CHICAGO | General Developments

[left of center]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Yes I was. Sorry, idiot moment.

If you are referring to the streetcar rail lines in general, there are actually quite many of them left. It was too expensive and labor intensive to remove all of them, so much of it was simply covered in asphalt. They were partially dismantled pretty haphazardly though, so that the remaining trackage isn't continuous or contiguous, rather bits and pieces scattered throughout the city.

If you are referring to the Carroll Ave ROW tracks that cross the north branch of the river at the C&NW railbridge, then no that was never used for transportation as far as I know. Rather, it was a freight line that serviced Navy Pier (back when it was actually used for commercial/naval shipping purposes) and the factories along the north bank of the main branch of the river.

[10023]

Originally Posted by KWillChicago

Are there any functional rail tracks left in chicago aside from those that run through lower rivernorth? Those ones that start around wolf point and go to, i believe navy pier?

I’ve thought about this too. It would actually be pretty great to make a short east/west light rail line here, given how much western River North and Streeterville have been developed.

Would that even be possible? Do they actually still go to Navy Pier?

[harryc]

Originally Posted by 10023

I’ve thought about this too. It would actually be pretty great to make a short east/west light rail line here, given how much western River North and Streeterville have been developed.

Would that even be possible? Do they actually still go to Navy Pier?

IIRC that is exactly why the ROW has been preserved, to the point of cantilevering 300 N LaSalle over it, and plans to cantalever 300 N Calrk over it as well.

Yes the tracks go down Carol - Kinzie - North Water to Park or Orleans - but the old tracks would not be used, it's the ROW that has been preserved. This is a special sneaky path to travel along the N bank of the river already grade separated as you pass under the bridge ramps for each street that crosses the river.

[Mr Downtown]

The tracks in Carroll Avenue were a single-track freight line to the mouth of the river, eventually extended out to Navy Pier. The last customers was the Sun-Times, for delivery of newsprint rolls. The line has been out of service for nearly 15 years, but Union Pacific has never legally abandoned it; undoubtedly they want the city to buy back the concession it gave them for free in 1848. Once a year, UP lowers the bridge next to Kinzie St. and runs a Hi-Rail truck across it and out to the end of track.

Those tracks have called out to planners since the Jane Byrne era, first with vague plans for a light rail line, then with the Central Area Circulator of the 1990s (which ultimately found a Carroll Avenue alignment geometrically unusable), then with a BRT scheme for which Trump Int'l Hotel & Tower left space, and now with CCAC's Connector project.

It's the grade-separated right-of-way, not the actual track, that's important. Unfortunately, it's five blocks of a very tempting alignment—with no good way to get to either end. That's why a BRT use, much like the McCormick Place Busway, has always seemed most logical to me.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Is like to see the city move beyond simple TOD and have various levels of TOD. Example:

TOD-A: near major transit nodes, such as where multiple L and major bus routes intersect. Minimal parking and basically downtown-level density permitted

TOD-B: near L stops and major bus routes. Basically the same TOD zoning already in practice

TOD-C: near Divvy stations and along lesser bus routes. No boost in density, but decreased parking requirements.

The mayor is proposing something similar. Each bus route will be studied and a corridor plan will be created that specifies bulk, density, and parking requirements. It will not be a set of uniform city-wide rules like the initial TOD ordinance, or like what you proposed above... sounds like it will be highly location-specific. This is interesting, because the Zoning Ordinance was always supposed to apply city-wide. I don't think it's ever had sections that were specific to certain areas of the city, with narrow exceptions like a few historic areas or around Wrigley Field... so while the current Zoning Ordinance is like a set of neutral/flexible rules for a board game, this bus-TOD thing is a step toward actual city planning in Chicago. Unfortunately a more intricate set of rules will only hand power to politicians, bureaucrats and zoning attorneys and add one more hurdle for developers, so ultimately we might end up with a better-planned city at the cost of a decreased housing supply. Also, the city has to back it up with well-educated, intelligent and pragmatic planning staff. I am not confident this will happen...

