CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I think the best solution is to focus on walkability in the core, and increasingly allow more car-oriented development as you move outward. That kind of seems to be happening already. But I would like to see an outright ban on new strip malls within a certain radius of downtown or within a certain radius of L stops.

the fact that new strip malls are still going in on North Broadway is utterly maddening

[the urban politician]

^ I've given up on N. Broadway.

Luckily, there are plenty of other strips that are doing well.

[moorhosj]

I think this really is simply a case of cars=bad because cars are heavily associated with the suburbs. And anything associated with the suburbs on this forum is hastily cast aside and dismissed.

Cars are bad because their significant negative externalities. They are dangerous, produce lots of pollution, reduce exercise and are expensive (to purchase and maintain roads). I don't think infrastructure investments should encourage people to buy quickly depreciating assets that require pollutants to run when better alternatives exist.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by Swicago Swi Sox

This is definetly true, and it will be interesting to see how the new smaller Target in the old Fox and Obel space will turn out in Streeterville.

That said, I do not like the way the Target on Division turned out. The redevelopment in that area is going to make that neighborhood very walkable very soon. This Target put a huge parking area on the first floor of almost the entire footprint of the building, with only the glassy entrace at Larabee acting as street entrance to the second floor store. This created a very long stretch of Divion that is fronted by a blank facade of brick, fake windows, and louvers. It would have been better for the urban environment if they had put something on division other than the entrance. Maybe they could have placed their concessions area and a starbuck or something on division to create the apperance of a real storefront and draw in neighbors that way.

Can't win them all, I guess. In any event, that area should grow up well, and that Target, and its design flaws, will become lost in its surroundings. I think what's most important is that the concerted effort to deliver a decidedly more urban building doesn't go unnoticed.

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Cars are bad because their significant negative externalities. They are dangerous, produce lots of pollution, reduce exercise and are expensive (to purchase and maintain roads). I don't think infrastructure investments should encourage people to buy quickly depreciating assets that require pollutants to run when better alternatives exist.

Whatever. I totally disagree.

Cars are only as dangerous as the (potential) morons operating them. The only issues I've ever had driving involved complete idiots that had no business operating a moving vehicle. So, eliminate the idiocy factor, eliminate the danger factor. Pretty simple.

Pollution? Hardly. Cars these days aren't the egregious pollution machines they once were.

Reduce exercise? Because sitting on a bus is somehow exercise? Or do you mean the marginal amount of exercise one gets from walking a few blocks.

Look, there's nothing wrong with cars. They're hugely convenient and make life a whole lot easier. Despite the INSANE amount of bullshit this city throws at car owners, it's worth it in the end, especially not having to deal with the trains or busses. And that's the point, a lot people endure the costs for the convenience. After all, it's not like the CTA is free.

Anyway, I'm not gonna win this uphill battle against you guys. It is what it is, I guess. It's noble so many of you want to make the city a more pedestrian friendly environment.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I'm only saying, why desire a city that isn't what we already have. And to that extent, I'm only saying, why oppose parking lots when we already function just fine with them, many of them.

The problem with this is that it presumes that the mix of development we have now is at equilibrium. Chicago's mix seems to be in flux with cars being incorporated into new developments and retrofitted into older, pre-car-dominant fabric, and new dense developments replacing low-density areas. With the advent of off-street parking requirements, car storage is a given for any new development, and many older neighborhoods that have old stock that has been demolished are replacing that with Walgreen's, Bank of America, 7-11, McDonald's, etc. that all have large amounts of parking. This creates a culture and an expectancy of driving and parking. Add to that the fact that big box centers are within convenient driving distance of many (if not all) Chicago neighborhoods, and you have automotive hegemony. Housing requires it, the cars that come with it have places to drive. This also puts legacy retail stock at a disadvantage, because now they don't offer the convenience of the strip centers.

To me, we are not "function[ing] just fine with them" as the balance has been tipped in their favor, which will only foster that archetype even more (they definitely don't exist in a vacuum). The new TODs are a step in the right direction, but they are no match for the opposing force, and they are far outnumbered, IMO.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I love the concept of "Wicker Park Connection" but the branding is atrocious. It's a really interesting, unusual piece of urban design for Chicago. Obviously it has the usual security concerns with a blind corner and being far from auto traffic, but if they can activate it successfully 24/7 then it shouldn't attract criminals.

It should really be called a lane, alley, mews, market, or arcade... "Wicker Park Connection" sounds like the name of a wannabe urban boutique in Downtown Naperville. The existing little stub plaza on Milwaukee is called Mautene Court, but I can understand why that's not the catchiest name for marketing purposes.

PKDickman, can you lean on these guys for a better name?

It was gonna be Wicker Commons, but they sold that with the shopping center.
I think they like names with "C"s for "Centrum" branding.

This thing is still at the pipedream stage.

We listened to 25 minutes of what species of tree and what color of hammock (perhaps they could call it the hobo jungle) and about 3 minutes on bulk and density. The remaining 2 minutes were about progress on the Division street part of the project (already approved).

Remember, these guys are the same ones that brought us the Roosevelt and Lakeview Collections.

[DonMendigo]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Cars are bad because their significant negative externalities. They are dangerous, produce lots of pollution, reduce exercise and are expensive (to purchase and maintain roads). I don't think infrastructure investments should encourage people to buy quickly depreciating assets that require pollutants to run when better alternatives exist.

