Old Chicago Post Office back on the market: what to do, what to do?

Any readers checking the latest news from Curbed Chicago will know by now that the Old Chicago Post Office is back on the market. Previous owner, British developer Bill Davies, put the massive building back on sale after not trying very hard struggling to develop the site. Regardless of what happens now, whoever buys the property will have to spend an additional hundred of millions if not billions of dollars on redevelopment. And, the real question stands, what will go there?

Old Chicago Post Office

There is laundry list of desired projects for this site. Some Chicagoans have looked forward to Walgreens moving its headquarters from suburban Deerfield here. Other proposals include artists spaces and a tech hub, while others stick to the classic list of condos, hotel, retail; and, of course, the Chicago casino has been included amongst these ideas.

The ultimate result is going to be big. We can only hope that the developers have the foresight to put something on this site that not only enhances life in the neighborhood, but also the city as a whole. This is a private property and the city can’t impose too much on what happens once somebody buys. That said, it is one hell of a private property and it would be delusional of both the city and developers to think both parties shouldn’t have a stake in this.

This is what the first phase of initial plans for the Old Post Office in Chicago proposed by British developer Bill Davies initially looked like in the summer of 2013.

This is what the first phase of initial plans for the Old Post Office in Chicago proposed by British developer Bill Davies initially looked like in the summer of 2013.

The city and public need to take a stance on this project and make it clear to the developers that this has to have elements that improve public well-being and access in the surrounding area. This project has the potentially to radically change the way the area of the West Loop around Union Station functions and should be part of that change.

If Chicago ever needed a proper department of urban planning it is moments like these.

Transportation and green space cannot be left out of any project that goes here and much like the agreement made by the developers of the Chicago Spire to build DuSable Park and the Lincoln Park Apple Store to rebuild the head house of the North/Clybourn Red Line stop, the development of green space and better transit infrastructure in the area should be pegged to this project.

The site includes prime river front property, which by no means should be cut off from public use and would be ideal for providing a small green oasis along the water in an area that is increasingly dense with little new green space. It’s fair to assume at least one if not two high-rise buildings may at some point be included in new plans for this site, including along the river, but as plans released last summer and report on by DNAInfo Chicago reveal, the smaller plot of land along the river north of the Eisenhower Expressway would accommodate the smallest of the potential skyscrapers (a mere 40 story tall building). Any project should keep riverfront construction to the smaller plot to preserve the larger plot south of the Eisenhower Expressway along Harrison Street for parkland.

Additionally, any new construction must take advantage of the city’s Transit Oriented Development ordinance. Considering the site is adjacent to Union Station, the proposed CTA bus terminal, intercity bus termini, the Forest Park Branch of the Blue Line, and a mere four blocks from the LaSalle stop on the Loop and Ogelvie Transit Center each there is no excuse for the amount of parking that was included in the original proposal (depending on the date it ranged from 4,000-5,500 plus spots). Part of the initial proposals included building parking into the Old Post Office building and a new garage on the west side of the building on the plot at the intersection of Harrison and Canal streets. That can be scratched and built into whatever new office, hotel, or residential tower desired. This would work into increasing the amount of available office space to do something that is long overdue: demolish the tower above Union Station on the 200 block of South Canal Street.

Olf Post Office Site


Removing this 26 story tower from the scene would allow Amtrak, Metra, and the City of Chicago to finally move forward and vastly improve the aesthetic and logistical function of the station, because it would remove the cluster of support columns and other impediments from directly above the busiest part of the station while allowing in natural light. It is a rare opportunity, but so much new commercial office space will be developed in the same four-square blocks that offices in this building could easily be moved to new offices at the Old Post Office making for an easy demolition of the Union Station tower.

The development of the Old Post Office really should be pegged to the redevelopment of Union Station and somehow include things like better direct access to the new bus terminal (something I believe should be made bigger and include intercity buses), new auxiliary entrances to the south platforms along Van Buren Street, and perhaps most import and redevelopment of the Clinton Blue Line stop to make the station entrance bigger, more visible, better lit, and build out auxiliary entrances at Canal Street and/or in the Old Post Office site.

