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)

Steely Dan Feb 2, 2022 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9521820)

To me it seems like a no brainer to add an infill station to an existing line to service United Center especially in a high public transit usage city like Chicago.

Of course it's a no-brainer, but Chicago sometimes moves painfully slow on grasping the obvious.

The Paulina connector was first built in 1895. The Chicago stadium (the United center's predecessor that once stood on Madison just north of the current arena) opened in 1929.

So the city has only had 93 years to make a station there happen. I think we're gonna need a minimum of three decades of study to figure out if building an infill stop along an existing rapid transit line that's only 750 feet from the front door of a 20,000 seat arena that hosts 200 events/year is a good idea or not.

the urban politician Feb 2, 2022 3:15 AM

Nobody read my post, as expected.

I said why does it need to built NOW, in 2022.

In 1900 L stops spurred development. Why? Because to thrive, a neighborhood required L access. They were utterly vital.

Today, it makes sense for L stops to get thrown into the mix AFTER significant development happens.

It makes more sense that way. Build it too early, and you run the risk of having a $200 million station in the middle of nothing. But if a place is up and coming, seeing a lot of development and investment, then you have a case. Early on people arrive by car, bike, foot, Uber, etc. but that limits growth capacity and you build an L stop.

Stop this “back in 1900 they were wiser” bullshit. They weren’t wiser. They had fewer options.

MAC123 Feb 2, 2022 3:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9522031)
Nobody read my post, as expected.

I said why does it need to built NOW, in 2022.

In 1900 L stops spurred development. Why? Because to thrive, a neighborhood required L access. They were utterly vital.

Today, it makes sense for L stops to get thrown into the mix AFTER significant development happens.

It makes more sense that way. Build it too early, and you run the risk of having a $200 million station in the middle of nothing. But if a place is up and coming, seeing a lot of development and investment, then you have a case. Early on people arrive by car, bike, foot, Uber, etc. but that limits growth capacity and you build an L stop.

Stop this “back in 1900 they were wiser” bullshit. They weren’t wiser. They had fewer options.

Steely Dan, first sentence in his reply.
"because a 20,000 seat arena that hosts 200 events/year and sits within 750' of an existing rapid transit ROW would already have a dedicated stop in any city that wasn't stupid."

the urban politician Feb 2, 2022 3:23 AM

^ That’s not an answer, that’s a value judgement that is the same thing as saying “Trains are cool that’s why”, which is what I predicted people here would say.

If a L stop were necessary for UC to thrive, they would’ve asked for one. But I guess somehow UC got filled to capacity year after year without one.

Reread the post I just made above which explains when I think an L stop would be justified.

left of center Feb 2, 2022 3:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9521924)
Of course it's a no-brainer, but Chicago sometimes moves painfully slow on grasping the obvious.

The Paulina connector was first built in 1895. The Chicago stadium (the United center's predecessor that once stood on Madison just north of the current arena) opened in 1929.

So the city has only had 93 years to make a station there happen. I think we're gonna need a minimum of three decades of study to figure out if building an infill stop along an existing rapid transit line that's only 750 feet from the front door of a 20,000 seat arena that hosts 200 events/year is a good idea or not.



When the Paulina connector (the old Metropolitan West Side elevated) opened in 1895, there *was* a Madison St. station at Madison and Paulina. It was closed in the 1950s when the Met northwest branch was rerouted through the Milwaukee/Dearborn subway and the Paulina connector became non revenue. The station was demolished a few decades later.

So its even worse that the city not acting, Steely. The city actually had the infrastructure, and they demolished it. And this is why we drink so heavily. :haha:

Steely Dan Feb 2, 2022 3:45 AM

TUP, you're arguing in bad faith here.

sadly, that's become the norm for you.

left of center Feb 2, 2022 3:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9522031)
I said why does it need to built NOW, in 2022.

There is a such thing as induced demand. Build it, and they will come. That area is very prime real estate, it wont take much for development to flood over from the already booming Fulton Market. A transit station would definitely help speed up the area's conversion to more productive use than just empty lots for car storage (and more tax revenue for the city as a result).

thegoatman Feb 2, 2022 5:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9521598)
^ Who's priority?

Why should building an L stop to the UC be a priority to Chicago and its taxpayers?

I'm not asking why it should be a priority to Skyscraperpage enthusiasts who think trains that they hardly use are cool and that "it will make us more hip like Barcelona", although I am sure that it is from this exact perspective that my answer will arise.

