CHICAGO | General Developments

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

no one said "everyone". you, however, said "no one" and got swiftly served.

im honestly not sure what point you're trying to make, and i doubt you do either. but enjoy trolling!

I find Tom funny because he complains about traffic often, yet continues to drive everywhere apparently.

I hate driving and traffic personally, when living in a large urban area, traffic tends to be bad. So I avoid it as much as possible

[Tom Servo]

I complain about shit that annoys me and applaud shit that is cool. I tend to complain a lot on this forum because, well the Internet is a good outlet, but mostly because shit that annoys me often tends to accumulate here. I actually rarely complain about anything in real life. And I'm pretty damn good at getting through traffic with relative ease.

Originally Posted by PKDickman

Bout frickin time!

Did the demo in May 2014

Got the PD passed early in Dec.

I know they been waiting on a permit ever since.

I love the way the city enters the application date the same as the issue date. That way everything looks like same day service.

I scrolled right past this until just now. Wow. Very nice. The recent development along the Blue Line is quite remarkable.

[mattshoe]

'Ambitious' 275-Unit Wicker Park Project to Connect Division and Milwaukee.

This seems like it would be a great addition to the neighborhood, and get rid of a huge vacant piece of land right in the middle Milwaukee and Division.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...-public-spaces

[aaron38]

I find the grocery shopping by car thing to be much ado about nothing. One short weekly trip to the grocery store simply does not generate enough traffic to matter all that much. It's also not akin to rush hour - the entire city does not run to Jewel on Saturday morning at 9am.
For myself, I enjoy the 0.8 mile walk to the Jewel on nice days. My son's wagon really ups the carrying capacity for groceries. Or if I'm biking I'll swing a couple bags over the handlebars if we need a few things. But if I'm going to do the big stock up the house trip, or buy a ton of stuff for a 30 person cast party, having my car on the street for 3 minutes isn't the end of the world.

But I did have to comment on this:

Originally Posted by emathias

If a full block is taken over by large grocery story + large surface lot, that means a number of things: 1) people without cars have to walk further for groceries, 2) people without cars have to walk further for other items because there is now 1 block fewer people and/or services available in a given area.

I don't agree.
1) In a dense urban area full of residential buildings, the only people who wouldn't have to walk further are the ones who would live at that parking lot. Anyone living 3 blocks away walks 3 blocks whether they pass a parking lot or a building.
2) If the parking lot gets replaced by an office building with a first floor lobby, or residential without first floor retail, then everyone around that building has the exact same access to services as they did before.

I could argue that 151 Franklin is bad for the people living in the loop because it replaces the services of a Walgreens with an office building lobby, and everyone has to walk further for milk.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by aaron38

I find the grocery shopping by car thing to be much ado about nothing. One short weekly trip to the grocery store simply does not generate enough traffic to matter all that much. It's also not akin to rush hour - the entire city does not run to Jewel on Saturday morning at 9am.
For myself, I enjoy the 0.8 mile walk to the Jewel on nice days. My son's wagon really ups the carrying capacity for groceries. Or if I'm biking I'll swing a couple bags over the handlebars if we need a few things. But if I'm going to do the big stock up the house trip, or buy a ton of stuff for a 30 person cast party, having my car on the street for 3 minutes isn't the end of the world.

But I did have to comment on this:


I don't agree.
1) In a dense urban area full of residential buildings, the only people who wouldn't have to walk further are the ones who would live at that parking lot. Anyone living 3 blocks away walks 3 blocks whether they pass a parking lot or a building.
2) If the parking lot gets replaced by an office building with a first floor lobby, or residential without first floor retail, then everyone around that building has the exact same access to services as they did before.

I could argue that 151 Franklin is bad for the people living in the loop because it replaces the services of a Walgreens with an office building lobby, and everyone has to walk further for milk.

There's also a systemic dynamic. Large-format stores with parking to accommodate peak demand fulfill demand for a far greater area than smaller stores. This precludes other stores from opening proximal to an existing large store, and this has the effect of spreading stores even further apart, creating a disincentive to walk, leading to more vehicles trips (see the positive feedback cycle). This establishes precedents and culture that play into that transit mode; supply creates demand--people see that they can drive and park to a store near them, so they're going to opt for that mode when heading out the door (thus creating yet more demand for these store types). Once initial and sustaining causes have been set, it's hard to revert back to more numerous, smaller-sized stores, because you have a revert the culture as well, to some extent.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by emathias

it's that large surface lots create a number of issues in an urban environment and make it harder for people without cars to live their lives by reducing density in all forms.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Hardly.

