Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
I would love to hear specific examples, because I want to learn and not because I don't think you have them.
...
When I said "actively reduce density," I implied (rather strongly) that their intent was to reduce the density. Which I actually don't have any direct knowledge of.
However, there are a number of places where the city approved projects that had the foreseeable effect of reducing density, or where the City (and when I say "the City," I'm including Aldermen since they are part of City government) disallowed moderate to high density in favor of low density projects, or simply allowing low-density development instead of actively encouraging higher density. The economics of development often means that building a 1-story building with a surface lot offers the highest rate of return on investment, and densities in the 2-4 story range that seem to be what the majority of Chicago neighborhoods are currently limited to, are simply not very economical for anything except three-flats except in areas that are already highly developed. To get a good rate fo return, developers might need to build in the 10-20 story range, which near an "L" stop should be actively encouraged. Instead, even near "L" stations, such heights typically require exceptions to current zoning or special permitting. Parking requirements, even very close to transit, also serve to actively discourage density because people who are willing to live in dense areas are less likely to demand having a car under all circumstances. Current zoning does very little to accomodate that reality, even with downtown-rated zoning.
Under those guidelines, specific examples include:
The Alderman in Jefferson Park effecively killed a moderately dense development within 2 blocks of the Blue Line and Metra stops in that neighborhood.
Alderman Reilly actively discouraged a number of buildings in the Near North area for reasons that were couched in phrasing like "out of character" or "overbuilt," despite the fact that Near North has a level of infrastructure for dealing with density second only to the Loop for places in the U.S. outside of Manhattan.
Alderman Tunney allowing a citizen group to reduce the density of a development across the street from Wrigley Field, an area well-served by rail and buses and taxis, and very walkable. Areas like that need to be allowed to be as dense as the marketplace will support, not artificially restricted based on the dubious opinion of citizens who, on average, will only live in the area for less than 1/10th the lifespan of a typical development. What about the other 9/10th of residents who move there after the development - maybe even because of it - because they appreciate the additional services it supports.
Even your example of the 63rd Street Green Line is, in my opinion, looking at it from the wrong angle. That particular example is not great because that got torn down for a variety of reasons that had little to nothing to do with density or urban planning. But it does serve to illustrate a few things. If you have large vacant lots near rail transit to the Loop, the City should actively encourage high density, market-rate development immediately next to the station. Even a moderately successful development like that will immediately increase tax revenues for the area, supporting better policing. It will generate more foot traffic, which reduces crimes of opporunity. It increases local demand for services, attracting more businesses to the area.
In examples like that, when the City chooses to stick with laissez faire instead of actively encoruaging high-density, transit-oriented development, they are making not just an urban plannign mistake, but a financial mistake. If they focused on just one or two stations in marginal areas and pushed to pull in a lot of new residents, subsidizing the cost of initial construction, the profits they could help facilitate for the developers would encourage more to replicate the ideals in other areas. If you built high-density towers next to stations like Indiana and Ashland on the Green Line, or Western and Kedzie on the Orange Line, or 63rd on the Red Line, or Central Park on the Pink Line, and didn't bow to pressure to have "affordable housing" in them, using salary and credit score requirements to ensure reliable tenants or owners coupled with low cost to ensure people were willing to risk a new area, I have to believe that any of those areas could be sparked into organic growth. Many past efforts downplay the influence dense development has.
It absolutely is isolating to the new residents to do that, but that's the whole point. In some areas, current residents haven't been able to fix the area and tax receipts are so low the city can't afford t support the area properly. Fix the economics first, even if it's with isolated developments, and many of the other issues will become easier to deal with.
Hey grapico, great work coming up with the stats. I love it when posters actually take the time to generate information instead of just spouting opinions.
If it's not too much extra trouble, would it be possible for you to post map illustrations of the areas you based the numbers on (just because I'm curious and I like maps).
