View Single Post
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 27, 2020, 9:52 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark0 View Post
I understand TIF perfectly, I think you may not. TIFs were supposed to be for blighted property, property that could not be redeveloped "but for" the proposed allocation. This property fails the "but for" test. Would it be as dense without the TIF? Probably not, but it would still be developed. Mega projects like this utilizing TIF distort the marketplace and starve development from marginal areas.
I largely agree, although I think it benefits the city to do things to maximize density in the core where infrastructure supporting density already exists. Anything south of North Ave, and certainly south of Division, should be developed to international levels of density, which this is. Some of the CHA's proposals for the Cabrini area are laughable in their lack of density. The Core needs to be dense because density is where you get the best bang for your urban buck, and its what people who want urban lifestyles want. People who don't want high density have so many other parts of Chicago to consider, from Hyde Park to Rogers Park, so in the Central Area, I think the highest density needs to occur and I don't have a problem with at least some of the projects getting an extra push to make that happen.

I live two blocks south of Chicago Ave, by Wells and Huron, and look forward to this. The area around me has been under near-constant construction since I moved in in 2004, with the only pause being due to the Financial Crisis. Since I moved in there have been two new hotels, plus 2 renovations existing hotels, eleven buildings of 12 or more stories and three buildings under 10 stories built within 3 short blocks of me (not 3 standard 1/8-mile blocks, but 3 actual River North blocks). And if I go further than that, I could keep adding buildings. But I'm still looking forward to this project. Like someone else said, it will help tie Wells north of Division to Wells south of Chicago. I also think that putting the densest part near Oak helps drive any traffic it creates to be even split between Division and Chicago Ave. Oak is the only street between Division and Chicago that goes from Michigan Avenue to Larrabee. It's still only a 5 minute walk to the Brown Line at Chicago and not much more than 5 minutes to the Red Line at Division. I would like to see a Brown Line station at Division. But I'd also like to see a Red Line station at around Cleveland, especially if the City isn't going to be making a Clinton Street subway splitting from the existing subway at Larrabee anytime soon. A subway station at Cleveland would be far more useable for people in the northern parts of the ex-Cabrini area than even a Division Brown Line station would be. When the idea of a Circle Line was being bounced around, I liked the idea of turning North/Clyborn area into a superstation with the Red Line interfacing with the Circle Line and the Brown Line dipping into a subway for transfers and making the station a massive transfer station. But the Circle Line seems to not be on anyone's radar anymore.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
CURRENT GEAR: Nikon Z6, Nikon Z 14-30mm f4 S, Nikon Z 24-70mm f/4 S, Nikon 50mm f1.4G
STOLEN GEAR: (during riots of 5/30/2020) Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm F2.8G, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D
Reply With Quote