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

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Development News Forums > General Urban Developments > DN Archives



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old June 20th, 2007, 09:03 PM   #581
Bgirl
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 36
Likes (Received): 0

Hi All,

Interesting in this week's Crain's...I'd love for Dowell and Fioretti to vote NO on the upcoming $108 million TIF financing (for development of the old Post Office and Union Station) and turn that cash into helping out the CTA.
We need some more routes/stops down in the S Loop, especially the Cermak/Wabash area. With Kleiner's new venture and the possibility of Buddy Guy's moving more south, the city will need to revisit traffic needs. Oh, then there is the Olympics....

From what I've read, TIFs don't help us that much in the end. The City gives a developer/company subsidies upfront and gets that back with future tax payments. In the end, the taxes of those people in TIF districts go up and the extra revenues that come thru may not get used in the best way possible.

Why not spend the $108 million, give it to the CTA and down the line, recoup some of that cash with more folks getting access to ride the CTA in the first place? $2 here, $2 there, it could add up. Throw in the new hotels and homes being built in that area and you have a guaranteed user base for the CTA.
Bgirl no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old June 20th, 2007, 09:54 PM   #582
ErmDiego
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 154
Likes (Received): 2

Union Station TIF

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bgirl View Post
Hi All,

Interesting in this week's Crain's...I'd love for Dowell and Fioretti to vote NO on the upcoming $108 million TIF financing (for development of the old Post Office and Union Station) and turn that cash into helping out the CTA.
We need some more routes/stops down in the S Loop, especially the Cermak/Wabash area. With Kleiner's new venture and the possibility of Buddy Guy's moving more south, the city will need to revisit traffic needs. Oh, then there is the Olympics....

From what I've read, TIFs don't help us that much in the end. The City gives a developer/company subsidies upfront and gets that back with future tax payments. In the end, the taxes of those people in TIF districts go up and the extra revenues that come thru may not get used in the best way possible.

Why not spend the $108 million, give it to the CTA and down the line, recoup some of that cash with more folks getting access to ride the CTA in the first place? $2 here, $2 there, it could add up. Throw in the new hotels and homes being built in that area and you have a guaranteed user base for the CTA.
Heard from a top source...the TIF approval for Union Station is a done deal, except for some concesions for community related giveback issues for the residents.
ErmDiego no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 20th, 2007, 11:24 PM   #583
Belacqua
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 153
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bgirl View Post
Why not spend the $108 million, give it to the CTA and down the line, recoup some of that cash with more folks getting access to ride the CTA in the first place? $2 here, $2 there, it could add up. Throw in the new hotels and homes being built in that area and you have a guaranteed user base for the CTA.
Not that I disagree with the sentiment, but I think the main thing that would prevent that from happening is that CTA/RTA revenues don't come out of the city budget in any way that TIF money could be redirected to them, nor could that money make its way back from the turnstile to the city. They're all separate pots of money and the city has very little statutory say in what the CTA gets. As far as I understand it, the RTA's byzantine funding formula is at the base of all the CTA's problems, and that's determined at the state level.
Belacqua no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 02:58 AM   #584
slooparch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 95
Likes (Received): 5

Who's Steve?

Thanks for the point about Dearborn II and 15th, Dennis....
slooparch no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 04:02 AM   #585
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

I dunno

I guess it just rhymes with "leaves." Hop on the bus, Gus. Sneak out the back, Jack. Follow the plan, Stan.

Does that make us even, Steven?
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 04:43 AM   #586
ardecila
Jack-Of-All-Trades
 
ardecila's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Orleans/Chicago
Posts: 1,391
Likes (Received): 2

Hmm... 300 train movements a day? That seems just a bit high. The Rock Island District schedule shows 68 trains per weekday, inbound + outbound. Even assuming every single one of those trains is returning to the yard, that's only 124 movements per day. There's no freight service on the Rock Island anywhere near the South Loop.

Again, a lateral shift in the tracks does not necessarily change the existing grade, if constructed carefully. The whole area was originally rail yards; I can't believe it has too much extreme grading.

As for the property-deed issue: how are the parcels defined? Also, Metra isn't exactly a private property owner - it's subject in certain capacities to the oversight of RTA, which is a regional planning agency. If the relocation of this right-of-way is a significant planning issue, then RTA should take notice.

Quote:
You can't introduce more than a two percent grade to the railroad, and Metra is dead set against any change in grade. You can't build the streets with more than four percent grade. Do the math, make a sketch; get back to us with where, exactly, you'd put those overpasses.
I'd love to make a sketch, but I don't know what underpass clearances are required. The city's viaducts vary all over the place, and most were constructed in an era before semi trucks.