The question is: why does Chicago need an L stop built today, in 2022, at 2022? It won't do diddly shit for anybody. And it will cost like $200 million.

What an asinine statement. What makes Chicago better than 99% of US cities is that it's transit friendly, walkable, and very urban. Why the hell should we not continue investing in transit especially in future hotspots like the UC? And nobody uses? We have the best transit system in the country aside from the NYC metro. We're third in ridership just behind NYC and DC. Making our city more transit accesible and bikeable/walkable is key to a sustainable city.

Guess we should be like suburban hellholes such as Atlanta/Houston/Dallas and continue expanding highways and building surface parking lots for more cars :uhh::sly: Houston keeps expanding the Katy Freeway yet traffic is still a shithole, mhmm...

homebucket Feb 2, 2022 6:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 9522068)
There is a such thing as induced demand. Build it, and they will come. That area is very prime real estate, it wont take much for development to flood over from the already booming Fulton Market. A transit station would definitely help speed up the area's conversion to more productive use than just empty lots for car storage (and more tax revenue for the city as a result).

Yep. Check out the T Third line in 2011:
https://goo.gl/maps/JdZipyTysGcbCWbE9
https://goo.gl/maps/BCFCV4v9oZBXgfEM8

And 10 years later:
https://goo.gl/maps/Bm3Ff2MiiNNyCFTN6
https://goo.gl/maps/7LAqybzpEJo3YYjM7

And basketball and hockey are not big tailgating sports so it's not like you need the arena to be surrounded by a sea of parking lots. And it's not even like you'd need to build a whole new line just to add a station. Adding an infill station to an existing line should be relatively easy and inexpensive, especially compared to amount of added service it would provide.

the urban politician Feb 2, 2022 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegoatman (Post 9522188)
What an asinine statement. What makes Chicago better than 99% of US cities is that it's transit friendly, walkable, and very urban. Why the hell should we not continue investing in transit especially in future hotspots like the UC? And nobody uses? We have the best transit system in the country aside from the NYC metro. We're third in ridership just behind NYC and DC. Making our city more transit accesible and bikeable/walkable is key to a sustainable city.

Guess we should be like suburban hellholes such as Atlanta/Houston/Dallas and continue expanding highways and building surface parking lots for more cars :uhh::sly: Houston keeps expanding the Katy Freeway yet traffic is still a shithole, mhmm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9522063)
TUP, you're arguing in bad faith here.

Adios.

^ To which I respond again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9522041)
^ That’s not an answer, that’s a value judgement that is the same thing as saying “Trains are cool that’s why”, which is what I predicted people here would say.

If a L stop were necessary for UC to thrive, they would’ve asked for one. But I guess somehow UC got filled to capacity year after year without one.

Reread the post I just made above which explains when I think an L stop would be justified.

Here are some responses that more properly address my point, these guys actually read what I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 9522068)
There is a such thing as induced demand. Build it, and they will come. That area is very prime real estate, it wont take much for development to flood over from the already booming Fulton Market. A transit station would definitely help speed up the area's conversion to more productive use than just empty lots for car storage (and more tax revenue for the city as a result).

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9522221)
Yep. Check out the T Third line in 2011:
https://goo.gl/maps/JdZipyTysGcbCWbE9
https://goo.gl/maps/BCFCV4v9oZBXgfEM8

And 10 years later:
https://goo.gl/maps/Bm3Ff2MiiNNyCFTN6
https://goo.gl/maps/7LAqybzpEJo3YYjM7

And basketball and hockey are not big tailgating sports so it's not like you need the arena to be surrounded by a sea of parking lots. And it's not even like you'd need to build a whole new line just to add a station. Adding an infill station to an existing line should be relatively easy and inexpensive, especially compared to amount of added service it would provide.

^ I think UC is obviously in better shape than some other areas where L stops are surrounded by big fields.

But I still think we are a long way off before a $200 million train stop is justified. If L stops didn't cost so much to build then it would be more of a slam dunk. But they are insanely expensive nowadays!

left of center Feb 2, 2022 4:55 PM

If you think they are expensive now TUP, I'm fairly certain you won't like what the price tag will look like in 10 years, where it could easily be double.