This site is a big one, physically and emotionally. One way or another it will change the city and collectively Chicagoans can only hope the developers are smart, socially and environmentally conscientious, and willing to work with the city to invest in the area around the site that benefits their private interests and the public interests of the city as a whole. This is going to be a great urban planning project and challenge. This new update should be fun to follow.

And on one final note, I really hope Antunovich Associates are not included in any new projects; if they are we’re guaranteed nothing more than suburbia in the sky.

500 signatures against the Illiana Tollroad – ALMOST THERE!


Let’s make a collective goal: 500 signatures against the Illiana Tollroad by December 31! Right now!

The PETITION I began protesting the economically, socially, and environmentally unsustainable project has 423 signatures and only needs 77 more people to sign to reach 500 total.

It would be great to have such a large number of people signing up to show their opposition to this project. Experts reasonably believe the Illiana will prove to be a huge financial burden and ultimately loss for the states of Illinois and Indiana with little to no positive economic or social benefits while hurting the region’s environment. Traffic reduction is predicted to be unreasonably low for a project of this scale (with some projections predicting congestion being reduced by a mere 1%) with few trucking companies, the primary target for this project, using the road. The road will cut through small far south suburban communities, dangerously close to protected wildlife areas, and take precious state resources from more profitable projects in Chicagoland.* Indeed, the US Public Interest Research Group (US P.I.R.G.) included it on its list of highway boondoggles.

If we want to stop this, we need to look not to Gov. Pat Quinn, but Governor-elect Bruce Rauner. He is sworn into office on January 12, 2015. Let’s make sure 500 plus signatures and a call to stop this project are amongst the first things sitting on his desk at the State House early next year. Sign the PETITION, share it with friends, and show the Governor-elect and state government that this project is unpopular, unreasonable, and harmful.

Link to the PETITION.

*While it is unclear what other projects might be hurt by lost financing to the Illiana Tollroad, I wanted to include a list of projects proposed by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP), which opposes the Illiana, for Chicago’s South and Southwest suburbs to demonstrate what is potentially at stake.

  • Red Line South Extension: although this project is contained entirely within the City of Chicago, the project would extend the CTA’s busiest ‘L’ line south from the current terminus at 95th Street to a location near 130th Street. Whatever the new terminus, it would regardless add 4.5-5.5 miles to the Red Line and bring many South Side and south suburban communities closer to the Loop and the region at large.
  • Metra Heritage Corridor Improvements: This project (with an estimated cost of apprx. $200 million) would add service and reduce delays and conflicts between passenger and freight trains in Southwest Chicagoland. These projects (which include CREATE projects) would be a boon for rail passengers and logistics in the region at a fraction of the cost of the Illiana Tollroad (estimated at over $700 million if not more).
  • Orange Line South Extension: Another project entirely within the City of Chicago, the Orange Line extension would extend the line south of its Midway Airport Terminus to Ford City Mall (apprx. 75th Street). Much like the Red Line though, it would bring better rapid transit closer to Southwest Side and southwest suburban communities and include improved intermodal connections via more access to Midway Airport. The project is project at a little more than half the expected contributions needed for the Illiana Tollroad.
  • The Southeast Service: This is a proposed new Metra line that would bring rail service to Chicago’s South Suburbs. With an estimated cost of $800 million it is not much more expensive than the Illiana Tollroad and provides congestion reducing rail options to Chicago’s suburbs, environmentally friendly alternatives to driving, and far less impact to local communities. The proposed route as it currently stands is from Balmoral Park to LaSalle Street Station via Crete and Gresham (see link).
  • Southwest Service and Rock Island District Extensions: both these extensions would bring more rail service to Chicago’s far Southwest Suburbs. They include many of the benefits of the Southeast Service mentioned above and together cost about the same as the expected contribution necessary for the Illiana Tollroad.

Link to the PETITION.

