outsiders should not make decisions about our neighborhood" (campaign slogan). He represents everything that is wrong about the old school ward boss politics, and he is one of the last relics around from that era.

TUP, where did you find that?:haha: Its actually an older image, his face has even more blubber wrinkles in it today. It is a perfect analogy for what he does for the neighborhood, absolutely nothing while he sits around on his fat ass getting his aldermanic discounts at local restaurants.

The things he has done around the Jefferson Park Metra-CTA station are deplorable. Including a big vacant lot because he ordered two older homes demolished but refuses to allow any condos to be built there. He tried to block four flats being developed as-of-right and force a down zone of the block, until the law department told him to back off. He forced developers to do only single family homes on the site of an old concrete truck yard, which sat abondoned for years as a result, because condos across from the Metra station were too intense for the site, never mind the existing industrial use. Then there was the whole shenanigans on Lawrence Avenue with the big TOD project that failed, after he led the developer (Mega, owned by a close friend) on to draft a certain plan and then back-stabbed him a community meeting where the neighbors acted like an angry mob. I could go on and on, but this is the transit thread and is veering off-topic. Long story short, there will never be a high or even moderate density TOD strategy in Jefferson Park within the near future.

^ You know, a great way for the CTA to exert some influence on planning (if at all possible) is to threaten to halt service at certain stations if the land around them is not upzoned to certain specifications.

I'd love to see how fat fuck Levar would respond to something like that

Sorry but no. WLCO has has a power lock on the alderman of the 2nd and 27th Wards, Fioretti and Burnett, this is because it represents a large portion of their constituents. They will automatically block any building over 115 feet in height, design and use does not matter. 12 story buildings are even too tall. 111 S. Peoria had two 12 story buildings proposed, but WLCO shrieked no, with some wanting single family homes instead. As a result, Burnett told them to go back to the drawing board. 1260 West Madison also was cut down from two 13 story buildings to 10 story buildings and then 8 story buildings, which to some are "still too dense".

The only solution will come from ward boundary shifts that divide up the community among many alderman so NIMBY voter retaliation does not not account for a huge percentage of the turnout.

Most people around there drive anyway, or if they have to, will take Metra, because don't you know the CTA is "unsafe". I have actually heard from a certain resident that the CTA extension up the Kennedy allowed "the brothers from the hood to come rape, rob and pillage the neighborhood" -Exact words. :( This is the type of retarded mentality that exists up there. It is very old school exclusionary, racist, "last stand" neighborhood on the edge of the city where folks were pushed to the edges by minority infiltration of their previous communities. I know this is a pretty big blanket statement, but the older residents have this sort of mentality with a varying degree depending on who it is. That is why I mentioned earlier that there needs to be a generational change in addition to Levar passing the baton.

Cutting off CTA service will do nothing but hurt the employees of local business and beyond, as Jefferson Park is not the final destination for many who pass through there, but rather a major transfer point from car to train, bus to train, train to train, or bus to bus.

In a way I think it is might rich of Chicago to be clammoring for more money from the region for the CTA, which really is for Chicagoans, considering that it seems as though the suburbs are doing more TOD, thus increasing ridership, than many city neighborhoods. If Chicago wants money from the region then maybe they ought to consider delevoping strategies for increasing ridership rather than discouraging it and at the same time expecting the State to bail them out.

If only. That's a tough one politically, it would amount to a declaration of war of sorts by the mayor (who controls the CTA via a majority of the board appointments) against the aldermen. Mister Mayor knows that a huge amount of his power base is the simple fact that he keeps aldermen very happy, and there are very obvious efforts within City Hall (which I think most with experience there can attest, at least under Daley II) to keep the aldermen happy. Then Daley can call in support when he really needs it, like approving the budget.

And remember, transit's constituency died in 1996. In fairness, I don't think Daley has any particular antipathy/hostility towards transit or transit-oriented development, it's just so far removed from his radar of priorities that he would stake his political future on it.

Couldn't agree more, and it is so frustrating that many suburbs have much more coherent and successful TOD policies than the city. Probably half a dozen suburban downtowns have transit-oriented village feel that should be the envy of any of the outlier CTA stations in lower-density neighborhoods if not for sheer idiocy (Jefferson Park, Ravenswood)
With a better development policy that encouraged more ridership, either the farebox recovery ratio could be increased to reduce the dependency on public subsidy (following the general Canadian model), or the fares could be kept lower thereby encouraging even more ridership (the American model). Instead we plug along with a very odd system from a legislative standpoint; high fares, and a relatively low recovery ratio.