Why wait to build it then, when the city would also lose on potentially a decade's worth of higher property tax revenue with the property redevelopment that will occur within a half mile radius of the station? The UC neighborhood's gentrification is essentially a sure thing, and happening now even. There are new developments on Madison as far as Western. The city adding fuel to the fire is an investment in the neighborhood's viability and city's finances. Gotta spend money to make money, right?

ardecila Feb 2, 2022 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9522376)
But I still think we are a long way off before a $200 million train stop is justified. If L stops didn't cost so much to build then it would be more of a slam dunk. But they are insanely expensive nowadays!

Well, the Damen stop is slated to cost only $80M. You might be thinking of State/Lake or Washington/Wabash, which are more expensive because they're downtown and construction is tricky down there. Damen is still too expensive at that $80M price, so it's understandable why the city doesn't go hog-wild adding L stops everywhere there is some development - or might be some development.

But again, it takes two to tango and the stadium owners have no intention of encouraging transit use or developing their lots. The city needs at least one of those two things, ideally both, to justify a new station. The last time the owners talked about development, it was just being used as a carrot for them to get more huge tax breaks. And even that was pretty limited, only one parking lot, where the teams eventually built their office building. They know the city wants redevelopment, but the owners clearly weren't interested in redevelopment for its own sake, even though it could be profitable to them.

You can't fix stupid. Just gotta wait for Reinsdorf to die - I'm guessing Wirtz might be more open to development, but Reinsdorf manages TWO stadiums with huge ugly parking moats. Ironic as Reinsdorf made his money in real estate :shrug:

That tax break, by the way (which Rahm refused to give them) was large enough to fund a new station even at CTA's inflated costs. There is certainly a deal to be made where TIF funding from the parking lot development can pay for a station and/or other infrastructure in the area.

the urban politician Feb 2, 2022 5:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by left of center (Post 9522570)
If you think they are expensive now TUP, I'm fairly certain you won't like what the price tag will look like in 10 years, where it could easily be double.

Why wait to build it then, when the city would also lose on potentially a decade's worth of higher property tax revenue with the property redevelopment that will occur within a half mile radius of the station? The UC neighborhood's gentrification is essentially a sure thing, and happening now even. There are new developments on Madison as far as Western. The city adding fuel to the fire is an investment in the neighborhood's viability and city's finances. Gotta spend money to make money, right?

You first need a plan before you put in that investment. You don't just spend the taxpayer's money that way and "hope for the best"

As Ardecila is saying, you need the owners of UC to play ball. Get them on board, negotiate a complex land swap/land use type of deal with them so that development is even possible. Then get some proposals out to developers, then you can maybe start talking about adding an L stop with a timeline, etc to get the ball rolling.

You don't just look at the huge parking lot, do nothing, and say "Gee lets build a massive L stop here" without all of those other moves.

ardecila Feb 2, 2022 5:40 PM

Right. Development isn't a force of nature, it's never "inevitable". You could see it that way if you have a free market, where land is owned by many different owners that are competing. The sum of many individual decisions, made independently, can feel like a force of nature.

But the area around the UC is not a free market - the land is basically owned by a cartel. The land may get developed on all sides around it, but the cartel will keep using their land as parking so long as it is profitable to do so. They also have a lot of political power, so don't look to the city to strong-arm them into changing anything.

Steely Dan Feb 2, 2022 5:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 9522622)

You don't just look at the huge parking lot, do nothing, and say "Gee lets build a massive L stop here" without all of those other moves.

and absolutely no one here has argued for such.

here is what i actually said in reply to ardecila before you went off on some bad-faith rant about it:


Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 9520852)
The management of the UC has made no indications that they want to encourage fans to arrive by transit. If they’re not serious about it, the city shouldn’t be either. It has to be a partnership to turn the UC into a transit-oriented facility like MSG, Barclays or CapitalOne Arena.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9521580)
again, in a less ass-backwards city, every single last lever of pressure would've have been brought to bear by the city upon the UC's shitty ownership to turn it into a more of a transit-oriented facility.

don't ask, dictate!



Chi-Sky21 Feb 2, 2022 5:46 PM

Do they really own ALL those lots? Even the ones to the east of pink line? Rush may even own some of the property to the southeast of the stadium, not sure. I have no skin in the game, I have no trouble walking from the IMD blue line or I usually pregame on Madison and take their shuttles over. Seems like there are better spots to put stations in our system.

ardecila Feb 2, 2022 5:49 PM

I will also note that this isn't a Chicago problem, it's an American problem. There are very few examples of cities being able to dictate terms to sports teams. Even NYC can't manage to get Madison Square Garden from squatting on top of its biggest transit hub.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 (Post 9522644)
Do they really own ALL those lots? Even the ones to the east of pink line? Rush may even own some of the property to the southeast of the stadium, not sure. I have no skin in the game, I have no trouble walking from the IMD blue line or I usually pregame on Madison and take their shuttles over. Seems like there are better spots to put stations in our system.

