Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright
Three things:
1. Chicago has the best built environment in the world, not Paris. We have a lot of "missing teeth" as a city, but you can hardly fault a city so young for not yet being "complete" in the way an ancient city like Paris or London is. But our unique fabric of a thoroughly modern commerical city built on a pre-auto scale with modern planning and transit isn't found anywhere else.
2. High-rises should be built wherever the market dictates. That said there should be basic planning guidelines that make podium garages inefficient or costly. Also mid density TOD should again be allowed wherever the market can support it. The market will naturally generate mid density, high density, and low density districts provided everything is equal for each type of housing. The problem is when you apply market distorting laws like downzoning or making a whole category of building virtually impossible to build. It's already been shown that parking is overbuilt, but parking minimums have forced design to revolve around the requirements of a parking garage base. If our regulations were instead fixated on say requiring any parking to be below grade or surrounded by liner units, we would see a totally different proforma for your average tower. In short, there is nothing inherently bad about tall buildings, it's poor regulation with inepet priorities that drives many of the problems people associate with these buildings.
3. Vacant land and parking lots are public enemy #1. Perhaps some form of height limit is a preferable policy if the goal is to obliterate disused properties and spread growth over as much of the inner core as possible. However you are then committing to the notion of displacement as public policy. If you are going to restrict growth through down zoning or height/density limits, then you have to acknowledge you are signing up for a policy of spreading gentrification over a larger area of the city. Regardless of your position on growth, you also have to admit that vacant land and abandoned buildings are utterly worthless to everyone and should be used to satisfy as much of the demand curve as possible.
|
I thoroughly disagree with the main thrusts of #1 and #2. I agree with you that parking minimums shouldn’t exist. And I am “signing up for a policy of spreading gentrification over a larger area of the city”, because gentrification is a good thing.
And Chicago’s modern developments are not generally positive at street level. It’s nice to fill in the skyline. But until the city is ready to confront the scourge of above-ground parking podiums, it might be better to tap the breaks, especially on the mid-priced developments. There are parts of River North that have quickly developed one of the
worst built environments among major global cities. No one should be clamoring to build another River North. Chicago would be better off if most of the River North condo boom hadn’t happened.
If you could make sure that when you looked up at the second floor of the building you saw someone’s window, and not a fucking parking garage, things would be vastly improved. But regardless, the fact is that the best neighborhoods to live in are mid-rise neighborhoods. That’s true in New York or Boston or anywhere with them, not just Paris.