HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #15701  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 1:02 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post

To me it seems like a no brainer to add an infill station to an existing line to service United Center especially in a high public transit usage city like Chicago.
Of course it's a no-brainer, but Chicago sometimes moves painfully slow on grasping the obvious.

The Paulina connector was first built in 1895. The Chicago stadium (the United center's predecessor that once stood on Madison just north of the current arena) opened in 1929.

So the city has only had 93 years to make a station there happen. I think we're gonna need a minimum of three decades of study to figure out if building an infill stop along an existing rapid transit line that's only 750 feet from the front door of a 20,000 seat arena that hosts 200 events/year is a good idea or not.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15702  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 3:15 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Nobody read my post, as expected.

I said why does it need to built NOW, in 2022.

In 1900 L stops spurred development. Why? Because to thrive, a neighborhood required L access. They were utterly vital.

Today, it makes sense for L stops to get thrown into the mix AFTER significant development happens.

It makes more sense that way. Build it too early, and you run the risk of having a $200 million station in the middle of nothing. But if a place is up and coming, seeing a lot of development and investment, then you have a case. Early on people arrive by car, bike, foot, Uber, etc. but that limits growth capacity and you build an L stop.

Stop this “back in 1900 they were wiser” bullshit. They weren’t wiser. They had fewer options.
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15703  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 3:19 AM
MAC123 MAC123 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: Deadend town, Flyover State.
Posts: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Nobody read my post, as expected.

I said why does it need to built NOW, in 2022.

In 1900 L stops spurred development. Why? Because to thrive, a neighborhood required L access. They were utterly vital.

Today, it makes sense for L stops to get thrown into the mix AFTER significant development happens.

It makes more sense that way. Build it too early, and you run the risk of having a $200 million station in the middle of nothing. But if a place is up and coming, seeing a lot of development and investment, then you have a case. Early on people arrive by car, bike, foot, Uber, etc. but that limits growth capacity and you build an L stop.

Stop this “back in 1900 they were wiser” bullshit. They weren’t wiser. They had fewer options.
Steely Dan, first sentence in his reply.
"because a 20,000 seat arena that hosts 200 events/year and sits within 750' of an existing rapid transit ROW would already have a dedicated stop in any city that wasn't stupid."
__________________
NYC - 20 Supertalls (including UC)
NYC - Future 2035 supertalls - 45 + not including anything that gets newly proposed between now and then (which will likely put it over 50)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15704  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 3:23 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
^ That’s not an answer, that’s a value judgement that is the same thing as saying “Trains are cool that’s why”, which is what I predicted people here would say.

If a L stop were necessary for UC to thrive, they would’ve asked for one. But I guess somehow UC got filled to capacity year after year without one.

Reread the post I just made above which explains when I think an L stop would be justified.
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15705  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 3:44 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
Of course it's a no-brainer, but Chicago sometimes moves painfully slow on grasping the obvious.

The Paulina connector was first built in 1895. The Chicago stadium (the United center's predecessor that once stood on Madison just north of the current arena) opened in 1929.

So the city has only had 93 years to make a station there happen. I think we're gonna need a minimum of three decades of study to figure out if building an infill stop along an existing rapid transit line that's only 750 feet from the front door of a 20,000 seat arena that hosts 200 events/year is a good idea or not.


When the Paulina connector (the old Metropolitan West Side elevated) opened in 1895, there *was* a Madison St. station at Madison and Paulina. It was closed in the 1950s when the Met northwest branch was rerouted through the Milwaukee/Dearborn subway and the Paulina connector became non revenue. The station was demolished a few decades later.

So its even worse that the city not acting, Steely. The city actually had the infrastructure, and they demolished it. And this is why we drink so heavily.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15706  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 3:45 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,625
TUP, you're arguing in bad faith here.

sadly, that's become the norm for you.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"

Last edited by Steely Dan; Feb 2, 2022 at 5:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15707  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 3:47 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,369
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I said why does it need to built NOW, in 2022.
There is a such thing as induced demand. Build it, and they will come. That area is very prime real estate, it wont take much for development to flood over from the already booming Fulton Market. A transit station would definitely help speed up the area's conversion to more productive use than just empty lots for car storage (and more tax revenue for the city as a result).
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15708  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:40 AM
thegoatman thegoatman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Posts: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Who's priority?

Why should building an L stop to the UC be a priority to Chicago and its taxpayers?

I'm not asking why it should be a priority to Skyscraperpage enthusiasts who think trains that they hardly use are cool and that "it will make us more hip like Barcelona", although I am sure that it is from this exact perspective that my answer will arise.

The question is: why does Chicago need an L stop built today, in 2022, at 2022? It won't do diddly shit for anybody. And it will cost like $200 million.
What an asinine statement. What makes Chicago better than 99% of US cities is that it's transit friendly, walkable, and very urban. Why the hell should we not continue investing in transit especially in future hotspots like the UC? And nobody uses? We have the best transit system in the country aside from the NYC metro. We're third in ridership just behind NYC and DC. Making our city more transit accesible and bikeable/walkable is key to a sustainable city.