Hardly? Can you please explain your logic here? Because I was under the impression that surface lots reduce the pedestrian experience, which most people consider vital to urbanism.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Again, most of you guys aren't from Chicago.

This is not an argument. It's ad hominen. I also don't think it's true. And even if it is, it's meaningless. The lifestyle of transplants is just as legitimate as that of the natives. You are not privy to a "real Chicago" because you grew up within the City proper. In fact, the experience has probably severely crippled your imagination if you can't even fathom that a significant portion of the City's residents manage perfectly fine without a car. You've been a contributor (a designation that's grown looser and looser) to this forum for how many years and still maintain the same parochial mindset as you did when you started. It's like you're immune to other viewpoints no matter how well (often better) substantiated they are.

I also have a real problem with "this isn't New York or Europe." Most of us aspire for the City to be more like those places. Not in every way, of course, but in fundamental ways: better transit infrastructure, more walkable, less car-dependent. The status quo and anything that reinforces it is therefore unacceptable. Progress-- even incremental change, baby steps-- is the goal. Does the surface lot need to be so large? What about roof parking? Sure, in this particular case such recommendations must be weighed against the benefit of economic development in an area that really needs it, though only if you assume the stakes are all-or-nothing. But your argument doesn't even have that kind of nuance. Your argument was that all Chicagoans-- the Chicagoans that matter, anyway-- use cars to get their groceries. As your fellow forumers have shown, it's an assertion that's demonstrably false.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

...
This is not an argument. It's ad hominen. I also don't think it's true. And even if it is, it's meaningless. The lifestyle of transplants is just as legitimate as that of the natives. You are not privy to a "real Chicago" because you grew up within the City proper. In fact, the experience has probably severely crippled your imagination if you can't even fathom that a significant portion of the City's residents manage perfectly fine without a car. You've been a contributor (a designation that's grown looser and looser) to this forum for how many years and still maintain the same parochial mindset as you did when you started. It's like you're immune to other viewpoints no matter how well (often better) substantiated they are.

I also have a real problem with "this isn't New York or Europe." Most of us aspire for the City to be more like those places. Not in every way, of course, but in fundamental ways: better transit infrastructure, more walkable, less car-dependent. The status quo and anything that reinforces it is therefore unacceptable. Progress-- even incremental change, baby steps-- is the goal. Does the surface lot need to be so large? What about roof parking? Sure, in this particular case such recommendations must be weighed against the benefit of economic development in an area that really needs it, though only if you assume the stakes are all-or-nothing. But your argument doesn't even have that kind of nuance. Your argument was that all Chicagoans-- the Chicagoans that matter, anyway-- use cars to get their groceries. As your fellow forumers have shown, it's an assertion that's demonstrably false.

Your answer here you gave was to a quote you attributed to me which I didn't write. Please correct that - it's not a huge deal, but I wouldn't have said that quote and don't really want people thinking I said it.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by emathias

Your answer here you gave was to a quote you attributed to me which I didn't write. Please correct that - it's not a huge deal, but I wouldn't have said that quote and don't really want people thinking I said it.

Sorry about that. Fixed.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

Again, most of you guys aren't from Chicago. You've almost all seemingly moved here with this romanticized idea of what Chicago is, but it just isn't that way.

Oh, and that makes my opinion any less valid because I didn't grow up in Chicago? Get the fuck out of here. In any city, without people moving there, the cities would be dead economically. The one thing I hate about Chicago, even though I love the city, is people like you. People who have lived here for 35 years and think that their opinion is more valid than anybody else's about being able to walk to get their groceries. So I move here, and automatically my opinion doesn't matter? All my experience in other places to make a city better don't mean anything? You just want to sit there and being content with everything?