Last edited by ardecila; June 21st, 2007 at 04:59 AM.
ardecila no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 05:39 AM   #587
Mr Downtown
Urbane observer
 
Mr Downtown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,547
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Even assuming every single one of those trains is returning to the yard, that's only 124 movements per day.
And then returning from the yard for the afternoon rush.
Quote:
As for the property-deed issue: how are the parcels defined? Also, Metra isn't exactly a private property owner - it's subject in certain capacities to the oversight of RTA, which is a regional planning agency.
That will come as news to both RTA and CMAP. As for the parcels, presumably they have metes-and-bounds descriptions, same as any other nonsubdivision landholding, but that's not terribly important. For purposes of your sketch, assume a land swap could be worked out.
Quote:
I'd love to make a sketch, but I don't know what underpass clearances are required.
Assume 15 feet for our purposes. Don't worry about girder depth or ballast. I just want to see where you think the tracks should be/could be moved.
Mr Downtown no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 21st, 2007, 09:02 PM   #588
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

New South Loop Project

- edit
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 12:21 AM   #589
Chi_Coruscant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 879
Likes (Received): 0

- edit

Last edited by Chi_Coruscant; June 24th, 2007 at 12:30 AM.
Chi_Coruscant no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 12:42 AM   #590
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

WOWW...!
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 12:45 AM   #591
robituss
Registered User
 
robituss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: chi
Posts: 272
Likes (Received): 1

Well, I have a hard time envisioning this really happening. Why propose such a grand project with so many units at the end of the boom? Probably should aim for the next wave. It all sounds like a great development, (especially the 80 story building) but really, what are the chances of them actually pulling this off. And 25$ in TIF? Good luck.

On the other hand the land still makes some great park space for those river city people.
robituss no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 01:13 AM   #592
chicago23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 39
Likes (Received): 0

^ The time this project goes through all the approval process ands starts doing its marketing thing it will be the next boom. Its actually good timing to start getting huge project likes this ready.
chicago23 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 01:34 AM   #593
BorisMolotov
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 376
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Well, I have a hard time envisioning this really happening. Why propose such a grand project with so many units at the end of the boom? Probably should aim for the next wave. It all sounds like a great development, (especially the 80 story building) but really, what are the chances of them actually pulling this off. And 25$ in TIF? Good luck.
Way to be Mr. Negative-Town! Could THIS be the rumoured supertall whose location supposedly none of us would guess? (I remember this a month or so back)
BorisMolotov no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 01:58 AM   #594
The Urban Politician
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 5,935
Likes (Received): 21

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicago23 View Post
^ The time this project goes through all the approval process ands starts doing its marketing thing it will be the next boom. Its actually good timing to start getting huge project likes this ready.
^ I totally agree with you
The Urban Politician no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 03:09 AM   #595
Chicagotom
Registered User
 
Chicagotom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 0

Supertall?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisMolotov View Post
Way to be Mr. Negative-Town! Could THIS be the rumoured supertall whose location supposedly none of us would guess? (I remember this a month or so back)
Supertall = 80 stories? I don't even consider 80 stories a supertall in this city any more. Granted it tall but not "supertall".
Chicagotom no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 03:54 AM   #596
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; June 18th, 2010 at 05:50 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 04:05 AM   #597
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

^You may be right, however, only a few months ago Smith did an interview where he mentioned this project in some detail.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 04:12 AM   #598
Loopy
Chicago, USA
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 777
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Loopy; June 18th, 2010 at 05:50 PM.
Loopy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 04:20 AM   #599
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagotom View Post
Supertall = 80 stories? I don't even consider 80 stories a supertall in this city any more. Granted it tall but not "supertall".
I don't think number of floors matters too much in defining a supertall. There are many buildings in places like Dubai that have a pretty low floor count but still surpass 1000'.
spyguy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old June 24th, 2007, 04:45 AM   #600
spyguy
Expert
 
spyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 6,916
Likes (Received): 97

By the way, here is what I wrote after listening to that interview in March:

Quote:
A little more info:

Both projects are in their infancy so there are no guarantees that either will happen at this point.

The first is just north of River City. It will consist of sustainable design with three towers and three lowrise sections. It will be mixed use with hotel(s), condos, rental, retail, and parking. There will be two courtyards with marinas and amenity space with landscaping and plazas. The developer is not Donald Trump

The second is near 311 South Wacker on one of two sites. Not many details except it will be a highly efficient and an energy producing building.
spyguy 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

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 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