Today’s Headlines

  • BMW Driver Crashes Car Into Little Village Restaurant, Killing Himself and Passenger (RedEye)
  • Motorist Critically Injures Child Within Bronzeville School’s Safety Zone (DNA)
  • Police Officer Seriously Injures Pedestrian While Responding to Call in Fernwood (Tribune)
  • Driver Pleads Not Guilty After River West Crash That Paralyzed His Passenger (Tribune)
  • Motorist Slams Car Into Storefront of Lakeview Bank (DNA)
  • No, CBS, Fewer Speeding Tickets Than Projected Is a Very Good Thing
  • WBEZ Argues Chicago’s Yellow Lights Are Too Short
  • Prosecutors: Victim of CTA Sexual Abuse Blocked Attack by Same Man on Different Day (DNA)
  • 360-Unit Development 1 block from Blue Line Would Have Nearly 1:1 Parking Ration (DNA)
  • Real Estate Company Cites Entrance to The 606 as Major Motivation for Bucktown Purchase (DNA)
  • Actually, WBEZ, Bus Bunching Is Not Inevitable (Itinerant Urbanist)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Lisa Curcio

    There is too much parking planned for the development at the former Gonnella site, but 300 parking spaces to a 360 unit project is not “nearly 1:1” Also, they are planning 200 bike spaces!

  • duppie

    That, and the project would include a major grocer. Discount another 100 parking spaces for that and the parking to apartment ratio is nearly 1:2. That nears TOD guidelines, no?

    I find the headline misleading, to say the least.

  • Kevin M

    According to RedEye and DNA, the robot cars are attacking!

    I can’t recall if I’ve seen an article that used robot bike language.

  • “The LEED-certified, two-tower development would offer *more than* 300 parking spaces for cars.” Thus, the number of parking spaces will be more than 83% of the number of units. perhaps I rounded it up a bit too much by saying “nearly 1:1 (100%),” but it’s still way too much.

    60 of the parking spaces would set aside for a proposed grocery store. That leaves more than 240 residential parking spaces, more than a 2:3 ratio. Since the building is one block from a transit station, it qualifies to have only a 1:2 residential parking ratio, under the city’s transit-oriented development ordinance. It’s annoying that the developer is opting not to take full advantage of the TOD parking discount, but is still getting LEED certification.

  • The parcel is zoned M1-3 which requires only 62.5 parking spaces for a 35,000 square feet grocery store (which is 2.5x Trader Joe’s, approximately).

  • What’s interesting is that they will likely get points toward their LEED certification simply by complying with the city’s TOD ordinance.

    The city’s TOD ordinance requires that any reduction in car parking is replaced by the same amount of new spaces for bike parking. In other words, reduce car parking by 50 spaces, provide 50 bike parking spaces. Some of them can be spaces dedicated to car-share vehicles.

    These bike and car-share spaces get you a few points toward your LEED certification.

  • duppie

    Maybe don’t round at all?
    Proper rounding of the numbers would have led to the following statement: “360-Unit Development 1 block from Blue Line Would Have Nearly 1:2 Parking (to Apartment) Ration.”. Not quite right either, since it implies that the prject follows TOD guidelines.

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    What’s required by zoning is the minimum. If the developer wants to put in more than required that’s the developer’s decision. Zoning has nothing to do with it over and above the minimum. And TOD is just a guideline. There’s nothing manditory about a guideline.

    The zoning is going to be changed no matter what because a M1-3 zoning is for what is there right now, light manufacturing (Gonnella). What the new zoning may become may have higher minimums.

  • Matt F

    re: child injury in the school safety zone. It happened on a saturday afternoon. thanks for the spin John.

  • Mishellie

    Saturday afternoons are definitely open season on kids playing.

  • It doesn’t really matter what time the crash occurred. If this was an injury that could have been prevented due to better enforcement, that should be addressed.

    It may have been politically necessary to restrict speed cam enforcement to areas around schools and park, and at particular times of day and/or days of the week. However kids, and all other Chicagoans, whether they’re walking, biking, or driving, really should have protection from dangerous drivers wherever they are in the city, and whatever time of day it is.

  • Matt F

    my comment is not in regards to the safety of kids, but rather to the spin applied by the writer of the daily notes. While I agree that Saturday afternoons are open season for kids playing, the school zone signs are usually enforced “on weekdays when children are present”

  • John

    Also like the spin- BMW driver crashes
    Does it really matter why type of car it was?

  • Here are the rules, per CDOT:

    The Children’s Safety Zones are designated within 1/8th of a mile from Chicago parks or schools. The City ordinance establishing the program narrows the hours and locations of enforcement that are allowed
    under state law, and provides for the following:

    • The enforcement hours will be limited from 7 am to 7 pm in safety zones around schools on school days (Monday through Friday)

    o 7 am to 4 pm: 20 mph speed limit when children are present; the posted speed limit when no children are present

    o 4 pm to 7 pm: the posted speed limit

    • The enforcement hours around parks will be limited to only those hours parks are open (typically 6am to 11pm, 7 days a week) to the posted speed limit.

  • Matt F

    thanks

  • Lisa Curcio

    Given those rules, since the crash occurred on a Saturday, the fact that it was in a safety zone is not relevant. The story does not even report that the driver was cited for exceeding the posted speed limit. The point is that a child was critically injured. Isn’t it enough to pass on the report without the “spin” that is meaningless?

  • John

    You’re right- makes no sense to add spin to this story. But what john wants to do is draw false conclusions to aid the argument for speed cameras.
    I’m surprised he hasn’t trottted out the “if you’re hit by a car going 40mph, you’re less likely to survive …”

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    And in the end what is LEED certification but a piece of paper with a press release to some journal most people don’t read. There are minimal things a devloper can do to get LEED certification. Most of them will be done anyway because it makes economic sense. Using LED lights can get points towards LEED certification. Planting trees and creatingan outside sitting area same. Parking or lack of wont give you all the points you need to get LEED.

  • See my comment above.

  • Not at all — LEED certification is a useful tool for marketing your building to tenants. That’s why it’s troubling when developments that aren’t actually environmentally friendly get LEED certification. There was a time when you could literally get LEED certification for a parking garage.

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    Most new buildings get LEED certification easy enough. Just by using modern HVAC, your probably halfway there. And really how many people are saying, “Honey, lets only look at buildings that are LEED certified!” People looking to buy or rent are considering location, amenities and cost.

  • M1-3 you can build almost anything in. I know. I grew up on the 1600 block of Clybourn when it was M1-3 (and it had residential, commercial, and all kinds of other stuff).

  • Anton Cermak

    The zoning is currently M1-3, but I can’t see a scenario where the City doesn’t go through a PD process and redefine the zoning to a more appropriate “C” district, which has greater parking requirements. Not saying that is how it should be, but this parcel having an “M” zoning is basically irrelevant given the future of the site.

  • An *expensive* marketing tool…and I don’t know if the ROI is worth the expense. Magellan Properties spent over $50,000 in documentation to be able to apply and receive LEED certification for the Aqua Tower.

  • I think it’s time that most of what gets you LEED points become part of the building code.

    Certification now requires a review one year later to ensure that your energy use is what you said when you applied.

  • Wewilliewinkleman

    Certainly, but that will mean the city has to hire more inspectors.

  • forensicgarlic

    as expensive as my gas bill is, and chilly as my apartment still is, I’d consider using LEED certified as a guide to more appropriately sealed and heated apartments.