Not to mention the trillions of dollars spent to support a military industrial complex in order to secure the supply of oil to fuel cars.

I lived in Chicago for 10 years without a car and easily obtained groceries either walking or taking the bags on transit.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Whatever. I totally disagree.

Cars are only as dangerous as the (potential) morons operating them. The only issues I've ever had driving involved complete idiots that had no business operating a moving vehicle. So, eliminate the idiocy factor, eliminate the danger factor. Pretty simple.

Pollution? Hardly. Cars these days aren't the egregious pollution machines they once were.

Reduce exercise? Because sitting on a bus is somehow exercise? Or do you mean the marginal amount of exercise one gets from walking a few blocks.

Look, there's nothing wrong with cars. They're hugely convenient and make life a whole lot easier. Despite the INSANE amount of bullshit this city throws at car owners, it's worth it in the end, especially not having to deal with the trains or busses. And that's the point, a lot people endure the costs for the convenience. After all, it's not like the CTA is free.

Anyway, I'm not gonna win this uphill battle against you guys. It is what it is, I guess. It's noble so many of you want to make the city a more pedestrian friendly environment.

Cars aren't bad. It's just that the use of cars and the accommodations we make for them (parking lots etc.) make a hell of a lot less sense in a densely populated urban environment where goods and services are within walking distance than in the suburbs or in a rural town, places where people have no other option than to travel a long distance to a central location for goods and services.

That doesn't mean not having any cars it should mean less accommodating cars and more accommodating people in higher density locations preferably with decent access to public transit.

On a side note. In tech there's a bit of talk of self driving cars doing away with the majority of car ownership. The idea is that instead of buying a car you pay for a service that will have an electric self driving car for you anytime and anywhere you want. Cars would go and charge themselves at some location between being used. People will still own cars but what I read suggests that the majority of people would simply pay for the service. It got me thinking though if that becomes reality. What are we gonna do with all these parking podiums?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by rlw777

What are we gonna do with all these parking podiums?

bitching indoor go-kart tracks.

CRAPLOADS of bitching indoor go-kart tracks.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

bitching indoor go-kart tracks.

CRAPLOADS of bitching indoor go-kart tracks.

Good GOD that sounds amazing!

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by wierdaaron

I think people just prefer not to use garages because of the mental cost of navigating a vehicle up tight ramps and around blind corners in the dark with cars everywhere. It's an interesting bit of social science.

It is interesting. I have seen the same phenomenon in other cities - people seem to be gravitating to either surface lots or what is effectively the first level of parking.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But I would like to see an outright ban on new strip malls within a certain radius of downtown or within a certain radius of L stops.

Hear, hear

[BVictor1]

Saw plans for the proposal for Pioneer Court in front of 401 N. Michigan Avenue.

I can't say too much, but I will say

No tenants have been signed just yet, although we all suspect Apple.

And one last hint on how things could go......

[XIII]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Saw plans for the proposal for Pioneer Court in front of 401 N. Michigan Avenue.

I can't say too much, but I will say

No tenants have been signed just yet, although we all suspect Apple.

And one last hint on how things could go......

So there could soon be Foster, Gang, Vinoly, Jahn and MAD works going up here.
All we need is some Hadid and I think we have a yahtzee

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Exactly my questions. The Chicago forumers on this page seem to be living in some kind of hyper romanticized idea of a city. Unless you live within a few blocks of a grocery store, car-less shopping just is not practical. Public transportation + grocery shopping sucks. I fell bad for the less fortunate that can't afford a car and are forced onto our busses and trains. Oh, and please spare me all the anecdotal "I do my shopping one bag at a time throughout the week and take the train just fine" bullshit. No family shops like that, so don't even try.

It's really obnoxious how everyone on this forum has this bizarre attitude of car=bad or parking lot=bad

if you dont live within walking of a grocery store, you are NOT living in a CITY.

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

if you dont live within walking of a grocery store, you are NOT living in a CITY.

Some of us in certain areas of the city live in what's called a Food Desert. I don't consider Aldi's a real grocery store. The nearest grocery store to me is more than 1 1/2 miles away. There are no modern full service grocers in the Woodlawn Community.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Saw plans for the proposal for Pioneer Court in front of 401 N. Michigan Avenue.

I can't say too much, but I will say

No tenants have been signed just yet, although we all suspect Apple.

And one last hint on how things could go......

I've been hoping for a Foster design in Chicago. I wish it were something more monolithic and thus more permanent but I will take what I can get.

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by sentinel

I find this attitude a lot among Chicagoans, and it's also the strongest 'townie superiority complex/mild xenophobia' that I've ever encountered anywhere in the U.S. Perhaps it's a function of less education, geographic location, generational pride, hard-wired yokel intransigence or a magic mix of all of the preceding ingredients..who knows?

Maybe Chicago is just the city with the most whiners?

So, the best method to counter someone who paints with a very broad brush is to paint with an even broader one. Brilliant.

[Ryanrule]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

I always laugh about how people say america is a 'free market economy' I tell them, oh yea? Go try and sell something on the street and see how well that goes

its harder here, but go try to start an actual business elsewhere. here its a matter of days. elsewhere it can be months with much $$ in bribery/bureaucracy oil.