The Belmont Flyover: Learning From the Past and Planning the Future

Renderings of a section of the flyover project area without and with redevelopment. Images: CTA
Renderings of a section of the flyover project area without and with redevelopment. Images: CTA

The history of U.S. transit projects has been rife with angry residents and lawsuits galore that have sometimes resulted in sub-par outcomes. The Belmont Flyover, one of the key pieces of the CTA’s Red and Purple Modernization project, has been highly controversial, largely because it will require the demolition of a number of buildings in Central Lakeview. But, thankfully, the dialogue at last Thursday’s community meeting on redeveloping the flyover project area after the structure is built was generally constructive, not acrimonious.

The first phase of RPM, including the flyover, track and signal work, and overhauls of four Red Line stations in Uptown and Edgewater, is currently scheduled to start in 2018, finishing around 2025. After the Obama administration committed to funding about half of the roughly $2 billion project in January, community members who had previously fought against the overpass said they had accepted that it was going to be built. They said they had changed their focus on and pushing for the best possible redevelopment outcome.

It’s going to be important for the city to learn the mistakes of the past, particularly the failure to promptly redevelop several lots that were left empty for five or more years after the Brown Line reconstruction was finished in 2010. The CTA is trying to stay on top of this issue by hosting a series of public meetings to collect feedback on what kind of transit-oriented development community members want to see on the land that is cleared for the flyover.

Thursday’s meeting was very open-ended, with CTA staffers asking attendees for general and specific feedback about what they want to see from the redevelopment, as well as providing useful info about existing, under construction, and proposed developments. The transit agency has limited the area under discussion to a compact zone, mostly between Cornelia (3500 North) to the north, Belmont (3200 North) to the south, Sheffield (1000 West) to the west and Clark to the east.

While the project area is small, it’s packed with businesses, almost half of them bars and restaurants. The district also boasts a 91 percent occupancy rate and 90 percent of the businesses are locally owned, positive numbers that the CTA does not want to negatively impact via its redevelopment decisions.

Residents were encouraged to leave both stickers and Post-It notes on the display boards to provide input about their wishes for the future of the area. The comments expressed a fervent desire for more of what already heavily populates the district, locally owned businesses with high-density apartments or condos on top. There was also some support voiced for more open space and other types of housing, including affordable units.

The open house held last Thursday. Photo: Charles Papanek
The open house held last Thursday. Photo: Charles Papanek

The CTA also asked for feedback on what should occupy the spaces under the ‘L’ tracks after the flyover is completed. Interestingly, most of the attendees did not support using this space for car parking. Instead, the majority favored community-oriented uses such as public and programmable spaces, public art, bike parking, and beefed-up storm water management.

The post-it notes also expressed a desire to maintain the community’s character as new retail and housing is created. Several people said they didn’t want to see more chain stores, such as Target – the big-box giant is about to open a store in a new transit-oriented development at Belmont and Clark, on the former Punkin’ Donuts site.

A few comments also called for taller buildings, but were critical of massive superblock developments and said that any off-street parking should be hidden from view. And almost every display board every poster had Post-Its calling for historic preservation and for new developments to adhere to local architecture styles.

The specter of the missteps from the Brown Line reconstruction hung over the meeting and people did not hesitate to express their grievances with what was finally built. There were many comments left on a board on the subject of “building character” that stated a distaste for flat, modern glass-and-steel structures and a preference for vintage-style brick architecture with tasteful accents bringing life to what otherwise be a boring building. One Post-It went so far as to say one glass-and-steel example on the display board had no place in Chicago and was better suited for a city like less architecturally distinguished city Dallas instead.

Many people asked if the historic façades of buildings slated for the wrecking ball could be saved and integrated into the new developments and requested that the CTA study this issue. A CTA representative told me the agency has a full historic preservation team working on these issues.

A display board from the meeting. Photo: Charles Papanek
A display board from the meeting. Photo: Charles Papanek

Residents I spoke to at the meeting had some interesting perspectives on the project. Ellen Hughes, who spearheaded the efforts to stop the flyover project but recently said she has come to terms with the project’s inevitability, said she is now very interested in making sure the project proceeds as something that can benefit the entire community. Hughes said she’s particularly concerned about Clark Street, maintaining its character, given its unique and varied architecture, and she wants “cookie-cutter” designs to be rejected.

Phil Darling said he currently feels fairly positive about the flyover project, specifically the straightening of the existing kink in the train tracks the Belmont station and Newport Avenue, which will help speed train service. but still skeptical about the flyover wishing the CTA do a better job selling the project. Like Hughes, he said he’s adamant about new development maintaining the “Chicago look” of Clark Street, while bringing the neighborhood in the future.

Jacob Peters gave a full-throated endorsement of the flyover he considers it to be entirely necessary for increasing capacity on the Red Line and reducing rush-hour crowding. Unlike many commenters, he said he supports a mix of modern and classic, but added that it’s important to make sure new buildings compliment the style of existing architecture, including issues of height and density.