You've been here so long that it's clouded your judgement about what a city is, obviously and you simply are too blinded and stupid to realize that tons of people in the city either (a) don't use cars or (b) hardly ever use them. And you're also clouded to see what people actually do in the fucking city. Not all of it, but there's large swaths of it where you're obviously out of touch with reality?

And guess what? These types of things, being able to go around the corner to walk to a store, is what has been attracting people who are either single or don't have kids to live here. A lot of people in their 20s and 30s, especially in the tech and creative industries, increasingly don't want to be dependent on a car. If you don't think this, then you're out of touch with yet one more thing. Be prepared to see a decline in what is right now a fast growing sector if people like you have your way.

[wierdaaron]

Guess who's got two opposable thumbs and is going to a "grand opening" at the British School South Loop next week with special guest appearance by da'mayor.

[Near North Resident]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Oh, and that makes my opinion any less valid because I didn't grow up in Chicago? Get the fuck out of here. In any city, without people moving there, the cities would be dead economically. The one thing I hate about Chicago, even though I love the city, is people like you. People who have lived here for 35 years and think that their opinion is more valid than anybody else's about being able to walk to get their groceries. So I move here, and automatically my opinion doesn't matter? All my experience in other places to make a city better don't mean anything? You just want to sit there and being content with everything?

You've been here so long that it's clouded your judgement about what a city is, obviously and you simply are too blinded and stupid to realize that tons of people in the city either (a) don't use cars or (b) hardly ever use them. And you're also clouded to see what people actually do in the fucking city. Not all of it, but there's large swaths of it where you're obviously out of touch with reality?

And guess what? These types of things, being able to go around the corner to walk to a store, is what has been attracting people who are either single or don't have kids to live here. A lot of people in their 20s and 30s, especially in the tech and creative industries, increasingly don't want to be dependent on a car. If you don't think this, then you're out of touch with yet one more thing. Be prepared to see a decline in what is right now a fast growing sector if people like you have your way.

Thats a great line of thinking if people stayed 20-30 years old forever, however once you crap out some kids in your later years, your priorities change quite drastically. If you want to keep families in the city you need to accomidate them too, and sadly most folks that have kids also have a car (or two) and need to use it to grocery shop, truck their kid around to various activities, family things, blah blah blah

You are being very myopic thinking you''ll never desire a car. I lived without one for many years in my 20's and upon entering my 30's it just became more of a hassle to not have one and was willing to deal with it.

Basically having no car saves tons of money, having a car saves tons of time. Once your time is more valuable than the money you save the tradeoff takes place

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

worst retailer bar none

id rather see a flagship MCDs go in that space than another fucking drug store. we could never build another drug store in this city for the rest of eternity and we'd still be set.

It's funny to me they are building this so close. I work at 333 W Wacker and I have to walk at least 3 full blocks to a drugstore! Granted, the Walgreens recently closed at 151 N Franklin, but it's just surprising to me that I have to go out of my way to find a Walgreens or CVS.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Jibba

There's also a systemic dynamic. Large-format stores with parking to accommodate peak demand fulfill demand for a far greater area than smaller stores. This precludes other stores from opening proximal to an existing large store, and this has the effect of spreading stores even further apart, creating a disincentive to walk, leading to more vehicles trips (see the positive feedback cycle).

That's more an argument against big box stores. I'm not sure that fighting parking is the best way to combat that. Can't hurt though.

But are people really willing to drive longer if they don't have to? Just because I've hopped in my car doesn't make me more willing to drive 20 minutes to Costco vs. 3 minutes to Jewel. To be honest I've yet to find a single must have item at Costco and didn't even renew membership this year.

Also, my single family suburban hood supports a small Jewel, Walgreens and a bodega all within a mile of each other. I find it hard to believe a much denser urban area can't do the same.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

Thats a great line of thinking if people stayed 20-30 years old forever, however once you crap out some kids in your later years, your priorities change quite drastically. If you want to keep families in the city you need to accomidate them too, and sadly most folks that have kids also have a car (or two) and need to use it to grocery shop, truck their kid around to various activities, family things, blah blah blah

You are being very myopic thinking you''ll never desire a car. I lived without one for many years in my 20's and upon entering my 30's it just became more of a hassle to not have one and was willing to deal with it.