The Humble Bus – You deserve better

Oh, the humble bus. You get nothing but the ire of transit riders the world over. Even in transit friendly places like Freiburg, Germany and London I have seen and heard people express grief towards buses that is less frequently directed at trams or trains. Oh, the humble bus: you are indeed slow. You bumble along the street, you bounce to the bumps of potholes, and you creep through traffic at a snail’s pace. Riders are left to their own devices when boarding you, woe to those who don’t have shelter in rain or cold, and cross your fingers you have something smaller than a 20 when paying cash upon boarding (no change, no luck). The humble bus: none of this is your fault though, you just don’t get the treatment you deserve.

The bus gets too bad a rap when discussing mass transit. I think even within the transit planning community there is a tendency to shy away from addressing issues surrounding buses and focus on my glamorous options like BRT and streetcars and even high-tech options like autonomous cars. This is a problem though. Rather than take a serious look at the details of what will make bus systems better we let ourselves get distracted by the ephemeral possibilities of the future and the easier to sell, but more expensive options of the present. Buses in almost every city play a big role in linking different communities and transit options together when and where streetcars and subways are unable to do the job. To achieve high transit ridership, buses have to become part of the larger discussion on how to get people out of cars, because more often than not it is the bus that people will use to get to trains.

The whole process of making buses better though shouldn’t be limited to service frequency and the experience riders have solely on board, but rather the door-to-door experience. I would argue it is more the exterior elements of bus trips that discourage riders than the actual time spent in a bus. It’s all in the details and if those are better handled it might be possible to maintain and even increase ridership before investing in things like streetcars and BRT while creating more sustained momentum for more trips on a route. Within certain circles, I think the ideas below might be rather obvious. But I’m choosing to write about them regardless for a few reasons: first, I think its good to maintain a continued discussion on often mundane topics. Second, I think it is good to look at all the possibilities at improving transit in one forum to get a better idea of how the bigger picture works, especially as a system. Third, I hope that this will be read by people who might not think about this. And finally, I really think it is important to think of ways to create change that is outside the realm of just increasing bus frequency, because that fails to address other problems facing riders.

Many of the points I’ll be making reference experiences in Chicago, because the vast majority of my transit experiences are here. However, to try to mix things up I will refer to experiences in Madison, WI; as well as Freiburg and Hamburg, Germany.

1) Before looking at anything else to improve bus transit, agencies must develop schedules and connections that create easy, reliable, and quick transfers. By this I’m not saying that at every intersection where two or more bus routes cross a passenger should see another bus coming immediately, but rather at certain nodes schedules should be planned around making sure riders can easily transfer between services like commuter rail and buses. Often one of these or both have low-frequency service and a delay of a minute or two could either cost a rider a transfer altogether or mean waits of 20 or more minutes.

I think of one particular example in Chicago where this is a very visible problem: in the Northwest Side neighborhood Edgebrook there is a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus terminus close to a Metra commuter rail station (see the image below). The problem here is two-fold: first, the station and bus terminal are not connected except for strip of unpaved path next to the rail bed that is a problem unto itself. The main issue though is the clear lack of scheduled coordination between bus arrival and departure times and the Metra schedule. On more than one occasion I have seen people victim to buses departing from the terminal as commuter trains are just arriving. If the bus departure time was schedule held for 5-10 minutes after trains arrived at the station, this would easily facilitate very easy transfers to an important North Side bus.

Edgebrook Metra/Bus Terminal

A more effective example is the terminal of a streetcar route and bus line in Freiburg, Germany. Pictured in the image below, you can see that the streetcar terminal and bus stop in the Vauban neighborhood share a platform and are well-connected to other modes of transportation (pedestrian and bike paths). Not only do passengers not have to travel far to make a connection, the path they must take is paved. It also allows bus or tram drivers to hold off departure for a moment if they see one mode is about to arrive–it is an inadvertent form of intermodal communication. It also makes schedule coordination easier, because it removes the need to consider the time needed for passengers to get from stop to stop. By simply filling in the gaps like the example from Chicago, transit agencies could build better intermodal networks.