On the subject of affordable housing, he said any transit-oriented developments that require upzoning should be required to adhere to local affordable housing requirements, while “as-of-right” developments (those not needing a zoning change) should continue to be exempt. Peters said he also wants more info from the CTA on how they plan to avoid leaving lots undeveloped for several years, as was the case after the Brown Line reconstruction.

CTA spokesman Jeff Tolman said the flyover redevelopment plan is still very much in the concept phase and emphasized the importance of community input for crafting the final plan. Mr. Tolman implied that this feedback, while currently only being used for properties impacted by the project, could easily be transformed into a guide for future zoning changes. He encouraged Chicagoans who are interested in weighing in on the development to do so on the RPM project website.

wide banner

  • Jacob Wilson

    All those developments on the display board look like they belong in Rosemont. The Mariano’s takes the cake for total lack of context. It completely ruined one of Chicago’s most lovely, human scale commercial corridors in the city.

  • kastigar

    All this, just to save a small number of commuters a few minutes on their way out of home? What’s the rush? Is the small gain worth it?

  • johnaustingreenfield

    Despite how Emanuel originally sold the project to the public, it’s less about shortening commute times than adding capacity. Rush-hour Red Line trains are already packed, and this problem is going to get worse as the population of the Red Line corridor grows. But because of the Belmont bottleneck the CTA can’t add any more trains. The agency says the flyover will allow them to run 15 more trains an hour between Belmont and Fullerton during rush periods, which will go a long way towards addressing the crowding issue.

  • Cub fan Old Style man

    Agreed, they should raise the fares of everyone north of the Sheridan stop to pay for this.

  • Pat

    I love Mariano’s but that thing is just a big cold monster.

    Thumbs down for making the alley across from it a “street” with a light and crosswalk.

  • Jason

    This is such a horrible project. I don’t believe for one minute that this will allow for the CTA to run more trains. The trains already run extremely slow south of Belmont. How are the tracks going to handle the increased capacity?

    I’ll continue to drive downtown…

  • david vartanoff

    Not clear where that number comes from. Is that 7 1/2 more Red Line each direction? Before the cab signalling system CTA scheduled trains on what was called the North-South Thru Route every 105 seconds. (source, a column by the late GM of CTA George Krambles in The New Electric Railway Journal) In that era CTA also posted xx minutes to Loop signage at many station entrances. Those signs were removed as track maintenance decreased forcing slower speeds. (of note, in the early 60s CTA set a then record for (US) fastest speed of a subway or elevated train in the area South of Howard on the outer express tracks-76.5 MPH) AFAIK the current signalling system limits top speed to 55.
    So, if the flyover is correctly built, AND if the very sharp curves at Sheridan eased, and the embankment N of Wilson is properly restored, then we could have both more and faster trains.
    Meanwhile, ALL of the Red Line platforms should be lengthened ASAP to allow 10 car trains because that would at least offer more room before the other projects are complete.

  • david vartanoff

    I should add that the platform lengthening should also happen on the Brown and Purple lines in the near term, and the Orange and Blue next. Sort of like the articulated buses, if they don’t come often enough, at least they should be able to accommodate the waiting passengers.

  • JacobEPeters

    Not exactly what I said. I am frustrated that current laws allow as of right development to avoid including affordable units. I wish that new developments near transit were required to include at least 10% of the units as affordable. In terms of density, I don’t think that existing development should dictate density or height limits, just that setbacks & massing of new development can respect existing context while the overall building may be larger than its neighbors. I hope that the TODs that are built on surrounding lots are tall enough to block much of the flyover structure not just visually, but enough to contain track noise.

  • Anne A

    Small number of commuters? Try many thousands.
    http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/ridership_reports/2016-11.pdf

  • FlamingoFresh

    Is there some sort of database that residents can look up and see if there are any services that are lacking in the area that could be brought in with some of the developments and businesses being proposed?

  • neroden

    It will allow for the CTA to run more trains. Your delusional beliefs have nothing to do with reality. And it’ll still be faster to take the train to the Loop than to drive.

    It’s the equivalent of eliminating the last traffic light on the Red Line, making it into an expressway.

  • neroden

    I really like the idea of preserving the brick facades and building new, taller buildings behind them.

  • neroden

    They’re working on the 10-car platforms, but there are a lot of stations to do.

  • johnaustingreenfield

    Let’s keep the discussion polite please. Thanks.

  • johnaustingreenfield

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

CTA: Belmont Bypass Necessary to Accommodate Current and Future Riders

|
The Chicago Transit Authority published on Tuesday its federally mandated environmental assessment for the Red-Purple Bypass project, better known as the Belmont flyover. The bypass is part of the Red-Purple Modernization project, which will rebuild all of the tracks from Belmont to Linden station in Wilmette, and reconstruct several stations to add elevators and other amenities. This bypass would […]