Basically having no car saves tons of money, having a car saves tons of time. Once your time is more valuable than the money you save the tradeoff takes place

Sorry, that wasn't really my point. My point was that requiring everyone to drive is not going to be good. I totally understand the point about families, but I wasn't trying to include that in here. Sorry if I was. I'm not a complete idiot and think that nobody should own cars. Cars can be very useful depending on what you're doing, but again - my point was that the city should be welcoming to both walkable and cars. Tom seems like he basically just shits on everyone who decides to not own a car but IMO, there needs to be a big balance.

The thing about markets is another story though. In most cities in the US outside of NYC it doesn't work well because the stores selling real food aren't nearly as dense. Have you been to Europe much? In some cities I've been to, there are little storefronts in many places to just get fresh fruits and vegetables. Istanbul is one place that has a lot of it - they have popped up because a lot of people there either don't have cars or don't use them if they do. So there's always a fresh fruit/vegetable storefront every few blocks in some neighborhoods. Nobody ever has a problem with this. You walk 2 blocks max, pick up some stuff for the night and voila. You aren't wasting much time by having to ride public transit to go to the store or walk 3/4 a mile. Many families live in these areas and survive that way without any real big consequences. In reality, this is the way that most people have lived for as long as cities have existed. There's always been vendors selling one of the ultimate necessities for human life, food, around where people actually live. Not this "go 3 miles by train or car to get some groceries." And when people weren't in cities, they were producing their own food.



The guys behind Streetwise (I think) were trying to do this by making these fresh produce stands but of course, people in town seemingly shat all over it, probably because homeless people were manning them.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by marothisu

http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...ces-retail.php

I'm surprised they didn't try and push this all the way to the alley, to have end units with more windows. Is this built right to the lot line with no windows on the side? Good opportunity then for a later development to end cap it.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The thing about markets is another story though. In most cities in the US outside of NYC it doesn't work well because the stores selling real food aren't nearly as dense. Have you been to Europe much? In some cities I've been to, there are little storefronts in many places to just get fresh fruits and vegetables. Istanbul is one place that has a lot of it - they have popped up because a lot of people there either don't have cars or don't use them if they do. So there's always a fresh fruit/vegetable storefront every few blocks in some neighborhoods. Nobody ever has a problem with this. You walk 2 blocks max, pick up some stuff for the night and voila.

Toronto, too.



i dont fully understand how this kind of thing manages to work in some cities and not other, other than I imagine Chicago must have stricter food storage requirements, outside of farmers markets. Which in this case is a shame, because its stuff like this that adds texture to the street level experience, and makes little impulsive decisions like "oh, im just gonna grab some fruit and veggies for the day" while out for a walk possible.

grocery stores are overwhelming and in American culture its more of a planned thing to go out and buy a ton of shit for the next week off a list.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by mattshoe

That is pretty cool. I like how the alley zigzags, it'll look really different from different angles and create some interesting urban spaces. Hopefully this progresses past Phase 1.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Toronto, too.



i dont fully understand how this kind of thing manages to work in some cities and not other, other than I imagine Chicago must have stricter food storage requirements, outside of farmers markets. Which in this case is a shame, because its stuff like this that adds texture to the street level experience, and makes little impulsive decisions like "oh, im just gonna grab some fruit and veggies for the day" while out for a walk possible.

grocery stores are overwhelming and in American culture its more of a planned thing to go out and buy a ton of shit for the next week off a list.

Nice pic. Yep. NYC has it too in some places (though the bodegas selling sandwiches, sodas, etc are more common). I totally agree with you and not only does it make a street more vibrant, but it creates a better opportunity for multiple different classes to be able to live in the city.

I don't know, maybe I'm old world, but whenever I'm in Europe, I love walking down the street and being able to buy an apple without even stepping into a building within 30 seconds.

[Mr Downtown]

Though I think the number of parking stalls provided is largely a business judgment best left up to the retailer, the location and design of parking lots is very much a matter of public (and therefore regulatory) concern. Parking lots are dead spaces along the streetscape, made no less so because there are other uses that also create dead frontage. Driveways into parking lots are conflict points for pedestrians and cyclists.