Freiburg Streetcar/Bus Terminal

Ultimately though the important note is schedule coordination. In Freiburg, the trams leave every seven minutes during the four o’clock hour. The number 11 bus heading into the city only twice, but(!) the two are scheduled so the bus leaves two minutes after the tram leaves (since this is a terminal for the tram, that means the bus leaves about 3-5 minutes after it arrives then). And since the tram leaves every seven minutes during this hour, that means even if the tram has already left by the time the bus arrives and departs, the next tram is only 5 minutes away (or at the very least is standing before its scheduled departure). Additionally, the schedules are coordinated so the two hourly buses during the nine and ten o’clock hours at night arrive exactly halfway between two trams, so connections are not more than about seven minutes total. Connections for everyone! Generally, transfer times are not that bad for rush-hour commuters making connections from the Metra at Edgebrook to departing buses, but they still hover around 15 minutes, which is long enough to make the connection, but not that ideal hop-off/hop-on. It is during off-peak hours where things go sour. After about 7:00PM, trains begin running hourly and out-bound train arrive on the hour exactly at Edgebrook, yet buses leave on the hour exactly too and the 30, meaning a 30 minute wait. In-bound passengers are in the same boat as out-bound passengers. Some might make the bus on the hour, but most waits will be 15 plus minutes. Connections for… some.

2) But, no matter how much coordination is put into a system’s transit schedule, not all transfers will be perfect and sometimes people will have to wait–c’est la vie. Whether caused by a bad transfer or simply arriving to late to catch a desired bus, passengers should at least be able to know their wait will have a semblance of comfort, otherwise known as investment in bus shelters. So much emphasis is put on the aesthetics and comforts of passenger rail stations, that it is a wonder the comparatively modest bus shelter is overlooked–it serves the same purpose at a smaller scale. Maybe we view them as less valuable, but investments in better bus shelters are still investments in better transit. The City of Chicago did a great job for the city’s aesthetics by investing in well designed bus shelters from a superficial point of view, but the Chicago example also is a great place to investigate how much better they can be.

First, bus shelters are meant to do exactly what they’re called: provide. Climate needs to be taken into account when designing these. Obviously keeping out the elements is a given in any design, but designs by nature demand appropriateness to the climate. Three walls and a roof might be great in Miami where it is warm year round and you can expect little more than rain, but in the great white North that is the Midwest a fourth (even partial) wall is in order to help keep out cold winds in the winter and support another well deserved function at bus shelters: heating lamps. These are the norm at train stations across the North, but I have never seen them at a bus shelter in either Madison or Chicago and should be a priority investment. The CTA has blamed the extreme winter experienced in 2013/2014 for a drop in ridership on buses, and maybe that should be taken as a cue to invest in more winter ready bus stops. They do indeed exist. Just check out this image of heat lamps at a Minneapolis bus shelter. It might not be a tropical green house in there, but those heat lamps can make a heck of a difference.

This bus shelter in Minneapolis (identical to Chicago's bus shelters in fact) features heat lamps to help riders through the winter months.

This bus shelter in Minneapolis (identical to Chicago’s bus shelters in fact) features heat lamps to help riders through the winter months.

4) That said, big investments should be made where possible at bus termini. While these are sometimes limited to nothing more than a stretch of sidewalk in denser urban areas, they can often be larger plots with turnarounds and ample space for development. The terminals are the prime places for interior waiting areas with heating in the winter. They probably have the physical space for such structures, which can double as mini-break areas for drivers between runs. Additionally, they have the ability to include better information kiosks and the inclusion of fare machines, something which in American cities is usually restricted to rail stations.

5) Alas, not all bus stops have or will accommodate a full-blown shelter and will most likely consist of little more than a sign and patch of concrete. These too mustn’t be uncomfortable areas to the bane of riders. At least benches should be included, because people like to sit (and older riders, pregnant mothers, or parents get by better with a seat). While benches may not be at every of these two things for sure need to be these simple stops: signs and a path for access. Signs can be cheap but highly effective tools in making better transit. Information needs to be clear, comprehensive and details for them to work though. This can include exact schedules, neighborhood information, fare information etc.; but let’s not harp on signs. Go HERE for more (David Levison does a good job talking signs on streets mn). The other issue is access. While not necessarily a problem overall, a good bus system will coordinate with local infrastructure authorities that help guarantee good maintenance so riders don’t have to ever tromp through snow or mud to get to stop or stand on patches of dirt while waiting (see Point 1). Sidewalks shouldn’t end short of bus stops and in inclement weather bus stops should be prioritized for clearing snow and debris.