^ Just to play devil's advocate (to myself), if it is true that CTA trains on the north side are packed to the brim every weekday, is TOD even necessary or possible?

And would it simply not make more sense to pursue development around less utilized lines (ie Green, west side branch of the Blue, etc)? I realize that we've had this discussion over and over again, but to me it seems that as a city, Chicago has no other way to grow but south and west (and of course "up", at least where community groups will tolerate it).

Apparently, people just won't tolerate more density. No matter how much we wish for it, the people of Chicago have cast their vote. The city's only real hope is to replicate north side densities in other parts of town. 20-30,000 people per square mile is likely going to be too much to ask for, so why not seek 15,000 per square mile over a larger area?

I've always thought that, regardless of the neighborhood, any plot within about a 3 block radius of an "L" station should be required to be built to a minimum of 3 stories and automatically allowed, without alderman review, to 10 stories. In some areas, those limits should be even higher, but if an area has an "L" stop, that level of zoning should be a no-brainer. It should also not be allowed to put a gas station within 2 blocks of an "L" station, since a gas stations has absolutely zero relevance to mass transit. A 1-story hot dog stand would be a better use of land near an "L" station than a gas station.

Well, first of all, the city average is just over 12,000 sq/mi, so I don't think 15,000 is really much of a "goal," more like an inevitable result of a growing population.

Second, I think TOD (I hope you're meaning transit-oriented development and not something else) should be pursued everywhere that there's the opportunity. Certainly the greatest potential for expansion of it is in areas that have the most room for growth, which would be along much of the Green Line, as well as parts of the Pink, Blue and Orange Lines (and the Line everyone forgets about, the Yellow Line).

A good general goal for the city would be to zone areas served by rail so that they will probably achieve at least 30,000 people per square mile within 3/8 - 1/2 mile radiuses from rail stations through natural process. To do this, the city would have to remove aldermanic power from the areas served by rail covered by that density formula. Basically the agreement would be "the city will invest in your neighborhood, but in return you lose some planning so that we aren't just throwing money out the window." If they used a 1/2 mile radius, which is an area of just over 3/4 of a square mile, the city should target 20-25,000 people within that radius of the station. Now, if they managed that, they would have slightly more than the current population of the entire city living near "L" stations. Even if they only used 3/8 of a mile radius, that would be nearly 1.7 million people living within an easy 10 minute walk of a rail station. The last time I asked the CTA what that current figure was, I was told it was about half a million - so in effect we'd be at least tripling the pedestrian base.

Also, I think people will tolerate more density when it's well-planned and pitched as a way to supplement existing investment.

Finally, the North Side does have capacity. Currently it's very near max capacity because of the work on the Fullerton and Belmont stations, but there is capacity once the Brown Line is finished, and it would be possible to increase capacity again if necessary by running 10-car trains on the Red Line. In fact, if you just invested in modern switching and signals, you could probably run at least 25% more trains that currently run. Coupled with the expanded Brown Line trains (they could run 8-car trains by this fall if they wanted to, once Wellington and Paulina shut down), the North Side can handle more riders. You are right, though, that it would (probably) be cheapest to make your ridership gains on lines that are most underutilized, like the south branch of the Green Line.

^ Couldn't agree more.

One of the things that is probably holding back the otherwise rational approach of upzoning sites around L stops on the north side is that the pressure cooker hasn't boiled over yet. It appears that as long as there are other, underutilized places to develop, land prices will never reach critical levels that simply force neighborhoods to go vertical, and Alderman can continue to contain areas of lower zoning.

Look at west loop gate. It is underdeveloped, yet there are still so many sites elsewhere where higher density is being built, that it really has not become a true problem for the city yet.

^ I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing. While I understand the idea that places like Jefferson Park should be developed with higher density, and I do adore density, if you drive along the Congress Branch or Lake Street L, we all know the vacant lots situation in these areas. It does seem like the Jefferson Parks of the world have a case for wanting to keep things as-is for the time being, not only to protect what they value in their areas, but also in a broader sense of evening out the city's development patterns.