The United Center doesn't own all the lots, but there is a tight club of parking lot owners who leech on the team like parasites. They all charge basically the same rates and I'm sure there is some collusion going on. Institutions like Rush and the Teamsters also own parking lots, but those aren't typically used for event parking.

Steely Dan Feb 2, 2022 5:54 PM

^ there has to be some lever of power the city can exert over reinsdorf/wirtz to get them to play ball.

SIGSEGV Feb 2, 2022 5:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan (Post 9522665)
^ there has to be some lever of power the city can exert over reinsdorf/wirtz to get them to play ball.

CTA should buy up as much of the land as possible, develop the station, and then sell it :). But we all know it doesn't work that way...

homebucket Feb 2, 2022 6:12 PM

Why wouldn't the United Center and whoever else owns these parking lots want these lots to get developed? Wouldn't it be more valuable as mixed use development rather than parking? That's what the Giants did with their massive parking lots. After full build out, there will essentially be no more surface parking lots left.

https://images.adsttc.com/media/imag...jpg?1571164345

https://sfyimby.com/wp-content/uploa...os-777x582.jpg

Quote:

The Mission Rock development is led by Mission Rock Partner, a joint venture with Tishman Speyer and the property owners, The San Francisco Giants. At full build-out, the 28 acres is expected to create roughly 3.6 million square feet of floor area with approximately 1,200 new homes, up to 1.7 million square feet of office space, 150-250,000 square feet of retail or entertainment, parking for 3,000 vehicles, and the rehabilitation of Pier 48 for a new use. Landscaping across the project will open up eight acres of public parkland. Around two-fifths of all units are expected to be affordable housing to help lower and middle-income households.
https://sfyimby.com/2021/12/sfyimby-...francisco.html

Steely Dan Feb 2, 2022 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9522721)
Why wouldn't the United Center and whoever else owns these parking lots want these lots to get developed?

inertia and A lack of imagination/old school thinking.

"hey, we already make plenty of money off of those parking lots and they give our customers a convenient place to park."

Rocky might be able to be talked into thinking more creatively about them, but Stupid Fucking Reinsdorf is the stickiest stick in the mud that ever got stuck in mud.

We might have to wait until that idiot kicks the bucket (he's 85).


at the very least, they are no doubt sitting out on untold millions of dollars by not building structured parking decks on some of the land and then selling off the rest to developers who would LOVE to cash in on the near west side's ever expanding boom.

Busy Bee Feb 2, 2022 6:43 PM

Quote:

but Stupid Fucking Reinsdorf is the stickiest stick in the mud that ever got stuck in mud.
This is poetry.

Mr Downtown Feb 3, 2022 12:53 AM

I feel like a broken record, every time this comes up. It's not our responsibility to chase after a private development like United Center with an expensive L station. It's our responsibility to not let such traffic generators be built where there's no good transit.

And yet . . . we told Lincoln Yards to go right ahead, essentially on the basis of their PowerPoint having a picture of a light rail train in it.

Randomguy34 Feb 3, 2022 1:27 AM

I agree that we should not be chasing private development that will require large amounts of public funds, such as Lincoln Yards. However, we are not talking about building a new transit line from scratch. We are talking about building a single station in one of the fastest growing central neighborhoods in any major US city.

Specifically, this station would be close to Malcolm X College, multiple public schools, serve public housing residents who have long been denied good transit, and several hospitals and medical facilities. To top it all off, the city's fastest growing employment center (Fulton Market) and the NBA's largest stadium which holds multiple events a week (United Center) would be right next door. Even ignoring the redevelopment possibilities, this station would be a good and sound investment for the CTA

Steely Dan Feb 3, 2022 1:42 AM

Additionally, this would not be an example of "chasing after a private development".

When Chicago Stadium was built nearly a century ago, there freaking was a stop at Madison on the Paulina connector. A perfect example of placing a major traffic generator near transit.

Then the Paulina connector was taken out of revenue service for like 6 decades and the Madison station was removed.

This isn't chasing, it's restoring.

After 7 decades of severe and unrelenting kicks to the city's urban nuts, I understand where the defeatist attitude of the naysayers comes from.

But I'll still choose urban restoration every time.

We can do better.

