Why does Chicago have so much parking in its center? (Rockford: real estate, lofts)

[sstsunami55]

Not only parking garages, but SURFACE PARKING? Imagine that in a city like NYC or any European city. I assume that if high rise buildings are built, then land values are very high. But if they're so high, how can surface parking lots still not be developed? I'm not saying that the loop needs to be like Manhattan, but it would certainly be less ugly if those parking lots were developed. "But what will happen to the drivers?", some might ask. They will use other means of transportation. When parking lots are built, more people drive, and when they are removed, less people drive. It's a simple case of induced demand, but in reverse. Chicago has extensive public transit already, so there are alternatives.

[myrc60]

Some of those that don't drive to The Loop have to spend hours on public transportation getting there!

[compactspace]

It's a lot of things.

First of all, freeway construction gave Chicago a beating, destroying much of its beautiful architecture and urban environment. Congress Parkway through Printer's Row is a prime example of this. Lovely old buildings razed to widen the road, and hideous parking lots put into the gaps. During this time, the Chicago urban area changed from being transit-oriented to car-oriented.

Then the city suffered 'round two' with urban renewal. During this period, fine old buildings were ground down and either replaced with sterile modernist things, or left as surface parking.

Chicago's growth since then hasn't been nearly robust enough to precipitate filling in those lots. Worse, NIMBYs and car lobbyists insist that parking and traffic be the primary consideration of any development, and city authorities have just rolled over for decades.

The upshot is that NYC, London and many European cities can and have put urbanity first. As a result, they have very expensive parking, and in London's case, even a 'congestion tax'. Note that the suburban bloat around these cities is hardly better serviced by transit than Chicago is. The expectation is nonetheless that people who insist on driving 'suck it up', or don't bother coming to the city.

Chicago, in contrast, does not have this expectation, for the aforementioned reasons. It is is prima facie car-driven, with an expectation of cheap parking. Any attempt to increase walkability and urbanity at the expense of cars is met with howls of 'but muh driving!'

[jdiddy]

Who has an expectation of cheap parking in the loop?

Most of the remaining surface lots have development in the works. The land is valuable, but it takes time to plan/finance high rises, and parking lots are a low cost use to generate revenue in the meantime.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by compactspace

It's a lot of things.

First of all, freeway construction gave Chicago a beating, destroying much of its beautiful architecture and urban environment. Congress Parkway through Printer's Row is a prime example of this.The Original Burnham Plan ALWAYS showed Congress Parkway as it is -- A WIDE ROADWAY! Lovely old buildings razed to widen the road, and hideous parking lots put into the gaps. During this time, the Chicago urban area changed from being transit-oriented to car-oriented. [color="Navy"]Again UTTER NONSENSE -- there was NEVER any "transit" in the Burnham Plan [/COLOR}

Then the city suffered 'round two' with urban renewal. During this period, fine old buildings were ground down and either replaced with sterile modernist things, or left as surface parking. You just keep striking out!! The focus of urban renewal in Chicago was to replace tenaments and other low quality buildings with HOUSING or COMMERCIAL buildings -- the most successful example of this on the North Side is Sandburg Village. The North Loop was transformed with scary "peep shows" being converted into things like North Bridge Shopping Mall and associated luxury Condos.

Chicago's growth since then hasn't been nearly robust enough to precipitate filling in those lots. Worse, NIMBYs and car lobbyists insist that parking and traffic be the primary consideration of any development, and city authorities have just rolled over for decades.Pretty sure there is not a single "NIMBY" that would rather have a PARKING lot than a high quality development -- the "not so robust growth" is due to policies that make it uneconomic to expand businesses in Chicago -- it just makes more sense to accept the revenue from a low intensity parking lot rather than create an oversupply of office space...

The upshot is that NYC, London and many European cities can and have put urbanity first.How about the FACT that so much of those cities were developed BEFORE personal vehicles were a factor -- in contrast the main thrust of Chicago development, after the devastating Chicago FIre, looked to be MODERN and respond to the clear desire for people to utilize their own personal transportion -- the BOULEVARD system was laid out by Burnham knowing that people would actually enjoy taking a ride through the city! As a result, they have very expensive parking, and in London's case, even a 'congestion tax'. Note that the suburban bloat around these cities is hardly better serviced by transit than Chicago is. The expectation is nonetheless that people who insist on driving 'suck it up', or don't bother coming to the city.Great plan -- "stay away". Very accommodative..

