Today’s Headlines for Tuesday, June 14

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • Call Me Skeptical

    The ATA plan shows how ridiculous is Big Marsh. Isolated, difficult to access. Now, park district wants to put Ford Calumet Environmental Center there instead of more accessible Hegewisch Marsh site. Hey, ATA, how about focusing on more meaningful projects like connections to Cal-Sag, gaps in Major Taylor and protected bike lanes on roads people actually want to use.

  • A few comments:

    – ATA focuses on multiple projects at a time – this is one initiative. The projects you speak of, they’re putting efforts behind those too.
    – Big Marsh is a great example of repurposing a large swath of vacant land previously zoned for commercial usage to a create a mixed use attraction. Similar to Palos or Kettle Moraine, many will drive and park to enjoy the mountain bike trails.

  • ardecila

    The building at Fulton/Jefferson is condos, not apartments. As much as I hate to say it, developers believe intensely that they cannot sell condos without parking. Why? It’s an investment for most buyers in addition to being a home, and buyers don’t want to be at a disadvantage to all the other condo owners who do have a parking space. This does increase the purchase price (by $20-30,000) but averaged over a 30-year mortgage, the increased cost on a monthly basis seems pretty minimal to buyers.

    We’ll have to see if the TOD trend of reduced parking loses steam after the market transitions from mostly rentals to mostly condos.

  • simple

    I agree. The point of the TOD ordinance was to stop forcing developers to build more parking than they think is needed for the product they’re providing. The TOD ordinance was not intended to force developers to provide no parking ever for any development near transit. This development in question features mostly large sized high-end condos. One space per unit does not seem unreasonable for this type of housing product in the same way that one space per unit for smaller apartments next to transit would.

  • Chicagoan

    The ratio isn’t as awful as we’ve seen in the past, but I just wish it could be 96 units/96 spots or something a bit more reasonable.

  • rohmen

    Agreed. It’s the Loop, but $800k/1200 sq ft + units still puts this development in the “luxury” realm, and I don’t see many developers building luxury units that do not allow the purchaser the option of at least buying one deeded spot. The fact that this building even went for essentially a 1:1 ratio seems like a step forward compared to what was being built in the Loop condo market pre-crash.

  • ardecila

    That’s what it is. 94 units and 94 parking spaces, plus two additional parking spaces that are likely reserved for guest parking.

    (Yes, “guests” can take the CTA, but a plumber coming to fix your toilet is unlikely to do this.)

  • planetshwoop

    I’ll be interested to see how much those spaces are leased out for.

  • cjlane

    “a plumber coming to fix your toilet is unlikely to do this”

    The next time any of y’all see a plumber carrying a new toilet on the El will be the first time anyone has seen that.

    I know that wasn’t *necessarily* what you were referring, too, but toilets do get replaced sometimes.