HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #261  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 4:09 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Yep, I agree. I don't think this much density should be permitted unless Sterling Bay and the city dedicate some sort of substantial investment in transit.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #262  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 4:15 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,350
If Metra could run more frequent trains and add stations along UPN, similar the the London Overground or Paris RER, then you would have a good heavy rail line running through the suburbs, to the North Side, to downtown for a cheap amount. Too bad Metra is too incompetent to realize that
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #263  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 4:19 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by VKChaz View Post
Those are small neighborhood streets lined with small businesses. They aren't intended to be a dedicated pass-through for bus traffic.
The scale of this proposal makes no sense from a planning standpoint. I can somewhat understand the City desperately trying for Amazon and so considering something questionable in case that moved forward. But when that doesn't happen, there is just no compelling reason for this scale in that location. It isn't as though the city has a shortage of underutilized land including even the Reese property which the City has a vested interest in seeing move forward.
It could be done but the very concept would be so immensely unwelcome that it would not matter if Armitage was 10 lanes wide.

On a different note I'm relatively sure that people will be pushing the Reese site on this board until the day I die. Reese is unlikely to become anything but market rate housing as land in the South Loop gets developed over the coming decades. Fin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #264  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 4:24 PM
tm30's Avatar
tm30 tm30 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 93
Make no small plans. This is a gorgeous vision. Something tells me if Amazon were to choose this site, the traffic density issues will be dealt with, whatever the cost. The longterm benefit of Amazon HQ2 is incalculable. There a handful of companies in the world -- maybe ever -- that continue to have monumental growth prospects in so many facets of the economy, including healthcare.

Yes, I'm biased, but I'd be shocked if any of the other HQ2 proposals hold a candle to the potential Sterling Bay is presenting, including the housing aspect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #265  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 4:33 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,172
Why the negativity surrounding a new train line? 5,000 new homes and millions of square feet of office space in a location not immediately adjacent to downtown will need rail service. This seems like a great excuse to push for the Clinton/Larrabee subway. BRT would be a great start, but Armitage, Cortland, Clybourn, and North all crawl. Ashland can also get bad. I don't think it's a good long term solution, but it could bridge the gap until the train line was completed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #266  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 4:53 PM
VKChaz VKChaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: California
Posts: 569
I get a kick out of this item from the Tribune article:

Sterling Bay supports a plan proposed by three North Side aldermen to create a 24-acre public park on the General Iron site and other properties, but it does not plan to buy the land from General Iron or to fund the potentially $200 million project, Gloor said.

OK. LOL. I support a lot of things I will never have to pay for as well.

Regarding infrastructure, folks need to consider this is not a one-off. It may be the largest site and most ambitious effort, but the expectation should be that with the PMD change, more will be coming to that area. The entirety of that needs to be accounted for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #267  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 5:04 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,668
it should have its own flotilla of river transports
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #268  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 5:21 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
I’m surprised to see so much negativity from this board about the density. The expectation that developments need to be congestion-neutral, and that the cost of mitigating congestion needs to be borne by those developments, is myopic to the long-term determinants of congestion and unreasonable in the distribution of the costs of public goods.

Everyone is always—rightly—criticizing the suburban-style, car-centric development in the area, which is at least partly responsible for the terrible traffic. Why do we want whatever new development comes here to try and preserve that status quo?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #269  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 6:03 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
I’m surprised to see so much negativity from this board about the density. The expectation that developments need to be congestion-neutral, and that the cost of mitigating congestion needs to be borne by those developments, is myopic to the long-term determinants of congestion and unreasonable in the distribution of the costs of public goods.

Everyone is always—rightly—criticizing the suburban-style, car-centric development in the area, which is at least partly responsible for the terrible traffic. Why do we want whatever new development comes here to try and preserve that status quo?
We don't want car centric development. We want transit access. At a certain level of density, just running a bus no longer cuts it. You need something with its own dedicated ROW, which runs frequently.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #270  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 6:06 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,350
^ Exactly! The negativity isn't sprecifically about the density, but instead the lack of transit for a very dense area. Many of us would love to see a 2nd CBD rise outside of downtown, but that CBD better have good transit access to other parts of the city. Many secondary CBDs (Canary Wharf, Downtown Brooklyn, La Défense) are very dense and haven't faced unbearable traffic congestion b/c there is plenty of transit options to reach those areas in any given direction. Lincoln Yards on the other hand can't thrive with just one frequent transitway to downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #271  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 6:07 PM
Barrelfish Barrelfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
I’m surprised to see so much negativity from this board about the density. The expectation that developments need to be congestion-neutral, and that the cost of mitigating congestion needs to be borne by those developments, is myopic to the long-term determinants of congestion and unreasonable in the distribution of the costs of public goods.

Everyone is always—rightly—criticizing the suburban-style, car-centric development in the area, which is at least partly responsible for the terrible traffic. Why do we want whatever new development comes here to try and preserve that status quo?
I don't think anyone a) thinks this development needs to be congestion neutral, or b) wants it to reinforce the car-centric development in the area.

The problem is that the plan as-stated doesn't do much (beyond the new metra station) to address the lack of transit in the area. The result is going to be that a lot more people want to go there, they won't have good options besides a car (or bus) to get there, and as a result traffic congestion is going to be bad.

That's going to end up indirectly worsening access to Lincoln Park and Wicker Park, and functionally separate the neighborhoods east and west of the river. That would be unfortunate, especially because Lincoln Yards has the potential to fill an important gap in the urban fabric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #272  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 6:44 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
I actually have no problem with SB making this area so impassable because of auto congestion (not that it's good now) that we actually build some rational on street rapid transit like BRT. It's the only way we'll get it in the places we need it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #273  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 6:47 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
Yeah the point is not "density bad" it's "increasing your zoning so greatly is a massive handout we shouldn't bestow upon the developer unless it's being done correctly and not at other neighbors expense."

