Milwaukee Avenue Development Boom (Chicago, West Chicago: appointed, renters, condo)

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by chet everett

Sheesh you folks just are loopy -- it is not that development is bad, it is like Drover said, when you allow developers to plop down poorly thoughtout buildings IN AREA THAT HAS AN OVERBURDENED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE that is not just bad planning it is something WILL DIMINISH THE AREA'S DESIRABILITY.

And yet the areas in Chicago that are most impacted by crowded trains/busses happen to be the most expensive. To be clear, for the rational people in this thread like Attril and Drover, developer allowances in increased density should come with a cost to do things like reconfigure the stupid awful Milwaukee/Rockwell intersection, among other things.
But I get the feeling that's not what you're blabbering on about.

This is really standard planning that happens with any major development in a suburb -- when they redeveloped the old Toll Authority HQ site in Oak Brook they added lanes to the roadways, additional traffic control devices and reconfigured exit ramps. They could do becuase the site was HUGE and when the built the new site a few miles further west they moved thing like the State Police facility to its own separate sub-plot with access to both I-88 and the newly built I-355. That is a whole lot more costly to do in a part of Chicago where there are no "green grass sites" and the private land owners are not going to sell any of their valuable retail frontage for less than a huge premium.

Just like your hilarious comparison of these developments with Bensenville, developing a site in Oak Brook has nothing in common with Logan Square. Its obvious you don't get how its possible to live without a car, and people using bikes for transportation positively annoys you. But this bias prevents you from realizing the rather obvious fact that Logan Square development is fundamentally different from building a Costco in Oak Brook.

Adding hundreds of units might make sense if is there was capacity to run more El trains or buses or give people a better some other options but previous decisions to allow things like the CVS with its suburan style parking lot or the police facility with its similarly "Schaumburg-style" wasteful use of land area all point to the fact this is area is NOT equiped to handle the kinds of densities that are being allowed.

There is capacity to run more blue line trains. Leaving aside the comment about how two poorly developed sites mean the area cannot support properly developed sites elsewhere (??), the days are numbered for that CVS. The value of that land will soon be too high to support it holding empty parking spots 24 hours a day.

And once more, it must be noted that population in Logan Square went down over the last 14 years. These developments will also be replacing population lost via gentrification.

Once upon a time the city bent over backwards to try to entice developers to open stores in the Elston corridor. Those retailers all wanted big suburban strip mall parking lots. They got what they wanted and those strip malls are mostly doing well but the longer term future of Logan Square is now emperiled by a disregard for how keep land uses in balance. There are methods of looking at the traffic volumes and transit ridership and even pedestrian surveys that real professional planners are capable of producing. If the Alderman allow reckless overbuilding things will eventually lose their desirability.

I'm trying to figure out the point here. Developers wanted to build big boxes on Elston, they did, and they are mainly successful. Cool. Again, point to an area in Chicago that is worse off because its empty lots were developed in the last 20 years with higher end condos/apartments. The South Loop had its issues after the recession for a few years, but that area is now recovered and is undoubtedly a better place to live now than it was in 1995.

If it gets bad enough you eventually hurt the ability of businesses to get appropriate amounts of shoppers -- people are not going to Costco to bring home three dozen rolls of toilet paper on a Divy bike or to the Home Depot carrying a 4x8 sheet plywood back home on the El.

.

Pointless old man yells at cloud Chet rambling. I bet if you thought a little harder you could figure out how people without cars manage home depot trips for large items. I'm sure the owners of Home Depot and Costco are perfectly okay knowing there will be a few thousand additional middle/upper class customers in their radius.

. In the immortal words of John McNulty (often mis-attributed to Yogi Berra) -- "Nobody goes there are anymore. It's too crowded."....

What is truly moronic is that you don't actually get the meaning of that quote.

[chet everett]

OMG -- has jiddiy gone totally dopey?

I previously cited Boston and San Franciso as areas that are both NOTORIOUSLY more strict in their refusal to allow inappropriate development AND THEREFORE are far more valuable becuase of it. Nether is particularly "autocentric" and they are wise enough to know that regulating development means they maintain quality transit that people are willing to pay a premium to be near.

I similarly mentioned Oak Brook as a LOCAL EXAMPLE of a town with strict development standards that is much more valuable becuase of their reluctance to allow other than stringely considered developments. The fact that things like the mall and Costco out there are hugely successful even without any kind of transit but with solid investment in the surface roads and highways once meant as example of how smart planners evaluate the whole range of infrastructure to determine what makes sense.

Your statements like "build everything to help pay for the bills" are in fact much more similar to the mindless excess one see lying in ruin in failed communities like Harvey, Calumet City, Gary and other examples of blighted nightmares.

If your views are shared of majority of folks in the effected area there is little doubt that the bubble is very near its limit and will soon see dramatic collapse. OTOH if wiser minds can still intevense before the charm of Logan Square is lost an endless gridlock perhaps the goose that laid the golden egg is not doomed.