Chicago, in contrast, does not have this expectation, for the aforementioned reasons. It is is prima facie car-driven, There are lots of Divvy riding hipsters that would sink your case, as well as hordes of folks that get to Chicago via Metra, not to mention those that rely on the CTA... Any sane analysis shows Chicago to be at least in the Top 3 of US cities when it comes to transit...with an expectation of cheap parking. Any attempt to increase walkability and urbanity at the expense of cars is met with howls of 'but muh driving!'

Whole lot of really incorrect HISTORY coupled with standard hipster anti-car nonsense!

If land owners could make more money fully developing parking lots into high rises they would do so. The lack of DEMAND for office space is why there are not more high rise offices. The policies that make Chicago unattractive for further business expansion are what holds back additional growth! Even the recent spate of residential high rises are more about getting an application under the older zoning than any surge of developers that really are anxious to flood the market with new units.

The reality is that Chicago has managed, somewhat by design, but mostly by luck, to have a built environment that fosters BOTH individual car ownership with alley facing garages that make it easy for folks to work wherever there are JOBS AND to have vibrant pedestrian oriented neighbors in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, the Loop and increasingly in Wicker Park and other areas. Many of the folks that like in the new areas do work in areas that have NO transit and the flexibility that personal transportation offers them helps to sustain BOTH suburban employment AND urban residential zones with nightlife.

Small minded fools that would artificially limit access to multiple kinds of transportation would seriously harm the already perilous employment in the region -- make it harder for firms to hire the kind of employees they need and that just adds to the reason to move to a state where saner regulations are designed to attract investment!

[emathias]

Boy, Chet, even when I disagree with you you don't usually get your facts wrong. But here you're just replacing one set of misconceptions with another.

Originally Posted by chet everett

The Original Burnham Plan ALWAYS showed Congress Parkway as it is -- A WIDE ROADWAY!

Prior to the Burnham Plan, Congress was a short little stub street near Grant Park. Motivated by the Plan, entire blocks of buildings were, in fact, demolished to make way for a fully-formed Congress Parkway. Few people know this, apparently even you didn't know this, but the Old Post Office was built with the gap that Congress runs through *in anticipation of* the parkway, not to accommodate an existing street. Small parcels cleared for construction but not needed for the street itself became gas stations and small parking lots - some of those are still remaining from the original teardowns from when the Parkway was created.

Originally Posted by chet everett

You just keep striking out!! The focus of urban renewal in Chicago was to replace tenaments and other low quality buildings with HOUSING or COMMERCIAL buildings -- the most successful example of this on the North Side is Sandburg Village. The North Loop was transformed with scary "peep shows" being converted into things like North Bridge Shopping Mall and associated luxury Condos.

The person you were responding to used the term "urban renewal" more loosely than you seem to be responding to. I agree with you that "urban renewal" should apply to government-organized redevelopment projects. But in common usage, sometimes people use it for any actions that radically change the built environment. In that sense, much of the Near North was razed decades before more than token amounts of new development came in. This happened when the factories and warehouses of River North and Streeterville just were no longer economically viable and there were only so many artists to move into live-work lofts. Peep shows had existed in the area for a long time because when it was mostly warehouses it was also sort of an SRO district for derelicts and also hard men who worked in the warehouses. Anytime you have a lot of SROs, you'll have a lot of liquor and wanton women. When those warehouses were torn down, it was mostly because they couldn't be rented out at an economically viable cost, and parking was virtual zero-cost to maintain and it generated enough income to pay the property taxes.

In the South Loop, you had a lot of old rail yards that were no longer needed, and you had some warehouses, and you had SROs like in what is now River North/Streeterville. The West Loop was also similar, with a lot of warehouses and SROs - some government-led urban renewal did result in the Presidential Towers in the West Loop, and Dearborn Park in the South Loop. Streeterville and River North had less government involvement, although as you point out Sandburg Village was an urban renewal project, and pretty controversial as to whether it's really been a success. Royko had some interesting columns out of the time he lived in one of the units.

Originally Posted by chet everett

Pretty sure there is not a single "NIMBY" that would rather have a PARKING lot than a high quality development -- the "not so robust growth" is due to policies that make it uneconomic to expand businesses in Chicago -- it just makes more sense to accept the revenue from a low intensity parking lot rather than create an oversupply of office space...

While most NIMBYs may not argue for surface parking lots, many do argue for inclusion of a level of parking in excess of market demand. And for many years, Chicago ordinances required a higher-than-market level of parking, which made some projects less economically viable because it required developers to build things there wasn't a market for.

Originally Posted by chet everett

Great plan -- "stay away". Very accommodative..

There are limits to how accommodating a City or neighborhood should be to cars, because they do come at a real cost to residents. There needs to be a balance, but too much accommodation to cars absolutely detracts from the experience of people who actually live in a central area.

