SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   CHICAGO: Transit Developments (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=101657)

DCCliff Dec 8, 2012 3:47 AM

Petersen Station
 
I still say it's the wrong place to put it - - especially for possible future TOD. Devon or between Devon and Granville just makes more sense. Very disappointed. But as Ardecila indicates, it is overall a step in the right direction.

untitledreality Dec 8, 2012 4:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 5929626)
Looks like Metra is confirming that the Union Pacific North line will be getting a new stop at Peterson/Ravenswood. That's great news for the Edgewater residents in this area.

Great news indeed, but doesn't 18 months seem like a terribly long time for a EIS on a simple commuter rail platform build? Is that really necessary?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5929835)
I hope the city responds by upzoning this area. The TOD ordinance would apply here but it's only valid in certain zoning categories.

Ha! Keep dreaming. Chicago is not that responsive... or progressive.

ardecila Dec 8, 2012 7:59 AM

True, but the die's already been cast for midrises in this area. Several already exist, although they have shitty anti-urban site plans and there's very little retail. Doesn't seem like it would be a challenge to build something dense here, especially if the TOD ordinance allows you to nix the on-site parking.

Baronvonellis Dec 9, 2012 1:47 AM

Yea, I think one at Peterson would spur more new development and new taxes$$$, than one at Devon. Lots of dumpy 60's 1 story retail on Peterson that could be replaced with midrises. Already a precedent for larger buildings as mentioned above. Devon might be better for the existing people there but I don't think it would spur large developments since it already well built out.

emathias Dec 9, 2012 3:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 5929626)
Looks like Metra is confirming that the Union Pacific North line will be getting a new stop at Peterson/Ravenswood. That's great news for the Edgewater residents in this area. Transit options are somewhat limited here and as a result, development is more autocentric than it needs to be (the White Castle comes to mind).

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20121...north-railroad

Now all they need is one at Belmont.

untitledreality Dec 9, 2012 4:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5930099)
True, but the die's already been cast for midrises in this area. Doesn't seem like it would be a challenge to build something dense here, especially if the TOD ordinance allows you to nix the on-site parking.

True, there are a few midrises in the immediate area that offer precedent, but they also happen to occupy the majority of the sites that would fall within the 250 foot TOD ordinance. I also dont think the population of West Edgewater and West Ridge would be vocal about a proper transit oriented, dense development.

And then just to drive it all home... are there ANY non loop Metra stops within the city that have dense, adjacent development? I dont think there are and this would seem like an odd place to start.

The best candidates IMO would be Ravenswood (now a missed opportunity), Clybourn (if the entire area gets rezoned, BRT hookup), Western MD (improving neighborhood, BRT hookup), Halsted BNSF (university village/pilsen/halsted art scene, huge adjacent vacant lots) and 35th on the Rock (Red Line, Green Line, IIT, Comiskey, huge adjacent vacant lots)

ardecila Dec 9, 2012 9:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality (Post 5930984)
And then just to drive it all home... are there ANY non loop Metra stops within the city that have dense, adjacent development? I dont think there are and this would seem like an odd place to start.

Yes. 53rd is very dense and it is getting a large new TOD (Harper Court/City Hyde Park). You say Ravenswood is a missed opportunity (the Mariano's development is, I admit) but it's surrounded by loft conversions that are quite dense.

I don't know why it's an odd place. People living here would have quick access into downtown and they are within walking distance of Andersonville and a Target. The site is also on two major driving routes (Ridge/Peterson).

I don't know why this is an odd place to start while you nominate stations in industrial or urban-renewal wastelands. The North Side is a proven desirable area and Metra already provides a high level of service to urban stations on the UP-N.

orulz Dec 9, 2012 3:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias (Post 5930945)
Now all they need is one at Belmont.

I think I'm having deja vu about this conversation but I think Addison might be better? It's just 100 feet from the brown line, a connection that does not exist today but could possibly be quite useful.

Admittedly Belmont has better bus service than Addison (especially with the #11 on the chopping block) and putting a stop at Addison wouldn't bring rail service to an area that has none, but I think the benefit of connecting with the brown line wins. It just seems silly to have the UP-N and the Brown Line running parallel for almost two miles with no opportunity for a transfer.

Perhaps better still would be to have a station at Irving Park AND Belmont, but that might make more sense if UP-N were electrified and/or had express service.

ardecila Dec 9, 2012 7:27 PM

Addison would be crazy expensive, building on that long viaduct.

the urban politician Dec 9, 2012 7:30 PM

Does TOD really make a lot of sense around Metra stations? Metra is simply a commuter rail system, nothing on the order of a CTA 'L stop.