Guess we should be like suburban hellholes such as Atlanta/Houston/Dallas and continue expanding highways and building surface parking lots for more cars Houston keeps expanding the Katy Freeway yet traffic is still a shithole, mhmm...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15709  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 6:15 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 5,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
There is a such thing as induced demand. Build it, and they will come. That area is very prime real estate, it wont take much for development to flood over from the already booming Fulton Market. A transit station would definitely help speed up the area's conversion to more productive use than just empty lots for car storage (and more tax revenue for the city as a result).
Yep. Check out the T Third line in 2011:
https://goo.gl/maps/JdZipyTysGcbCWbE9
https://goo.gl/maps/BCFCV4v9oZBXgfEM8

And 10 years later:
https://goo.gl/maps/Bm3Ff2MiiNNyCFTN6
https://goo.gl/maps/7LAqybzpEJo3YYjM7

And basketball and hockey are not big tailgating sports so it's not like you need the arena to be surrounded by a sea of parking lots. And it's not even like you'd need to build a whole new line just to add a station. Adding an infill station to an existing line should be relatively easy and inexpensive, especially compared to amount of added service it would provide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15710  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 2:25 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 thegoatman View Post
What an asinine statement. What makes Chicago better than 99% of US cities is that it's transit friendly, walkable, and very urban. Why the hell should we not continue investing in transit especially in future hotspots like the UC? And nobody uses? We have the best transit system in the country aside from the NYC metro. We're third in ridership just behind NYC and DC. Making our city more transit accesible and bikeable/walkable is key to a sustainable city.

Guess we should be like suburban hellholes such as Atlanta/Houston/Dallas and continue expanding highways and building surface parking lots for more cars Houston keeps expanding the Katy Freeway yet traffic is still a shithole, mhmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
TUP, you're arguing in bad faith here.

Adios.
^ To which I respond again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ That’s not an answer, that’s a value judgement that is the same thing as saying “Trains are cool that’s why”, which is what I predicted people here would say.

If a L stop were necessary for UC to thrive, they would’ve asked for one. But I guess somehow UC got filled to capacity year after year without one.

Reread the post I just made above which explains when I think an L stop would be justified.
Here are some responses that more properly address my point, these guys actually read what I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by left of center View Post
There is a such thing as induced demand. Build it, and they will come. That area is very prime real estate, it wont take much for development to flood over from the already booming Fulton Market. A transit station would definitely help speed up the area's conversion to more productive use than just empty lots for car storage (and more tax revenue for the city as a result).
Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
Yep. Check out the T Third line in 2011:
https://goo.gl/maps/JdZipyTysGcbCWbE9
https://goo.gl/maps/BCFCV4v9oZBXgfEM8

And 10 years later:
https://goo.gl/maps/Bm3Ff2MiiNNyCFTN6
https://goo.gl/maps/7LAqybzpEJo3YYjM7

And basketball and hockey are not big tailgating sports so it's not like you need the arena to be surrounded by a sea of parking lots. And it's not even like you'd need to build a whole new line just to add a station. Adding an infill station to an existing line should be relatively easy and inexpensive, especially compared to amount of added service it would provide.
^ I think UC is obviously in better shape than some other areas where L stops are surrounded by big fields.

But I still think we are a long way off before a $200 million train stop is justified. If L stops didn't cost so much to build then it would be more of a slam dunk. But they are insanely expensive nowadays!
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15711  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 4:55 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 2,369
If you think they are expensive now TUP, I'm fairly certain you won't like what the price tag will look like in 10 years, where it could easily be double.

Why wait to build it then, when the city would also lose on potentially a decade's worth of higher property tax revenue with the property redevelopment that will occur within a half mile radius of the station? The UC neighborhood's gentrification is essentially a sure thing, and happening now even. There are new developments on Madison as far as Western. The city adding fuel to the fire is an investment in the neighborhood's viability and city's finances. Gotta spend money to make money, right?
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15712  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:21 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
But I still think we are a long way off before a $200 million train stop is justified. If L stops didn't cost so much to build then it would be more of a slam dunk. But they are insanely expensive nowadays!
Well, the Damen stop is slated to cost only $80M. You might be thinking of State/Lake or Washington/Wabash, which are more expensive because they're downtown and construction is tricky down there. Damen is still too expensive at that $80M price, so it's understandable why the city doesn't go hog-wild adding L stops everywhere there is some development - or might be some development.

But again, it takes two to tango and the stadium owners have no intention of encouraging transit use or developing their lots. The city needs at least one of those two things, ideally both, to justify a new station. The last time the owners talked about development, it was just being used as a carrot for them to get more huge tax breaks. And even that was pretty limited, only one parking lot, where the teams eventually built their office building. They know the city wants redevelopment, but the owners clearly weren't interested in redevelopment for its own sake, even though it could be profitable to them.