Presumably the bus-TOD plan will allow greater bulk and density, and lower parking requirements along some or all of the four initial corridors, with the highest intensity at major intersections where transit routes cross.

These four bus routes have been targeted for (some) improvements, so it makes sense to concentrate new development along them. On the other hand, I would hate to see new development erode the fine-grained urbanism that currently exists along Chicago Ave or similar streets. Lots of independent businesses, highly pedestrian corridor, already pretty dense with few obvious redevelopment sites. These kind of corridors are rare in Chicago, so I hope the plan for Chicago Ave at least is on the conservative side and focuses on areas west of California. I will also be interested to see how much the bus-TOD guidelines borrow from the existing P-street rules, which already offer a blueprint for highly urban streets but are agnostic about density.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The mayor is proposing something similar. Each bus route will be studied and a corridor plan will be created that specifies bulk, density, and parking requirements. It will not be a set of uniform city-wide rules like the initial TOD ordinance, or like what you proposed above... sounds like it will be highly location-specific. This is interesting, because the Zoning Ordinance was always supposed to apply city-wide. I don't think it's ever had sections that were specific to certain areas of the city, with narrow exceptions like a few historic areas or around Wrigley Field... so while the current Zoning Ordinance is like a set of neutral/flexible rules for a board game, this bus-TOD thing is a step toward actual city planning in Chicago. Unfortunately a more intricate set of rules will only hand power to politicians, bureaucrats and zoning attorneys and add one more hurdle for developers, so ultimately we might end up with a better-planned city at the cost of a decreased housing supply. Also, the city has to back it up with well-educated, intelligent and pragmatic planning staff. I am not confident this will happen...

Presumably the bus-TOD plan will allow greater bulk and density, and lower parking requirements along some or all of the four initial corridors, with the highest intensity at major intersections where transit routes cross.

These four bus routes have been targeted for (some) improvements, so it makes sense to concentrate new development along them. On the other hand, I would hate to see new development erode the fine-grained urbanism that currently exists along Chicago Ave or similar streets. Lots of independent businesses, highly pedestrian corridor, already pretty dense with few obvious redevelopment sites. These kind of corridors are rare in Chicago, so I hope the plan for Chicago Ave at least is on the conservative side and focuses on areas west of California. I will also be interested to see how much the bus-TOD guidelines borrow from the existing P-street rules, which already offer a blueprint for highly urban streets but are agnostic about density.

I fear for my own life when trying to cross all of these streets: western, ashland, chicago aves. none of these are pedestrian friendly but I hope they become that way in time.

[west-town-brad]

Looks like work on the Margie's Candies building will be starting again.... the site has been dead/mid-construction for the past 6 months or so....

INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING 2 STORY MIXED USE BUILDING WITH BASEMENT. WORK TO INCLUDE BUILD OUT OF 4 GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL UNITS, 20 SECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND COMMON ROOF DECK AS PER PLANS. **Certified Plan Corrections Project - Conditional Permit: Subject to field inspections **

1965 N. Milwaukee Ave. Issued June 22, 2018

[marothisu]

There's a zoning application for the site at 1505 N Dayton which is currently a parking lot/industrial 1 story building. Proposal is to build a new 9 story building with 197 units and 56 parking spaces. This is across from So No East.

[NiHao]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The tracks in Carroll Avenue were a single-track freight line to the mouth of the river, eventually extended out to Navy Pier. The last customers was the Sun-Times, for delivery of newsprint rolls. The line has been out of service for nearly 15 years, but Union Pacific has never legally abandoned it; undoubtedly they want the city to buy back the concession it gave them for free in 1848. Once a year, UP lowers the bridge next to Kinzie St. and runs a Hi-Rail truck across it and out to the end of track.

Those tracks have called out to planners since the Jane Byrne era, first with vague plans for a light rail line, then with the Central Area Circulator of the 1990s (which ultimately found a Carroll Avenue alignment geometrically unusable), then with a BRT scheme for which Trump Int'l Hotel & Tower left space, and now with CCAC's Connector project.