One cannot really live a carless life living next to a train that runs about 5 times in the morning, 3 times in the afternoon, and then 3 times at night.

orulz Dec 9, 2012 8:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 5931422)
Does TOD really make a lot of sense around Metra stations? Metra is simply a commuter rail system, nothing on the order of a CTA 'L stop.

One cannot really live a carless life living next to a train that runs about 5 times in the morning, 3 times in the afternoon, and then 3 times at night.

Yes, it would be difficult to do so with 11 trains a day, but 58 trains per day (this is how many UP-N trains per day stop at Ravenswood on a weekday for example) approaches livability. Yes the schedule is clustered around rush hours but then again so are peoples' trips.

This is of course to say nothing about the possibility for future service improvements.

Rational Plan3 Dec 9, 2012 8:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 5931422)
Does TOD really make a lot of sense around Metra stations? Metra is simply a commuter rail system, nothing on the order of a CTA 'L stop.

One cannot really live a carless life living next to a train that runs about 5 times in the morning, 3 times in the afternoon, and then 3 times at night.

In the London Metropolitan region there is nothing as desirable as being with a 10 - 15 minute walk of a train station. Many property sale sites allow you to search a certain distance from stations.

It's true the most popular are near bigger stations in bigger towns with many trains an hour to London, but many trade down to smaller station with just half hourly service because it is possible to live in house near a station rather than just a flat.

I suspect the effect is more pronounced in the UK as all these stations have an all day service with last trains from London late in the Evening, giving people true flexibility about travel times or the ability to use it for leisure in the city.

But I imagine a lot of people would like to buy an apartment a short walk from a train straight to downtown. Sure they would not live car free but at least there would be one less person driving to work, or trying to get on the crowded red line.

If enough were built you might get more service during the day as demand grew.

Rinse and repeat across the inner suburbs and in a decade or two you could remake Chicago. If the desire for walkable neighbourhoods grow then the market will end up pushing towards this anyway. It all depends if local nimbies let it happen.

Do it city wide and a 100,000 extra people could be trying to use the Metra system everyday, what would that do for its economics.

nomarandlee Dec 9, 2012 8:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz (Post 5931470)
Yes, it would be difficult to do so with 11 trains a day, but 58 trains per day (this is how many UP-N trains per day stop at Ravenswood on a weekday for example) approaches livability. Yes the schedule is clustered around rush hours but then again so are peoples' trips.

This is of course to say nothing about the possibility for future service improvements.

Which is why I've wondered why (or if) there hasn't been developers or city planners/zoning who have ever seriously pursued the idea of putting mid-rise office towers around the Western Ave. and Clyboourn Metra stations in particular where multiple lines converge.

I think think would be a nice selling point to potential employers and employees in that it would shave about ten minutes of commuter trips each way. That ends up on a per week and per year basis.

emathias Dec 9, 2012 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 5931422)
Does TOD really make a lot of sense around Metra stations? Metra is simply a commuter rail system, nothing on the order of a CTA 'L stop.

One cannot really live a carless life living next to a train that runs about 5 times in the morning, 3 times in the afternoon, and then 3 times at night.

TOD isn't only about access to transit. It's about having a lifestyle such that transit connects you to the rest of the region and much of your daily needs are met without using any transportation other than your feet or, perhaps, bikes. Good TOD gives people their basic needs within walking distance and access to their less-frequent and commuting needs via transit. Metra+bus service can do that easily if the area near Metra is dense enough to support local necessities like a grocery store, a pharmacy, and a few other shops (restaurants, hardware store, etc), not all of which every TOD location needs, but all needs at least a few others. The idea with TOD is to really to give a town feel with big city access - which is exactly what UP-North can provide, especially accompanied by bus service.

If you figure people will walk 1/2 mile for a commute, that puts a square with .7 mile sides right over a station, with 1/2 of a square mile in area. 20,000 people in that area with tapered density would be 4-6 story buildings near the station tapering off to 2-flats and townhomes on the edge of the service area. If 12,000 people lived within the 1/4 square mile closest to the station, that would support at least one mid-sized grocery story oriented toward pedestrians, and the lower density areas along the edge could either be pedestrians willing to walk further to save money, or families with cars able to drive for groceries. I think it's a workable model. It's basically the model you see for the Red Line north of Belmont, which could actually support more density with more service than that if the CTA worked to enable more frequent service and/or longer trains and/or enhanced express service. If UP-N were run just a bit more frequently on the weekends and off-peak, it would totally be workable and support that sort of density and TOD living.

untitledreality Dec 9, 2012 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5931138)
Yes. 53rd is very dense and it is getting a large new TOD (Harper Court/City Hyde Park).

I don't know why it's an odd place. People living here would have quick access into downtown and they are within walking distance of Andersonville and a Target. The site is also on two major driving routes (Ridge/Peterson).