VAG Karte (Buslinie 11)

The Freiburg bus stops examined are underlined in red; in the Google Map the same stops and tram stops are red circles.

6) Perhaps something can be done about these problematic stops altogether–what if we simply just took some away? I think for some riders this sounds like blasphemy, but bus stops at unreasonably close intervals just slow things down. The Chicago standard (which is similar to what I experienced in Madison, WI) is to have stops at intervals of about 2-3 city blocks. While this does mean easy access to stops all over the city, buses slow significantly because of the constant need to stop. Yet, in other places, there are fewer bus stops and higher ridership. I know in Hamburg this is the case as it is in Freiburg.

On the Route 11 bus in Freiburg the line has only 4 stops in a 0.8 mile stretch in the city’s dense inner core (see above right and below left); this compares to the route 84 bus in Chicago along a 0.5 mile stretch of Caldwell Avenue with 6 stops (see below right). Cut this in half to three stops and there would still be relatively easy access to the bus without the need to stop constantly. Extrapolate this over an entire route and that can add up to (from my calculations of a 3.5 mile route) to about 7-12 minutes more on a 3.5 mile route with 30-35 stops versus 18-20 or so. What cities need to do is design stops to maximize access, transfers and convenience. Yes, this will hurt for passengers by extending the walks necessary to get to stops, but two blocks ads only a few minutes to a walk overall, bike corrals and bike sharing close to or at bus stops could incentivize biking and shorter trips.

Freiburg Bus Route 11

If these proposals seem obvious it’s because they are. The proposals made here are meant to make bus transit better without resorting to the costs and construction times for BRT or rail. Buses belong in a system of transit that is multi-modal and relies on a variety of options, speeds, and accessibility to function well. Yet these options to improve bus transit, while existent in some places–especially overseas–still fail to appear widespread in the United States. As agencies and activist groups seek improvements to existing systems it is worthwhile to ponder how cheaper solutions like the ones above, ones with strong track records and usage in various locales, can improve what already exists in American cities.

Edgerbook (Bus Route 84)It is easy to get enamored with new transit options like BRT and futuristic ideas like autonomous cars, but solving our transit problems and access to mobility requires action for the present with an eye on the future, not action for the future while ignoring the present. The details that often go overlooked or are difficult for passengers to see are some of the easier improvements that agencies can implement. Indeed, those might be most responsible ways of achieving change and taking advantage of the mantra “you have to spend money to make money.” Cash strapped transit systems can’t necessarily go on whims to spend large sums on BRT, trams, or other rail based modes, but at the very least investments like these will be tools to help maintain passenger levels and perhaps create a small boost in ridership. Ultimately, small changes could be intermediate catalysts to larger improvements like BRT.

Strong bases hold up strong systems. The humble bus, despite all the ire it often gets, should be that strong base.


Height can be deceptive: when 15 = 4

Michael Podgers:

Daniel Kay Hertz does a great job addressing the issue of discussing density in new proposals in this blog post. Not only does he use simple math to break down actual density versus visual density, he does so in a way that shows there is always a flip-side to every coin. Indeed, one of the commentators on the article points out density can change again when bedrooms are looked at versus units. Regardless he does a good job to force a change in our thinking of what exactly density means.

One thing I think Hertz overlooks however (something that again is brought up in the comments section) is that opposition to density may actually be opposition to change and aesthetics. Density is merely a scapegoat that a weary public can easily attack. Hertz successfully gives a new vocabulary for discussing density, but as is the case in so many examples the feelings are probably not as much about density as they are about change.

I think reading Hertz’s post is useful to developing better outreach strategies for new urban planning and development projects; it is also telling to see what is left out and possibly more important for extending that thinking to the sociological issues at the root of so much opposition. If models like this are successful when leading discussions about density, perhaps we can focus on the more pressing questions at the roots of community opposition.