It's the grade-separated right-of-way, not the actual track, that's important. Unfortunately, it's five blocks of a very tempting alignment—with no good way to get to either end. That's why a BRT use, much like the McCormick Place Busway, has always seemed most logical to me.

Any maps of all this?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by NiHao

Any maps of all this?

Map of the connector proposal.

[NiHao]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Map of the connector proposal.

Neat. Really needs to be a navy pier to museum campus line though.

[SolarWind]

June 25, 2018

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

bad home depot kitchen backsplash strikes again.

do we have a running tally of how many buildings have done this yet, and do we have an over/under on how many years it will be before theyre all trying to un-do it because its "so mid-teens"

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

do we have an over/under on how many years it will be before theyre all trying to un-do it because its "so mid-teens"

Given the number of buildings I see with really bad 50s/60s jagged stone facades, I'd say about 50 years minimum.

[Rizzo]

I’m alright with the random stone patterns on the ground in a plaza or something, but can’t stand them on a wall.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I fear for my own life when trying to cross all of these streets: western, ashland, chicago aves. none of these are pedestrian friendly but I hope they become that way in time.

4-lane streets require more signaled intersections. I shudder seeing people trying to cross some streets. And increased density would only make it more necessary.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Given the number of buildings I see with really bad 50s/60s jagged stone facades, I'd say about 50 years minimum.

speaking of, can anyone explain how this ever became a thing:



was there just like one particular salesman on the SW side 30-40 years ago who managed to convince everyone this was a good idea

sadly it seems to still occur. i was walking through LV the other day and a team was out there on scaffolding chipping away at the original brick face of a gorgeous 3 flat. no effort to preserve the bricks at all, and the original facade (what was left of it) looked to be in great shape. it was heart wrenching and im scared to go back down the block and see what theyve super glued up in its place....

[Busy Bee]

^"Formstone" did just as much if not more damage to brick rowhouses on the east coast. It's just one of those things that can only be explained with bad taste, much like metal awnings and yard ornaments.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

speaking of, can anyone explain how this ever became a thing:



was there just like one particular salesman on the SW side 30-40 years ago who managed to convince everyone this was a good idea

sadly it seems to still occur. i was walking through LV the other day and a team was out there on scaffolding chipping away at the original brick face of a gorgeous 3 flat. no effort to preserve the bricks at all, and the original facade (what was left of it) looked to be in great shape. it was heart wrenching and im scared to go back down the block and see what theyve super glued up in its place....

LV? Little Village?

Unfortunately this was just in Vogue for a while when historic buildings we're considered obsolete.

Most of the time when you see it done today it's because there is a major structural fault you can't necessarily see from the outside. These old facade bricks were placed with such perfect tolerances that it's nearly impossible to repair them with modern "skilled" labor. Once brick rot sets in to a pre WWI facade, it's pretty much done for. I tried to replace just a few bricks on a building I own that were butchered by an idiot with a grinder and the whole section of facade basically started pealing off so we stopped after two bricks and just replaced those and filled the cracks in the bricks we were trying to repair with mortar.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

LV? Little Village?

Unfortunately this was just in Vogue for a while when historic buildings we're considered obsolete.

Most of the time when you see it done today it's because there is a major structural fault you can't necessarily see from the outside. These old facade bricks were placed with such perfect tolerances that it's nearly impossible to repair them with modern "skilled" labor. Once brick rot sets in to a pre WWI facade, it's pretty much done for. I tried to replace just a few bricks on a building I own that were butchered by an idiot with a grinder and the whole section of facade basically started pealing off so we stopped after two bricks and just replaced those and filled the cracks in the bricks we were trying to repair with mortar.

I'm not sure what you mean? I live in an 1890s building, and we had bricks near the foundation eroding. We had them replaced, plus a piece of "decorative" limestone, and it seems fine now. They also ended up tuckpointing nearly all the bricks on within about 3 feet of the ground on that face. Are you referring to bricks that are exclusively facade and have not structural purpose?