Potential In-fill Stations

[westing]

Lately there has been a flurry of constructing new in-fill stations, 2 in 2012 (Oakton and Morgan) and one starting this year (Cermak Green). Some of these stations have more likelihood than others of being built. Asbury is a shoe-in, whenever Evanston gets the funding. Madison is often talked about and Division was mentioned in a City of Chicago Near North study.

Division would be great to help continue the redevelopment of the surrounding area and to encourage transit usage. Madison would be helpful for access to United Center events but I doubt the station would have enough everyday traffic to justify its construction. Perhaps when more development arises I'd be excited to see a stop there. Wentworth on the Orange was one of the proposed stops of the Circle Line. I think it would be a useful option to have. The surrounding area has redeveloped greatly in the last 20 years. I'm not sure if a transfer to the Red Line would make sense but at least providing closer connections to nearby residents and the new grocery store going up on Clark/16th.

My vote goes to a Western or Damen stop on the Green line, preferably Western. The economy paused redevelopment of the area but now a Pete's Market is being built at Western/Madison and new streetscaping is in place along Western. I think the area would really benefit from a new transit stop. It's strange to think the Green Line makes no stops between Ashland and California. I suppose it made sense for years when there was little going on in the area and funds couldn't be justified for a station but times are changing. If BRT is built along Western I'd hope a stop there would be only a matter of time.

[mkohut]

Where are they going to get the money?

Let me remind you with the pension plan and state other debts they own 104 Billion dollars.

I rather see if they ever get money to reinstate the service that has been cut.

[artthouwill]

My choice would be Madison for the Pink, but with the Bulls building a new practice facility by the tracks, that seems unlikely unles built on the north side of Madison. I actually think that if it were built, UC traffic aside, it wouldn't do any less businesses than Morgan.

[Busjack]

Where are they going to get the money?

Let me remind you with the pension plan and state other debts they own 104 Billion dollars.

I rather see if they ever get money to reinstate the service that has been cut.

On that one, the question is whether the feds are going to fund transit capital.

Also, state capital money is somewhat independent of the pension mess, in that particular taxes are dedicated to paying the bonds. For instance, I suggested that if people on the CTA Tattler were so worried about transit capital money, they should play video poker in Summit or Joliet, since that money goes there, as does about $40 of the license plate fee, and the liquor tax, thanks to Wirtz losing his lawsuit. So, drink up.

On the substance of the topic, while I was skeptical, the first four mentioned in the first message seem feasible. But, as far as the Green Line suggestions, I would think that more than Pete's Fresh Market (which seems there only by neighborhood request, and despite shakedowns) would have to be on the table to justify it. A superstation was built at Pulaski and Lake supposedly to spur development, but it didn't happen, and pretty much the same at Garfield and Prairie.

[jajuan]

On the substance of the topic, while I was skeptical, the first four mentioned in the first message seem feasible. But, as far as the Green Line suggestions, I would think that more than Pete's Fresh Market (which seems there only by neighborhood request, and despite shakedowns) would have to be on the table to justify it. A superstation was built at Pulaski and Lake supposedly to spur development, but it didn't happen, and pretty much the same at Garfield and Prairie.

Valid point. You have to consider are you just putting stations up just to fill in space and therefore needlessly slow down service or are you actually making an enhancement that does spur development in an area. You actually have to overcome the stigma of brought on by the criminal element in some of these areas and that is more complicated than even some politicians would like to admit. If you don't have the interest in redeveloping an area due to crime, a weak economy or whatever other reasons outside of the transit option that may deter economic investment, just putting up a new L station sure as heck isn't going to do it as evidenced by Busjack's examples of the Pulaski and Garfield stations on the Green Line. If anything you'd have those with opposing agendas and motives crying that the L draws more crime because of the structure making the area darker. Remember that southside minister using that line to get the Green Line chopped down to Cottage Grove when the surrounding community was promised it would expanded to Dorchester? The result was an expansion of properties along 63rd owned by him with no dent in crime as he claimed eliminating the L structure from above that stretch of 63rd would bring.