Traditionally, the solution was parking on half of a long block and the supermarket on the other half, holding the traditional sidewalk, so the store was convenient to those arriving by foot, on transit, or by car. But as shopping by car became commonplace, the parking lots got bigger and the pedestrian experience eroded. More recently, there are promising experiments with rooftop parking, but it's interesting that the supermarket operators still feel it's vital to their business to have a few ground-level spaces for folks who think they're "just running in for a couple of things." Witness Jewel at Broadway & Addison, or Mariano's at Clark & 16th.

Would this be a non-issue if people were satisfied with little food stores right on their block, and shopping several times a week? Of course, but that's trying to turn back time in many ways, including most women being full-time homemakers and immigrant shopkeepers working the entire family long hours for low pay. It also is completely at odds with a society that wants the very best fresh pasta or specialized produce, not good-enough bread and canned peaches. When people are complaining that Target's produce isn't good enough, they're not likely to be happy with a 4,000-square-foot bodega only stocking 600 SKUs.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by aaron38

...
I don't agree.
1) In a dense urban area full of residential buildings, the only people who wouldn't have to walk further are the ones who would live at that parking lot. Anyone living 3 blocks away walks 3 blocks whether they pass a parking lot or a building.
2) If the parking lot gets replaced by an office building with a first floor lobby, or residential without first floor retail, then everyone around that building has the exact same access to services as they did before.
...

I think you misunderstand both my point and the larger concept. If there are more people in an area, there can be more stores, and if the stores are smaller, there will be more stores, meaning that in comparing two community systems, one with smaller stores and more people will have shorter average walks because there will be more stores dispersed. Of course if the only change you make is to put people on the parking lot, there would be limited value although, even then, the *average* walking time for residents would go down because of the reduced time for the people on the former parking lot. Even if it's replaced with an office building, the office workers have a better experience.

Originally Posted by Near North Resident

Thats a great line of thinking if people stayed 20-30 years old forever, however once you crap out some kids in your later years, your priorities change quite drastically. If you want to keep families in the city you need to accomidate them too, and sadly most folks that have kids also have a car (or two) and need to use it to grocery shop, truck their kid around to various activities, family things, blah blah blah

You are being very myopic thinking you''ll never desire a car. I lived without one for many years in my 20's and upon entering my 30's it just became more of a hassle to not have one and was willing to deal with it.

Basically having no car saves tons of money, having a car saves tons of time. Once your time is more valuable than the money you save the tradeoff takes place

Cars can save time, sometimes, but it's a more complex formula than many people are willing to admit.

The advent of things like ZipCar further complicates the formula because suddenly you have relatively easy access to a car without owning a car yourself.

I'm over 40. I don't have kids. I earn enough that many of my peer workers who do own cars drive Mercedes and BMWs and other luxury makes. But I don't own a car because I've structured my life to not need to. I do, of course, have a number of friends and coworkers who have kids and some of them have structured their lives to not use a car on a regular basis. In their income bracket, they have a car because, well, why not, but not all of them actually use it more than weekly and those who do are using it mainly to commute to a job in the suburbs.

I have no problem with people deciding to move to the suburbs or try to adopt a suburban lifestyle within the city. I do have a problem with those same people telling everyone else that doing so is a foregone conclusion because it's not. There are alternatives and rational choices that not taking such steps perfectly workable and, based on personal preference, preferable. And I have a problem with people advocating that densely urban areas be reduced in density to accommodate their lifestyle choices. If you want a suburban lifestyle the vast majority of the region is built to accommodate that. There is no need to try and make the relatively tiny portion that isn't built out to support a suburban lifestyle into a format that supports a suburban lifestyle. And that means stop requiring suburban-style parking in non-suburban areas (in this context, many of the outer areas of the City proper are "suburban" in structure, so I'm ok with parking lots there). But anywhere within 1/2 miles of the "L" system or the lakefront? Bugger off - there is absolutely zero reason to advocate for, let alone require, suburban-style features in developments there, and even if those conditions already exist the city should be working to reduce or eliminate them, not continue or expand them. The choice to live a suburban lifestyle is perfectly fine. But so should the choice to live an urban one, and the City has a responsibility to make sure that that urban choice is not just allowed, but maintained and, when appropriate, expanded in the parts of the City best suited to accommodate them.