Originally posted on City Notes:

One of the foremost complaints about the proposed 15- and 11-story towers around the California Blue Line stop – a proposal that I briefly mentioned in an earlier post – is that they’re too dense for the neighborhood. What people mean by this, and sometimes what they just come out and say, is that they’re much denser than existing buildings.


The proposed towers in question.

For the record, I don’t think that “denser than existing buildings” and “too dense” are the same thing, but let’s put that aside for the moment. Are these towers actually much denser than existing buildings in Logan Square? In one sense – a visual sense – the answer is obviously yes. People associate density with height, and these buildings would be much taller than anything else around them. (As I mentioned in the previous post, the tallest building currently in Logan Square is a seven-story…

View original 1,044 more words

Fingers crossed for a Burke win in Wisconsin

Americans… or at least 30% of eligible voters, will be hitting the polls today to vote in the Midterm Elections. This set of elections fall midway between presidential elections and have historically low turn out. Yet, they are often vital for the political structure of state and federal legislatures: the entire House of Representatives is up for reelection, important Senate seats are voted on this day, and many states have gubernatorial elections. This is no mediocre election period. And this Midterm is particularly vital. The state of Wisconsin is voting on whether to reelect the controversial and contentious incumbent Scott Walker or newly elect the former Trek Bicycle executive and business friendly liberal Mary Burke. I disdain Walker, but I’m not enamored with Burke either. I am praying that Burke wins.

This gubernatorial election in Wisconsin stands above every other vote in the country right now, because it is essentially a referendum on the Republican Party’s ultra-conservative orthodoxy that put a strangle hold on political action in recent years. If Burke wins, fingers crossed she does, it will be a strong message to the Republican Party that they can no longer challenge the rights of workers to collectively bargain, they cannot try to destroy unions, they need to listen to the people, foster healthy communities by holding strong on investments in education, innovative jobs, and sustainable infrastructure, and essentially that the platform they have adopted in the last few years was a reactionary blip to the election of Barack Obama that no longer has broad popular support and the error of their ways became quickly apparent.

Although I will be voting in Illinois today, my eyes will be on Wisconsin. The state has a special place in my heart: I spent three years in Madison and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. There I learned about Wisconsin politics and what makes the state tick. I developed a greater appreciation for the Midwest as a whole and most importantly began thinking about the importance of intergovernmental cooperation and partnership across the Midwest for mutual benefit. Walker dropped a bomb on a state I was eager to get to know. The Wisconsin state motto “Forward” made me think I was entering a progressive utopia where despite political and social differences people ultimately worked to move incrementally forward even if just at a crawl. In the years I spent in Wisconsin, that sense of consistent progression died at the hands of virulent partisanship. The idea of “hotdish politics”, as my friends call it, was long gone and the state has struggled since.

Burke is the candidate who, even if not exciting, will bring steadiness back to Wisconsin. She will be able to use years of business, political, municipal, and charitable expertise to improve the state’s finances, economy, and education. She has worked to expand Trek Bicycle nationally and internationally and will better understand the importance of cooperation for growth. Her track record is impressive and is significantly more comforting than what Walker had to show when he was first elected in 2010. This will be a change from the competition Walker encourages, a man who lauds jobs coming to Wisconsin at the expense of other neighbor states rather than look at ways to connect these economies. He is notorious for turning down free investment dollars to expand rail from Chicago to Madison via Milwaukee and on to the Twin Cities. This was a key to creating a Midwest high-speed rail network and would be the first regularly scheduled passenger rail service to Wisconsin’s capital in 30 years.

A Burke win represents steadiness and a return to Wisconsin’s progressive spirit. A Walker loss is a strong message to the GOP and ultra-conservative interests in the entire country. Burke needs to win in Wisconsin and get state and Midwestern growth back on track and bring the region out of an overly competitive state that benefits no one. Walker’s loss is important in setting a new tone in American politics that favors cooperation of competition, the people over business, and sustainable growth over laissez-faire policies.

I couldn’t hit the polls in Madison today so I can only cross my fingers that Burke wins.