Don't have time to map it out. You can check off the #'s however. Just go down the lake/near lake community areas on the north side. I just add them in excel together. If you click on the community area listed vs the map you could line it up.
Opinions aren't really relevant when it comes to density, I think people get density confused with how a street looks, what style buildings are there, what time of year they went, etc. There are numbers for daytime highs in CBD, density per zip, community area, etc. etc. So why b.s. it? You can even get so called "vibrancy" data block by block as business groups track # of people who pass through each intersection to gauge where to open businesses.
Here is a lot of the n nw and w side neighborhood data already so you don't have to do much clicking...
63484 1.8 rogers park
73199 3.5 west ridge
44574 2.6 lincoln square
62198 2.7 edgewater
63551 2.4 uptown
31895 2.1 north center
94817 3.2 lake view
64320 3.2 lincoln park
72811 2.7 near north side
82715 3.2 logan square
58643 3.2 irving park
87435 4.6 west town
57656 1.9 albany park
65340 4 portage park
44031 2.8 lower west side
74932 3.5 humboldt park
43083 2 avondale
23019 1.3 west garfield park
20881 1.9 east garfield park
26908 1.2 hermosa
78144 3.9 belmont cragin
117527 7.2 austin
41768 3.2 north lawndale
91070 4.4 south lawndale
42,164 3.7 dunning
12646 1 montclaire
population, square miles, community area
I haven't done much of the south side as it is in general, much less dense, and larger outside of a few areas.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,317,864 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
Alderman Tunney allowing a citizen group to reduce the density of a development across the street from Wrigley Field, an area well-served by rail and buses and taxis, and very walkable. Areas like that need to be allowed to be as dense as the marketplace will support, not artificially restricted based on the dubious opinion of citizens who, on average, will only live in the area for less than 1/10th the lifespan of a typical development. What about the other 9/10th of residents who move there after the development - maybe even because of it - because they appreciate the additional services it supports.
Wait a minute... Are you saying that aldermen should ram high-density projects down the residents' throats even when the residents don't want them? I have a big problem with that.
Aren't aldermen supposed to listen to their constituents? Isn't that why their constituents elected them?
Isn't it possible that residents of a particular neighborhood might feel there's too much density -- not to mention the congestion that it brings, parking problems, etc. -- for their tastes already? Maybe they don't want to add to those conditions even further?
Are residents supposed to be allowed no say in what they'd like their neighborhood to become? Are they supposed to simply sit back and be told, by their elected officials, what's good for them? Sounds to me like you want your elected officials to be dictators who are in the pockets of big developers.
Sometimes people want limits on development... and don't want densities to be as high as possible where they live.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for Wrigleyville residents whining about higher density when they chose to live in one of the densest neighborhoods in the country.
The Alderman in Jefferson Park effecively killed a moderately dense development within 2 blocks of the Blue Line and Metra stops in that neighborhood.
That is not the whole story. Levar only killed it after years of opposition from the residents of the area. He was one of the people pushing it and pushing it down people's throats. In fact, he used eminent domain to take possession of a few buildings on Lawrence that were torn down and are now just vacant lots.
Location: Shaw, St. Louis/West Ridge, Chicago/WuDaoKou, Beijing
292 posts, read 871,934 times
Reputation: 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
how do you figure this??? I just posted the #'s above, Chicago northside is a good bit denser than SF...Again unless you want to go to down to block to block level like Chinatown SF... that is the only way it wins.
Chicago also tops SF population in just 37.1 square miles on connected North Side Community Areas.