I don't know why this is an odd place to start while you nominate stations in industrial or urban-renewal wastelands. The North Side is a proven desirable area and Metra already provides a high level of service to urban stations on the UP-N.

I excluded 53rd since its dense transit oriented nature is legacy based. That said, I do like how the area has recently revived itself and it pushing for more mid scale development. Everything between Harper and the IC should be utilized to its maximum potential.

Its odd because I dont believe the area has a prevailing culture of walkability or transit dependency. Most of the newer development in the area is autocentric, the nearby midrises each have private parking, Ashland BRT will not run this far North, 25% of the potential TOD 250' radius is a cemetery, while the other 75% would require acquisition and demolition. And even after that, who exactly would want to live without a car in that area? You said it yourself, Ridge and Peterson are two major driving routes... and with Metra you only have two options, downtown or North Shore... with terrible frequency outside of morning/evening rush. So why exactly would a developer be interested in going hog wild on TOD here?

I nominated Clybourn because it is serviced by two Metra lines, soon to have Ashland BRT, Elston PBL and is smack in between Lincoln Park and Bucktown. Lots of transit options and surrounded by highly desirable neighborhoods filled with white collar professionals.

As for the others, Im not sure how you think Halsted BNSF is industrial... Western MD, as I said, has a rapidly gentrifying population to the North of it (however being next to the rail yards is a definite downside) and while you might consider 35th an urban renewal wasteland, it is being redeveloped in a manner that at least attempts to create a dense walkable community. Instead of bemoaning the area's past I would rather see them choose a progressive path towards the future. Lots of transit dependent students already reside in the area, why not capitalize on it?

untitledreality Dec 9, 2012 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5931419)
Addison would be crazy expensive, building on that long viaduct.

I think at one point an Addison transfer station was actually in the works. Then one day the land got sold off to a developer and we got this five floor building: http://goo.gl/maps/YXSf0

ardecila Dec 9, 2012 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality (Post 5931637)
I excluded 53rd since its dense transit oriented nature is legacy based.

I don't know what you're trying to prove, then. Is there a completely new, ground-up TOD in Chicago around a Metra station? No, not yet, because most of the remaining urban Metra stations are in depressed parts of the city, or they have legacy TOD.

Quote:

Its odd because I dont believe the area has a prevailing culture of walkability or transit dependency... and with Metra you only have two options, downtown or North Shore... with terrible frequency outside of morning/evening rush.
Because you only want to go downtown during the rush periods. At other times, the neighborhood itself can satisfy your needs with good shopping and entertainment options. The CTA bus system gives you additional mobility to reach other neighborhoods.

Quote:

I nominated Clybourn because it is serviced by two Metra lines... Western MD, as I said, has a rapidly gentrifying population to the North of it
Clybourn is sandwiched between a massive expressway viaduct and a PMD. Where would you build residential? Western MD is feasible, but Western BNSF would require some pretty strong gentrification of west Pilsen.

Rizzo Dec 10, 2012 5:01 AM

Clark and LaSalle Red Line excavation for new station mezzanine.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8071/8...0c8a5492_h.jpg

Marcu Dec 11, 2012 5:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCCliff (Post 5929933)
I still say it's the wrong place to put it - - especially for possible future TOD. Devon or between Devon and Granville just makes more sense. Very disappointed. But as Ardecila indicates, it is overall a step in the right direction.

There is already a Rogers Park stop at Lunt/Ravenswood (just north of Pratt), so it wouldn't really make sense to put one any farther north. Peterson does have that giant cemetery near by, but there is plenty of room for additional density to the east of the stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by untitledreality (Post 5930984)

And then just to drive it all home... are there ANY non loop Metra stops within the city that have dense, adjacent development? I dont think there are and this would seem like an odd place to start.

I can only speak for the UP-N. The Rogers Park stop is quite dense and near commercial activity along Clark St. From what I recall, that area has one of the highest residential densities in the city. The Ravenswood stop is getting a new supermarket/gym development right across the street and has dense 1920s residential near by. The Clybourn stop is alongside the Kennedy so it's completely anti-urban in appearance, but there is decent development just west of there if one can manage to get passed the highway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 5931422)

One cannot really live a carless life living next to a train that runs about 5 times in the morning, 3 times in the afternoon, and then 3 times at night.

It depends on the line. I work with several Metra commuters that don't own a car. The UP-N runs once an hour during off peak hours, but as frequently as 5 or 6 times an hour during peak hours. Also, all of the UP-N stops in the city are within walking distance of the red/brown lines, so when people aren't commuting to work, they're using the cta, walking, or biking, and not Metra.

J_M_Tungsten Dec 11, 2012 5:33 PM

Nice update shot Hayward. I'm very confused at how this project is being done. Are the going to completely rebuild the tunnel as well?


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.