You can't fix stupid. Just gotta wait for Reinsdorf to die - I'm guessing Wirtz might be more open to development, but Reinsdorf manages TWO stadiums with huge ugly parking moats. Ironic as Reinsdorf made his money in real estate

That tax break, by the way (which Rahm refused to give them) was large enough to fund a new station even at CTA's inflated costs. There is certainly a deal to be made where TIF funding from the parking lot development can pay for a station and/or other infrastructure in the area.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Feb 2, 2022 at 5:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15713  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:37 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 left of center View Post
If you think they are expensive now TUP, I'm fairly certain you won't like what the price tag will look like in 10 years, where it could easily be double.

Why wait to build it then, when the city would also lose on potentially a decade's worth of higher property tax revenue with the property redevelopment that will occur within a half mile radius of the station? The UC neighborhood's gentrification is essentially a sure thing, and happening now even. There are new developments on Madison as far as Western. The city adding fuel to the fire is an investment in the neighborhood's viability and city's finances. Gotta spend money to make money, right?
You first need a plan before you put in that investment. You don't just spend the taxpayer's money that way and "hope for the best"

As Ardecila is saying, you need the owners of UC to play ball. Get them on board, negotiate a complex land swap/land use type of deal with them so that development is even possible. Then get some proposals out to developers, then you can maybe start talking about adding an L stop with a timeline, etc to get the ball rolling.

You don't just look at the huge parking lot, do nothing, and say "Gee lets build a massive L stop here" without all of those other moves.
__________________
The only thing better than a V10 is a V12
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15714  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:40 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,755
Right. Development isn't a force of nature, it's never "inevitable". You could see it that way if you have a free market, where land is owned by many different owners that are competing. The sum of many individual decisions, made independently, can feel like a force of nature.

But the area around the UC is not a free market - the land is basically owned by a cartel. The land may get developed on all sides around it, but the cartel will keep using their land as parking so long as it is profitable to do so. They also have a lot of political power, so don't look to the city to strong-arm them into changing anything.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15715  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:42 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post

You don't just look at the huge parking lot, do nothing, and say "Gee lets build a massive L stop here" without all of those other moves.
and absolutely no one here has argued for such.

here is what i actually said in reply to ardecila before you went off on some bad-faith rant about it:


Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The management of the UC has made no indications that they want to encourage fans to arrive by transit. If they’re not serious about it, the city shouldn’t be either. It has to be a partnership to turn the UC into a transit-oriented facility like MSG, Barclays or CapitalOne Arena.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
again, in a less ass-backwards city, every single last lever of pressure would've have been brought to bear by the city upon the UC's shitty ownership to turn it into a more of a transit-oriented facility.

don't ask, dictate!
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15716  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:46 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,199
Do they really own ALL those lots? Even the ones to the east of pink line? Rush may even own some of the property to the southeast of the stadium, not sure. I have no skin in the game, I have no trouble walking from the IMD blue line or I usually pregame on Madison and take their shuttles over. Seems like there are better spots to put stations in our system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15717  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:49 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 15,755
I will also note that this isn't a Chicago problem, it's an American problem. There are very few examples of cities being able to dictate terms to sports teams. Even NYC can't manage to get Madison Square Garden from squatting on top of its biggest transit hub.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21 View Post
Do they really own ALL those lots? Even the ones to the east of pink line? Rush may even own some of the property to the southeast of the stadium, not sure. I have no skin in the game, I have no trouble walking from the IMD blue line or I usually pregame on Madison and take their shuttles over. Seems like there are better spots to put stations in our system.
The United Center doesn't own all the lots, but there is a tight club of parking lot owners who leech on the team like parasites. They all charge basically the same rates and I'm sure there is some collusion going on. Institutions like Rush and the Teamsters also own parking lots, but those aren't typically used for event parking.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15718  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:54 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 26,625
^ there has to be some lever of power the city can exert over reinsdorf/wirtz to get them to play ball.
__________________
"every time a strip mall dies, an angel gets its wings"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15719  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 5:58 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
^ there has to be some lever of power the city can exert over reinsdorf/wirtz to get them to play ball.
CTA should buy up as much of the land as possible, develop the station, and then sell it . But we all know it doesn't work that way...
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15720  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2022, 6:12 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 5,479
Why wouldn't the United Center and whoever else owns these parking lots want these lots to get developed? Wouldn't it be more valuable as mixed use development rather than parking? That's what the Giants did with their massive parking lots. After full build out, there will essentially be no more surface parking lots left.





Quote:
The Mission Rock development is led by Mission Rock Partner, a joint venture with Tishman Speyer and the property owners, The San Francisco Giants. At full build-out, the 28 acres is expected to create roughly 3.6 million square feet of floor area with approximately 1,200 new homes, up to 1.7 million square feet of office space, 150-250,000 square feet of retail or entertainment, parking for 3,000 vehicles, and the rehabilitation of Pier 48 for a new use. Landscaping across the project will open up eight acres of public parkland. Around two-fifths of all units are expected to be affordable housing to help lower and middle-income households.
https://sfyimby.com/2021/12/sfyimby-...francisco.html
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 > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:07 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.