Depending on how you measure, we are in either the top 3 or top 5 for transit by most (though not all) measures.

We are also in the top 3-5 for cost of parking in the CBD, so the person who you were responding to who claimed the expectation is for "cheap parking" was definitely wrong about that.

Originally Posted by chet everett

Even the recent spate of residential high rises are more about getting an application under the older zoning than any surge of developers that really are anxious to flood the market with new units.

Some of the proposals were to get in under the wire to avoid paying extra for low-income units. Some of the proposals, though, were coming in due to reduced parking requirements enabled by the improved TOD ordinance making some proposals better economically for developers.

Originally Posted by chet everett

Small minded fools that would artificially limit access to multiple kinds of transportation would seriously harm the already perilous employment in the region -- make it harder for firms to hire the kind of employees they need and that just adds to the reason to move to a state where saner regulations are designed to attract investment!

Employment in Chicagoland is not growing as fast overall as we'd all like to see. However in the higher-income sectors that often locate in the Loop, there is strong growth. The number of jobs in River North in the past 10 years has more than doubled, and most of them are in finance, law or tech. Employment in the downtown area is near historic highs, and most of those jobs are well-paid. Businesses want to be in the Central Area, and people want to live in the Central Area, and while cars certainly should not be completely crippled, a realistic assessment of whether enabling additional cars in the Central Area hurts the desirability of the area for new high-income residents more than it attracts certain kinds of businesses. So far, it appears that being too accommodating to cars in the Central Area is not, on balance, the best strategy.

[RJA29]

Originally Posted by sstsunami55

Not only parking garages, but SURFACE PARKING? Imagine that in a city like NYC...

Have you spend much time in NYC? There is a TON of surface parking. Almost every non-major cross-street from Houston up to the tip of Manhattan has free parking. That's a lot of parking spaces. Even the major arteries (the avenues and many of the major cross streets, i.e. 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, 59th, etc.) have paid parking.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by RJA29

Have you spend much time in NYC? There is a TON of surface parking. Almost every non-major cross-street from Houston up to the tip of Manhattan has free parking. That's a lot of parking spaces. Even the major arteries (the avenues and many of the major cross streets, i.e. 14th, 23rd, 34th, 42nd, 59th, etc.) have paid parking.

I don't think you've ever been to NYC. There are almost no surface parking lots. And "free"? LOL!

Even some random place like South Bend or Rockford or something doesn't have free parking lots right downtown. But according to you Manhattan has all these tons of free lots?

Back in the real world, NYC is probably the only U.S. city where parking is extremely limited, and is generally confined to private underground garages and short-term metered street parking. Boston and SF are parking-restricted too, not to the extent as NYC, but much moreso than in Chicago.

NYC is the only U.S. city where a majority of households don't own vehicles, so, not surprisingly, the built form is generally aligned towards the needs of pedestrians and transit.

[chet everett]

I humbly suggest that any minor error in my account (which by the way did not say Congress Parkway was some kind of ancient fur trading path, but part of PLAN that has been in force for OVER A CENTURY...) is far more accurate than some fool that wants to "blame" urban renewal on parking lots!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...hicago_history

Sure, one could suggest that police efforts to chase Cap Streeter out of the dump he established on the north bank of the river as "urban renewal" -- History of Streeterville | Streeterville Chamber of Commerce but anybody that is truly aware of what modern planners classify as such would instead point to projects like Sandburg Village -- The Siege of Sandburg Village | Feature | Chicago Reader

n 1947 the Illinois legislature passed the Blighted Areas Redevelopment Act and Chicago created the Land Clearance Commission, an agency charged with acquiring slum and blighted property and clearing it through use of public authority and public funds....Several hundred developers expressed interest in the project, 90 sets of specifications were taken out, and by may 12, 1961, CLCC, now under Phil Doyle (Ira Bach had gone over to head up the newly created Department of Urban Renewal), and received twenty bids on the land. It was one of the hottest pieces of real estate in the country—minutes from the Loop, close to the lake, adjacent to swanky Dearborn Parkway and the Magnificent Mile. It was clear that whoever got the property stood to make a bundle.

Clear?

[stateofnature]

Question from a non-Chicagoan who is very interested in this topic (and loves that city): How many of these surface parking lots exist, or at least exist in their current size/form because of minimum parking rules or other types of regulations?
I don't know about Chicago but in some cities you have many parking spaces (not necessarily all) that are there not because of market demand but because the city or whatever authority requires the developer to put them there. Often surface parking lots are the cheapest way to fulfill that requirement.