We should do better.

thegoatman Feb 3, 2022 3:44 PM

Seen some construction workers and vehicles surrounding the area by the future damen green line stop today. Looks like its getting started

ardecila Feb 3, 2022 4:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegoatman (Post 9523664)
Seen some construction workers and vehicles surrounding the area by the future damen green line stop today. Looks like its getting started

Not sure if they're actually starting to build or just potholing, but I also noticed this the other day. It's about time after years of delay that the city refuses to explain...

The fenced area in back with a (soil test? just a stack of steel beams?) has been there for a long time, but the heavy equipment in the foreground is new.

The lot behind the L structure across Lake is slated to be a maintenance facility for Rivian. Awesome TOD, City of Chicago... great job. :facepalm: At least there should be a proper midrise/affordable housing going up in Westhaven Park at the SE corner.

https://i.ibb.co/2YKbN4c/IMG-2910.png

Chi-Sky21 Feb 3, 2022 6:02 PM

Is the area north of that even zoned for residential? That entire area is industrial right now.

ardecila Feb 3, 2022 7:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 (Post 9523920)
Is the area north of that even zoned for residential? That entire area is industrial right now.

Yes, that's the problem

west-town-brad Feb 3, 2022 8:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9522721)
Why wouldn't the United Center and whoever else owns these parking lots want these lots to get developed? Wouldn't it be more valuable as mixed use development rather than parking? That's what the Giants did with their massive parking lots. After full build out, there will essentially be no more surface parking lots left.

https://sfyimby.com/2021/12/sfyimby-...francisco.html

to answer this question, think about why the giants didn't do it until now.

homebucket Feb 3, 2022 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad (Post 9524107)
to answer this question, think about why the giants didn't do it until now.

Well they've only been in the neighborhood since 2000, and I think it required about a decade of planning, and then going through a lengthy proposal and approval process. I'm not sure if they selected this site from the very beginning with these intentions, or if they decided about 10 years into it to develop Mission Rock. Regardless, I think ultimately they saw a lot of empty land that was largely unused aside from game days and saw the potential for a new and vibrant neighborhood in its place.

VKChaz Feb 3, 2022 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 9524268)
Well they've only been in the neighborhood since 2000, and I think it required about a decade of planning, and then going through a lengthy proposal and approval process. I'm not sure if they selected this site from the very beginning with these intentions, or if they decided about 10 years into it to develop Mission Rock. Regardless, I think ultimately they saw a lot of empty land that was largely unused aside from game days and saw the potential for a new and vibrant neighborhood in its place.

I believe in the bigger picture, it made sense for the massive Mission Bay development to be a priority. That has been happening for many years. Mission Rock could be viewed like a later phase of the development of the larger area. I don't know if much of the process around there has any parallels to anything not happening at UC. There is also pressure to get more housing stock built in SF.

Briguy Feb 4, 2022 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 (Post 9523920)
Is the area north of that even zoned for residential? That entire area is industrial right now.

Only a matter of time, they already relaxed the industrial zoning between Ashland and Ogden. Ashland to damen probably next.

Nice industrial building stock. It’ll quickly transform to a smaller Fulton-esque neighborhood.

They should build a western stop as well. Then, FINALLY we may see the east Garfield park rebirth.

marothisu Feb 9, 2022 8:28 PM

The upcoming Peterson/Ridge Metra station got new construction building permits yesterday. I believe they had their groundbreaking sometime in the fall.

thegoatman Feb 9, 2022 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu (Post 9530797)
The upcoming Peterson/Ridge Metra station got new construction building permits yesterday. I believe they had their groundbreaking sometime in the fall.

Isn't this the metra station with the massive surface parking lot? I understand its commuter rail, but jeez just build a parking garage or something.

SIGSEGV Feb 9, 2022 11:11 PM

Looks like the 31 and 157 extension are now permanent.

jpIllInoIs Feb 10, 2022 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegoatman (Post 9531013)
Isn't this the metra station with the massive surface parking lot? I understand its commuter rail, but jeez just build a parking garage or something.

Project link

There is no room for a massive parking lot. Site prep has been underway for months. They have carved into the slope embankment on the north and south sides of Peterson. That embankment will be reinforced with a vertical retaining wall leaving room for some head in parking spots on the south side as well as a pedestrian stairway. Any parking on the south side is linear and carved out of the old embankment, it is not a buildable surface lot.

