daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > Metropolis & States > Chicago



Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 12th, 2005, 06:45 AM   #1
edsg25
BANNED
 
edsg25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,328
Likes (Received): 1

a "hypothetical" moral dilemma

Hypotethical issues can be so much more interesting to discuss since they lack the nuances and politics of real situations. So I'll offer this one up.

Let's imagine there is a major city that on the eve of the jet age decided to build an airport somewhere on its northwest outskirts. After this city built the airport and with the growth of air traffic, not only the city area around the new airport grew, but it stimulated an enormous growth in the suburban area beyond, with the vast majority of this areas businesses built due to their proximity to the airport. Residential growth was predicated on this growth as well.

Fast forward into the future. The city needs to expand its airport. The airport is an economic engine for its whole metropolitan engine. Its expansion is viewed as essential if this metro area is to keep its edge.

Problem is the suburban area adjacent to the airport will need to give up a portion of its land for airport expansion. The loss of that land will seriously affect thes suburban communities losing the land.

What to do, what to do?

If you could make a recommendation to this hypotetical city and its equally hypoetical suburbs, what would it be:

Should the suburbs affected realize that their land affects the general good of a much, much larger region for now....and well into the future and agree to sell their land to the eminant domaine requirements of the general community? Should they realize they knew the airport was there before them and that their very growth and development was based on the airport?

-or-

Should the city respect the property rights of the sections of the suburbs in question and, as much as it needs the airport, realize that it is not right for it to take others land?

(note: I'm just grateful we don't have to deal with this type of thorny issue here in Chicago! )
edsg25 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old November 12th, 2005, 06:58 AM   #2
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,942
Likes (Received): 54

One of those hypothetical towns was incorporated in the 1800's however. And to give you a hint, here's part of their Wiki:

Quote:
the site of Victory Auto Wreckers, a 7 acre junkyard on Green Street which has repeatedly played the same commercial staring Bob Zajdel on Chicago TV stations since 1981


spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2005, 07:00 AM   #3
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,151
Likes (Received): 1008

I think eventually one would have to stop expanding O'hare. It all depends on how much and what kind of land is taken of course so it could go either way. By the time O'hare is maxed out (after the latest round of expansion) I would hope a Maglev that could interconnect Chicagos airports/downtown/and a new airport (if need be) would be realistic.

Other major cities have multiple airports and Chicago wouldn't be the worse off for it. My major problem with Peotone it is so far flung as to be very impratical for all but a relatively small amount of metro Chicago and the lack of good and fast public transpertation (or likely anytime in the future to it).

If someone wanted to build a Magleve that would have gone from downtown to Chicago to some far off southern or western airport I wouldn't really be opposed.
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2005, 07:03 AM   #4
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,942
Likes (Received): 54

The money to have a maglev at this time would be equal to an airport.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2005, 06:26 PM   #5
richardsonhomebuyers
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 386
Likes (Received): 0

I would vote for expand. The city does not have to respect the suburbs. It's the other way around.
richardsonhomebuyers no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 12th, 2005, 06:47 PM   #6
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,955
Likes (Received): 6

Although I support O Hare expansion because it already has the infrastructure in place, all in all I agree with other posters that Chicago needs to rely on other airports. I totally hate the Peotone idea, though; thus Gary is the best idea.

My big problem with OHare is that it essentially lumps economic growth into 1 corridor of the region--the NW corridor. I would really like to see more balance in the region, thus Gary is perfect. Bring some more jobs to the south side, southern suburbs, etc.

Oh, and to answer Edsg's question: yes, I think people should sacrifice for the greater good. That's an easy one--it's only being asked here because Americans have grown to become peculiarly arrogant and selfish, thus they somehow think that their "property" is actually theirs. I've got news for you--private property is a hoax--get over yourselves and either get out of the way or be trampled by construction machines. I honestly could care less
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2005, 07:18 PM   #7
wickedestcity
BANNED
 
wickedestcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,566
Likes (Received): 2

i dont understand how midway falls through the cracks? why not either expand midway or connect the two airports better before looking at Peotone or Gary for an answer.
wickedestcity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 13th, 2005, 08:14 PM   #8
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,151
Likes (Received): 1008

Midway was deemed not expansionable back in the 50's (I beleive). That is why O'hare was put into use as a civilian airport in the first place because it had been "maxed out".
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2005, 12:21 AM   #9
ChicagoLover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 0

Expansion of Midway would require much more seizure of property through eminent domain than expansion of O'Hare. Midway is hemmed in on all sides by residential that is, I would think, much higher density than housing around O'Hare in Bensonville, and similar towns.

In theory, I agree with TUP in supporting Gary airport. Why spend so much money for an additional airport when so much of the infrastructure is already there? Building Peotone when one could expand and improve Gary-Chicago repeats the mistakes of the past: the urban core deteriorates further from underinvestment, as the periphery receives all the new construction. Needless to say, I don't have to point out the problems of sprawl to this crowd.

A high-speed train from downtown Chicago could make Gary-Chicago Airport an extremely attractive alternative to other two. The question, however, is whether Gary could be expanded long-term.

That said, I am not opposed to the construction of an airport in Peotone for the following reason. The political battle to obtain financing for airports in Chicagoland has been grueling, and painstakingly slow. So if the moment comes where support is galvanized, and the political will to actually *do* something substantial is there, then I would support doing it. Once that moment of true possibility passes, one might not see the political and financial support for any airport expansion for years to come. In the mean time, without additional airport capacity in the area, what could have been Chicago's will continue to go to other midwestern cities such as Cincinnati. Time is money here. I would rather have a very imperfect airport expansion plan move forward and take advantage of growth than no plan at all. At this point, it does seem as though there is much more political support for a Peotone than for a Gary, if only for the reason that Gary happens not to be in Illinois. Well, so be it. If the forecasters of air travel predict growth in their industry in the next several decades, Chicago had better be in a position to seize growth opportunities. I think *that* is more important than (1) having most urban friendly airport plan that makes best use of existing infrastructure, as much as I would want that, and more important than (2) the absolute best runway configuration at O'Hare, of which I have heard quibbling.

In the spirit of Daley I (or, shiver, Robert Moses), let's build it, damnit!

Its strange to me that O'Hare expansion is just now getting off the ground. When I moved away from Chicago 5 years ago, I remember hearing about the fight over O'Hare on the radio as I drove through the South Side as a resident for the final time. Five years, and they have just begun construction after a court-ordered halt to construction was released.
ChicagoLover no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2005, 12:29 AM   #10
Frumie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 717
Likes (Received): 0

A chief reason why Midway wasnt expanded was air traffic control issues. Two airports in such close proximity to one another.
Frumie no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2005, 02:41 AM   #11
wickedestcity
BANNED
 
wickedestcity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,566
Likes (Received): 2

i wasnt presuming they expand out but rather to expand from within. theres ways to add more runways and fully utalize the land they currently have. they just need to get creative
wickedestcity no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 14th, 2005, 08:10 AM   #12
ChicagoLover
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes (Received): 0

^ How could that be done with Midway? Please forgive me if I'm just completely ignorant about these issues; I'm just shooting from the hip. Its just that Midway's footprint seems particularly small for a modern airport -- only 1 mile square if I remember correctly.
ChicagoLover no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu