Value of "Pedestrian Street" designation?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Hi everyone, pfft, a lifetime here and I had never heard of this "pedestrian street" designation before last week.

Anybody have any experience/insights to offer? I agree with the commenter at the story below who says Lincoln Ave. in Lincoln Square would be a better model for Milwaukee than what seems to be planned...

Save Milwaukee Avenue’s pedestrian orientation « Peopling Places

"Pedestrian Street" designation in Chicago is NOT the same as a "pedestrian mall" that exists in some cities.

It is NOT a street that is shut down to vehicle traffic for the exclusive use of pedestrians.

"Pedestrian Street" is a specific, legal term codified in Chicago's zoning ordinances.

All it basically means is that the section of street so designated isn't supposed to have breaks in the curb for driveways, that buildings need to have retail windows facing the sidewalk, no minimum parking requirement and things like that. In my opinion, that sort of criteria should apply to nearly all of Chicago's commercial streets that are within 1/2 mile of an "L" station, but it does not. Hence the need for a specific designation to apply to areas where the city wants to make an extra effort to actually have a good pedestrian experience in a commercial area.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by jdiddy

Save your outrage for another thread. There's no reason that needs to be discussed in a thread discussing a zoning item.

that would be hard, jdiddy. the comment i responded to came here, so i felt it was appropriate. i didn't realize i had to check with you first before i posted. so please feel free to ignore what i write that you don't like; and i will (happily) do the same for you.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by emathias

"Pedestrian Street" designation in Chicago is NOT the same as a "pedestrian mall" that exists in some cities.

It is NOT a street that is shut down to vehicle traffic for the exclusive use of pedestrians.

"Pedestrian Street" is a specific, legal term codified in Chicago's zoning ordinances.

All it basically means is that the section of street so designated isn't supposed to have breaks in the curb for driveways, that buildings need to have retail windows facing the sidewalk, no minimum parking requirement and things like that. In my opinion, that sort of criteria should apply to nearly all of Chicago's commercial streets that are within 1/2 mile of an "L" station, but it does not. Hence the need for a specific designation to apply to areas where the city wants to make an extra effort to actually have a good pedestrian experience in a commercial area.

yup. the only question here is whether a business (McDonald's) that had an non-conforming curb cut (which likely pre-dated the designation) really couldn't build a new building due to permitting regulations without that PD designation being lifted.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

yup. the only question here is whether a business (McDonald's) that had an non-conforming curb cut (which likely pre-dated the designation) really couldn't build a new building due to permitting regulations without that PD designation being lifted.

It was probably the parking thing that got them more than the curb cut.

And I think it's pretty terrible that the alderman would cave for a *McDonalds*.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by emathias

It was probably the parking thing that got them more than the curb cut.

And I think it's pretty terrible that the alderman would cave for a *McDonalds*.

No, it's the curb cut, it's not allowed under the PD classification.

I truly despise McDonald's, but in this case Colon is simply granting them the ability to maintain what they had when they opened originally, which seems fair. The alternative is they don't renovate their fugmo store, and we're still stuck with the curb cut (and parking lot).

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

No, it's the curb cut, it's not allowed under the PD classification.

I truly despise McDonald's, but in this case Colon is simply granting them the ability to maintain what they had when they opened originally, which seems fair. The alternative is they don't renovate their fugmo store, and we're still stuck with the curb cut (and parking lot).

You're assuming that the owner wouldn't evaluate his options if he were actually pressed to do so. We'll never really know, but he could have developed the parcel to meet the requirements and created a pedestrian-friendly McDonalds PLUS additional commercial and/or residential space. That would have yielded more tax revenue, more density, and a better environment on the street. But since the alderman didn't force the issue, we'll never know. I personally don't think a new drive-thru fast food place is a good result, because it just means the use as that sort of a place will last that much longer. Is that totally fair to the owner? Maybe not, but there are plenty of things in life that aren't fair and sometimes to make improvements you have to push people to think of better solutions instead of just letting them do the first thing that pops in their head.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by emathias

You're assuming that the owner wouldn't evaluate his options if he were actually pressed to do so. We'll never really know, but he could have developed the parcel to meet the requirements and created a pedestrian-friendly McDonalds PLUS additional commercial and/or residential space. That would have yielded more tax revenue, more density, and a better environment on the street. But since the alderman didn't force the issue, we'll never know. I personally don't think a new drive-thru fast food place is a good result, because it just means the use as that sort of a place will last that much longer. Is that totally fair to the owner? Maybe not, but there are plenty of things in life that aren't fair and sometimes to make improvements you have to push people to think of better solutions instead of just letting them do the first thing that pops in their head.

I agree with you in spirit in terms of keeping things pedestrian-friendly, but the alderman can't make McDonald's get rid of their existing curb cut, so it's really putting the burden on the wrong party. This isn't really a "new drive-thru fast food place," it's the same one, in an upgraded building (which will at least be more energy efficient).

I know enough about McDonald's to know that of the handful of store closings they've ever had, the first 3 were in Chicago.

Of those 3, 2 did not have drive through service, and even though they were in massively dense areas (Broadway/Belmont & Lincoln/Belmont/Ashland) they failed. The third was in close proximity to Cabrini Green and got robbed repeatedly.

So why would a McDonald's owner do something that is not in his/her best interest? In this case it's very simple, they can not make a capital investment and keep the status quo, or, they can get this PD designation temporarily lifted to allow for new construction.

Also - Colon, as he notes, did notify people about all this months ago, but nobody either cared enough to look into it or had a problem with it.

The fundamental problem rests with Chicago consumers. Though I disagree strongly with rewarding someone's desire to not even have to get their fat kiester out of their car to get a McFatMeUp burger, it is only when consumers demand a change that McDonald's will do so.

Look at McDonald's in Europe and other countries - they use Fair Trade products in the UK. They won't use GMO-tainted ingredients in the EU. They offer a McFalafel in the mideast and other Arab countries. hell, in the northeast USA they've sell Fair Trade certified coffee.