On the north will be the main station with ramp and stairwell and elevator access and a drop off circle. Looks like the west side of tracks -will have another pedestrian ramp and stairs on the north side and a stairwell on the south. So pedestrian access on all 4 corners of the Peterson Ravenswood intersection and pedestrian above grade access to platforms from the south. Looks like 6 standard parking spots and 5 handicapped near the turnaround on the north side. Peterson bus will have stops right at the station. Divvy station at the Ridge Ave side(north). It may be slow but it is a good project.

ardecila Feb 10, 2022 4:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs (Post 9531799)
Looks like 6 standard parking spots and 5 handicapped near the turnaround on the north side. Peterson bus will have stops right at the station. Divvy station at the Ridge Ave side(north). It may be slow but it is a good project.

The parking spots are labeled "kiss and ride" so I'm guessing they will be 30-minute time limited, not park-and-ride. This (more or less) is how the little parking lot at Clybourn works.

I agree with goatman though, this is not really very urban-friendly. That area could have been a proper plaza and pedestrian-focused space, instead 90% of it is for auto use and pedestrians just get the crumbs left over. This already in an area surrounded by auto sewers and dangerous intersections.

Steely Dan Feb 10, 2022 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs (Post 9531799)

It may be slow but it is a good project.

"slow" is an understatement.

when my wife and i bought our 1st condo in the 1400 block of west elmdale, i distinctly remember the seller's agent emphaszing "and with the new metra station that will be opening up soon over at peterson, this neighborhood will become the next ravenswood with a 15 minute train ride to the loop".

that was 8 years ago now.

good thing the metra station wasn't a deciding factor for us (though i wouldn't have minded a little "metra bump" when we sold that condo 4 years later, oh well. we still did alright on it).

Rizzo Feb 25, 2022 2:34 PM

I was on a SB brown line train this AM and witnessed chunks of concrete missing on the flyover exposing the rebar mesh. In maybe 8-10 areas. It didn’t look intentional because the 1 - 2 sqft areas were all organic in geometry. It was like a few inches of the outer layer was missing.

Busy Bee Feb 25, 2022 3:01 PM

I smell a scandal...

ardecila Feb 25, 2022 3:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizzo (Post 9549093)
I was on a SB brown line train this AM and witnessed chunks of concrete missing on the flyover exposing the rebar mesh. In maybe 8-10 areas. It didn’t look intentional because the 1 - 2 sqft areas were all organic in geometry. It was like a few inches of the outer layer was missing.

Interesting. I can't imagine any kind of concrete structure could fail this quickly after construction though. It takes years for rebar to rust and cause spalling.

Was it on the parapet/sound wall, or the columns?

Rizzo Feb 25, 2022 5:25 PM

No it was on the concrete deck fascia, not the columns or sound wall panels. It had the appearance of what you see on deteriorating overpass piers. Except the rebar was still intact with a green coating. Like occasionally you’ll see after-the-fact alterations in walls and parking decks, but the disturbed areas will be lightly saw cut so they are square or angular. These had pot hole like appearances, only disturbed to the first layer of rebar.

Busy Bee Feb 25, 2022 7:18 PM

Thats really really really bad if true. That would seem to point to a major bond failure between the concrete and the epoxy coated rebar. If the stresses and vibrations of the viaduct are causing this spalling this is major. Major.

ardecila Feb 25, 2022 7:31 PM

Interesting, like this area you mean? Might have been a problem with the concrete mix or not vibrated correctly in the forms. Or the connection detail for those sound panels may have caused some stress in the concrete leading to damage. If the rebar was green then it was coated, so it's definitely not a corrosion problem.

https://i.ibb.co/1JRpK76/flyover.jpg

Here's hoping the concrete was removed intentionally for a positive reason, and not as the result of (or investigation into) quality issues...

Rizzo Feb 25, 2022 8:38 PM

The red area is where it is, just further up (north)

Rizzo Feb 25, 2022 11:31 PM

Walked by it a moment ago. Ardecila, I think you’re right. The panel mounts are breaking through the fascia. The damage is worse than I saw this morning. I took pictures but have no way of posting.

Randomguy34 Feb 26, 2022 1:26 AM

Try using imgur.com to upload the photos.

This sounds pretty concerning

left of center Feb 26, 2022 6:37 PM

Wow, that's scary. I wonder if the CTA is aware of this issue?

Rizzo Feb 27, 2022 1:30 AM

I searched twitter “CTA flyover” and found this.

https://twitter.com/srboisvert/statu...798417926?s=21


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:22 PM.

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