BTW -- the use of humor through apparent contridiction is well know device employed by those considered witty -- Nobody Goes There Anymore, It’s Too Crowded | Quote Investigator In contrast the witless might do better to rely on videos -- Big Foot explains the difference between irony and coincidence | WGN-TV

[rzzzz]

The joke doesn't seem to apply in this context.

I'm not sure why one would think SF is not auto centric. Perhaps you didn't see Bullitt. The entire city is an inappropriate development. That is what makes it great, but seems off topic.

If it makes everyone feel better, only 18 townhouses and 26 condos on the list in the OP have been approved. Hopefully the blue line doesn't buckle under the strain of 44 new riders. If these hordes do bring about the predicted collapse of urban society, at least there should be enough Divvy bikes to transport the necessary cords of firewood back from the Bucktown Home Depot.

[jdiddy]

Jesus. Adding luxury mid-rises with minimal parking next to transit is not going to turn Logan Square into Harvey.
It is exactly the kind of development that has taken place in Boston, SF, the Bay Area, DC, Arlington, and every other desirable urban city in the past decade (and much longer outside the US). Use those prolific google skills of yours to see, Chet. This is not something new, if anything Chicago is behind the times in allowing these developments.

This is why the dramatics of what this will lead to are so over the top. Move a few dozen feet off Milwaukee, and it will remain mainly single family homes. In fact, while its easy to convert a two-flat into a SFH in Chicago, converting a SFH into a two flat is illegal, per our zoning codes.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by rzzzz

The joke doesn't seem to apply in this context.

It actually fits pretty well, just not how Chet intends. Milwaukee ave will become a thriving, vibrant corridor, while the chets of the world avoid it because its "too crowded".

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

It actually fits pretty well, just not how Chet intends. Milwaukee ave will become a thriving, vibrant corridor, while the chets of the world avoid it because its "too crowded".

Sounds great to me.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by rzzzz

The joke doesn't seem to apply in this context.

I'm not sure why one would think SF is not auto centric. Perhaps you didn't see Bullitt. The entire city is an inappropriate development. That is what makes it great, but seems off topic.

If it makes everyone feel better, only 18 townhouses and 26 condos on the list in the OP have been approved. Hopefully the blue line doesn't buckle under the strain of 44 new riders. If these hordes do bring about the predicted collapse of urban society, at least there should be enough Divvy bikes to transport the necessary cords of firewood back from the Bucktown Home Depot.

The article clearly states

developers have proposed nearly 1,500 apartments and over 250,000 square feet of retail space

If all that was being proposed were a modest number of units there would be no cause for concern. The huge difference in what is now OKed and what is on the drawing boards has the potential to result in massive over-development. Too many of those proposals are not appropriate for the location -- it is one thing to have big parking lots for spots nearer the roads that can handle large volumes of traffic and quite another to do so in the mid-corridor parcels. The latter will result in folks initially venturing to these areas and then getting frustrated with the terrible traffic patterns. The smarter planning policies recognize this but there is little evidence that such guidelines are in place. The ridiculous delays that one experiences now when trying to drive into / out of this area ought to be lesson in how not to proceed...

Foolish shouts of "just build it all" will result in unacceptable overcrowding and diminished desirability.


BTW-- The car chase scenes of Blues Brothers, Batman, The Transformers, Steve McQueen's Hunter (Marina City car into the river!) or other movies filmed in Chicago are hardly represntative of the city's real road network. Similarly few people would zip around San Francisco in a Mustang unless all the streets were closed for filming....


As I clearly stated several times, the issue is not merely development or no development , it is about having the right kinds of development in the right places. Big arterials with lots capacity and dearth of residential and/or developments that bring increased economic activity to parts of the city that sorely need it ought to be encouraged. Conversely developments that would swamp the Blue line with additional riders and clog the poorly configured sections of Milwaukee Ave will not serve the long term interests of anyone.

The idea that developers are only interested in putting up more units in areas that are already nearing the point of overbuilding is precisely why the role of the city's professional planners should take precedence over the money driven process of greasing the palms of Alderman to get permission to build.

[Chi-town Native]

Chet and Attril win this thread. Attril as the longtime neighbor living right there gets bonus points. Chet nails the reality of how the financing works.

Jdiddy, your arguments are voided by the simple fact that Logan Square was
once a suburb. And that really is what this argument gets to - Drover makes an excellent point about the myopic nature of developers.

My question to the tower supporters would be, why stop at 15 stories? If more is good, why not shoot for 25, or 50? Infrastructure aside, do you folks acknowledge any downsides to simply blocking out the sky and sunlight in a residential neighborhood?

[rzzzz]

My comment about SF was tongue and cheek but I lived there for many years and the whole western half is "for" cars.

I read the article. I just don't think 1500 apartments is cause for concern. If it was 150,000 apartments maybe I'd agree. Bringing online 1500 apartments doesn't even bring the population back up to what it was 15 years ago. How did the area function when everyone had three or four kids?

The existing infrastructure should be able to handle a 1500 apartment increase. If it can't, then urban Chicagoans are indeed the suckers you suggest they are and should pack up and move to a more functioning city.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

Maybe they could have put one of these great honking developments near the Addison stop instead of a stupid Olive Garden.

LOFL.