Build heavy rail or build 4-5 floor urban fabric. 70 story buildings will ruin the already nice surrounding areas if you dont provide them with dedicated transitways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #274  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 6:51 PM
IrishIllini IrishIllini is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,172
I'm shocked so many think BRT is sufficient transit for this proposal. 12 million square feet of office space and thousands of new residences cannot be serviced by BRT alone, especially in an area so isolated from our existing transit infrastructure and plagued by congestion. I can't imagine any major tenants would look twice at this location without rail service to/from Ogilvie and Union Stations at a minimum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #275  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 7:33 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
I don't understand why there is an implicit expectation that traffic, land-use, and commuting patterns of surrounding areas cannot and should not change in response to this new development. For the sake of argument, if they delivered 12m sq ft of new commercial and residential space without any investments in transportation infrastructure, what would happen? What I would expect to see is a loss of the car-centric retail in the area and the turnover of housing units to households interested in walking to work in the new development. Not the worst thing in the world.

Of course, it would not be economically viable for them to develop that much space without some improvements to the capacity local infrastructure can deliver--hence the investments they are making. But to the extent that these investments are "insufficient", which many of you seem to define as being unable to independently deliver the capacity which the development will require, then of course there will be changes to surrounding areas.

We have two of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city full of high-skill workers next to a blank slate of riverfront land, and for some reason the expectation is that it should be filled with commercial space employing workers from outside the area. I don't get it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #276  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 7:42 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
I don't understand why there is an implicit expectation that traffic, land-use, and commuting patterns of surrounding areas cannot and should not change in response to this new development. For the sake of argument, if they delivered 12m sq ft of new commercial and residential space without any investments in transportation infrastructure, what would happen? What I would expect to see is a loss of the car-centric retail in the area and the turnover of housing units to households interested in walking to work in the new development. Not the worst thing in the world.

Of course, it would not be economically viable for them to develop that much space without some improvements to the capacity local infrastructure can deliver--hence the investments they are making. But to the extent that these investments are "insufficient", which many of you seem to define as being unable to independently deliver the capacity which the development will require, then of course there will be changes to surrounding areas.

We have two of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city full of high-skill workers next to a blank slate of riverfront land, and for some reason the expectation is that it should be filled with commercial space employing workers from outside the area. I don't get it.
^ You are way off. If you want to tap the largest talent pool you might as well be downtown.

If you only want to tap into the surrounding area, then at Lincoln Yards you're forced to build CAR-CENTRIC development, because nearly everybody from the local neighborhoods will drive there and they will need to park. How the hell else is anyone going to get there? Friggin 5 people will choose to walk--everyone else will drive--so don't give me that fantasy.

This ain't rocket science. By your arguments the entire CTA L and Metra system was completely unnecessary for downtown to flourish. Transit is needed when density becomes very high.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #277  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 7:49 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ You are way off. If you want to tap the largest talent pool you might as well be downtown.

If you only want to tap into the surrounding area, then at Lincoln Yards you're forced to build CAR-CENTRIC development, because nearly everybody from the local neighborhoods will drive there and they will need to park. How the hell else is anyone going to get there? Friggin 5 people will choose to walk--everyone else will drive--so don't give me that fantasy.

This ain't rocket science. By your arguments the entire CTA L and Metra system was completely unnecessary for downtown to flourish. Transit is needed when density becomes very high.
I made it clear that I don't believe it would be economically viable for the development to be entirely dependent on local workers. I said that is the case only to the extent that local transportation infrastructure, both existing and their improvements, are insufficient to deliver those numbers. Whatever capacity can't be delivered from outside will be filled from the surrounding area.

Transit is needed to deliver capacity to downtown, because cars alone cannot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #278  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 7:56 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
Whatever capacity can't be delivered from outside will be filled from the surrounding area.
^ Hell no it won't. Are you kidding me?

At least not in the form of people walking to work from their $2 million mansions in Lincoln Park. Lower East Side of Manhattan circa 1912 called, it wants Khantilever back

Lets not kid ourselves and pretend that transit is just superfluous and unnecessary. With the kinds of density they are proposing, it's going to come with massive, massive, massive amounts of parking and massive, massive, massive amounts of congestion with all of the people who will chose to drive there, without a frequent and dedicated transit ROW getting people to and fro.
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #279  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 7:58 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
I really like what Sterling Yards has done over the years in the city, but I think they are a tad off the rocker here, maybe getting a bit too big for their britches.

I don't see this happening without some serious infrastructure upgrades
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #280  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2018, 8:00 PM
Barrelfish Barrelfish is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
I don't understand why there is an implicit expectation that traffic, land-use, and commuting patterns of surrounding areas cannot and should not change in response to this new development

...

We have two of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city full of high-skill workers next to a blank slate of riverfront land, and for some reason the expectation is that it should be filled with commercial space employing workers from outside the area. I don't get it.
Again, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that. Of course this development will change lots of things about the surrounding area, and many of those changes will be positive. People in Wicker Park or LP being able to walk to work is great.

The problem is, those neighborhoods (or at least, the portions of them within reasonable walking distance) don't currently and won't for a long time have the capacity to meet the demand that will be created by 23,000 new jobs. So whether we like it or not, most people will need to come in from elsewhere.

As it stands, the best options for "elsewhere" are neighborhoods and suburbs with access to the north suburban metra line or to the highway. That's going to encourage more driving and push more people to the suburbs. I don't think that's the spillover effect that we want. What we want is more vibrant, walkable neighborhoods, but Lincoln Yards won't create those unless people have good non-car options to get there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:35 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.