857298pop 37.1sq miles 23,170density
Chinatown SF:
129,273/sq mi
Nob Hill SF:
52,390/sq mi
Mission District:
25,329/sq mi
Russian Hill:
26,385/sq mi
Pacific Heights:
22,677/sq mi
North Beach:
32,558/sq mi
Western Addition:
27,919/sq mi
Haight-Ashbury:
27,074/sq mi
AVG for San Francisco NE Corridor: 42,950.6/sq mi
San Francisco Overall: 17,323/sq mi
Near North Side CHI:
26,786.9/sq mi
Lincoln Park:
20,168/sq mi
Lakeview:
30,021.4/sq mi
Edgewater:
36,363.9/sq mi
Uptown:
27,027.3/sq mi
Rogers Park:
34,326.3/sq mi
AVG for N. Side: 29,116.13
Chicago Overall: 12,557/sq mi
As for NYC I can't find the numbers for the densest in Manhattan but I'm sure there's a huge gap in between.
Location: Cleveland, OH USA / formerly Chicago for 20 years
4,069 posts, read 7,317,864 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by desperad0stl
Near North Side CHI:
26,786.9/sq mi
Lincoln Park:
20,168/sq mi
Lakeview:
30,021.4/sq mi
Edgewater:
36,363.9/sq mi
Uptown:
27,027.3/sq mi
Rogers Park:
34,326.3/sq mi
AVG for N. Side: 29,116.13
Chicago Overall: 12,557/sq mi
I wonder what the densities would be if you subdivided some of those Chicago community areas, like, say, East Lakeview vs. West Lakeview, Edgewater east of Broadway vs. west of Broadway, Gold Coast/Streeterville vs. the rest of the Near North Side, etc. I bet it would show that the pockets of Chicago's North Side nearest the lakefront would have much higher densities than your numbers indicate.
I have some #'s for Chicago density in comparison to the other 2 big ones, NYC and SF...
If you do a Manhattan size strip along the lake you will get
577095population 22.7sq miles 25,442population density
Chicago also tops SF population in just 37.1 square miles on connected North Side Community Areas.
857298pop 37.1sq miles 23,170density
Chicago has the densest areas running from around 5-200 square miles in the U.S. I think SF/Philadelphia have some higher under 5, LA has higher over 200 sq miles or so.
So in terms of true density, and what you would think from pictures Chicago definitely IS the 2nd most densest area from many set points behind New York City, Chicago just loses out to the #2 officially as San Francisco has only 47 miles in its city limits while Chicago has 220 and the density tracks within are a mixed bag.
Now if you want to talk, vibrancy, i.e. people clustered on the street in small areas, then SF, Boston, Philly can all compete with Chicago in certain areas and possibly best Chicago, but... that is just a few areas. Living in these cities Chicago would provide much more to do and is a much larger urban landscape. It is quite easily the #2 urban environment for people who like urban environments in the U.S. IMHO.
Exactly why I am moving to Chicago! I feel that it is a secret, and I need to get there as soon as possible.
Chinatown SF:
129,273/sq mi
Nob Hill SF:
52,390/sq mi
Mission District:
25,329/sq mi
Russian Hill:
26,385/sq mi
Pacific Heights:
22,677/sq mi
North Beach:
32,558/sq mi
Western Addition:
27,919/sq mi
Haight-Ashbury:
27,074/sq mi
AVG for San Francisco NE Corridor: 42,950.6/sq mi
San Francisco Overall: 17,323/sq mi
Near North Side CHI:
26,786.9/sq mi
Lincoln Park:
20,168/sq mi
Lakeview:
30,021.4/sq mi
Edgewater:
36,363.9/sq mi
Uptown:
27,027.3/sq mi
Rogers Park:
34,326.3/sq mi
AVG for N. Side: 29,116.13
Chicago Overall: 12,557/sq mi
As for NYC I can't find the numbers for the densest in Manhattan but I'm sure there's a huge gap in between.
This is a real help, i didn't realize Rogers Park was so dense now I have a place to start looking for a place to live. Rogers Park south along the lake!
I don't have a lot of sympathy for Wrigleyville residents whining about higher density when they chose to live in one of the densest neighborhoods in the country.
I am pretty sure they are knocking down several bars there to throw up a big box area, which will already make it worse.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