[mkohut]

Valid point. You have to consider are you just putting stations up just to fill in space and therefore needlessly slow down service or are you actually making an enhancement that does spur development in an area. You actually have to overcome the stigma of brought on by the criminal element in some of these areas and that is more complicated than even some politicians would like to admit. If you don't have the interest in redeveloping an area due to crime, a weak economy or whatever other reasons outside of the transit option that may deter economic investment, just putting up a new L station sure as heck isn't going to do it as evidenced by Busjack's examples of the Pulaski and Garfield stations on the Green Line. If anything you'd have those with opposing agendas and motives crying that the L draws more crime because of the structure making the area darker. Remember that southside minister using that line to get the Green Line chopped down to Cottage Grove when the surrounding community was promised it would expanded to Dorchester? The result was an expansion of properties along 63rd owned by him with no dent in crime as he claimed eliminating the L structure from above that stretch of 63rd would bring.

Til Emanuel gets a reality check and adds a 1000 cops the crime problem isn't going away.

[jajuan]

Til Emanuel gets a reality check and adds a 1000 cops the crime problem isn't going away.

I think it's quite more complicated than that as the issue in some of these areas has been there long before the two superstations mentioned and definitely longer than Emmanuel has been mayor of this city.

[Busjack]

...If anything you'd have those with opposing agendas and motives crying that the L draws more crime because of the structure making the area darker. ...

The one distinction is that the L is already there and since the proposal is for infill, would stay there. However, this would explain why Lake Street never developed into more than an industrial zone, while Randolph and Fulton at least turned into loft and restaurant districts east of Ashland.

[chicagopcclcar]

A superstation was built at Pulaski and Lake supposedly to spur development, but it didn't happen, and pretty much the same at Garfield and Prairie.

Would you clarify the above statement. It's not quite clear if you're saying the superstation didn't happen or the development didn't happen. I hope you're not saying a "superstation was built at Pulaski."

DH

[mkohut]

I don't think Pete's Market would be a item to bring people to make people go on the train.

You have to carry your bags going to the platform.Plus,you have to get any meat you buy in the freezer ASAP.

[Busjack]

Would you clarify the above statement. It's not quite clear if you're saying the superstation didn't happen or the development didn't happen. I hope you're not saying a "superstation was built at Pulaski."

DH

chicago-l.org, it says that it was planned but not built in 1996, but more work was done in 2001. Then "Super-Station Realized... Sort Of

Although the CTA ultimately built the new Pulaski station without the "super-station" concept suggested in the 1990s, the idea for such a facility wasn't dead. Rather than being built by the CTA or the City, a private group took the lead instead.

Bethel New Life, a faith-based social service agency founded in the wake of riots that devastated Garfield Park and other West Side neighborhoods, developed a commercial and community center at the northwest corner of Pulaski and Lake, adjacent to the new station. The 23,000-square-foot Bethel Center is intended as a hub of activity in Garfield Park, offering employment services, an in-house day care center, Head Start classes, a bank (1st Bank of Oak Park), dry cleaners and a Subway sandwich shop."

So, in effect, by now something was built, but not really a commercial center but a social services one.

And, of, course, we know that Garfield was eventually rebuilt on the north side of Garfield Boulevard, with the park and ride, but there sure isn't any commercial development near there. There were reports that the U of C was scavenging some of the land.

[Busjack]

I don't think Pete's Market would be a item to bring people to make people go on the train.

You have to carry your bags going to the platform.Plus,you have to get any meat you buy in the freezer ASAP.

And, undoubtedly, better served by the 20 bus, if one is going to use public transportation.

[chicagopcclcar]

chicago-l.org, it says that it was planned but not built in 1996, but more work was done in 2001.

So, in effect, by now something was built, but not really a commercial center but a social services one.

And, of, course, we know that Garfield was eventually rebuilt on the north side of Garfield Boulevard, with the park and ride, but there sure isn't any commercial development near there. There were reports that the U of C was scavenging some of the land.

Thanks, much clearer now. Have you ever personally been to either of these two locations? Just curious.

And rest assured, U of C owns property from 39th to 69th; from the Ryan east to the Lake. They were numero uno in tearing down the Jackson Park 'L'. Don't be fooled by their straw men.

DH

[Busjack]

Thanks, much clearer now. Have you ever personally been to either of these two locations? Just curious.

And rest assured, U of C owns property from 39th to 69th; from the Ryan east to the Lake. They were numero uno in tearing down the Jackson Park 'L'. Don't be fooled by their straw men.

DH

Garfield.

And the U of C owns some property, but not all of it, although definitely along 53rd and the shopping center at 55th and Lake Park. There were the articles while the Olympic hysteria was occurring that they were stockpiling property on Garfield, not revealing whether they needed it for hospital expansion, but basically because that gateway from the Dan Ryan to the campus looked like garbage. Which, I can attest, it does.

I remember when there were enough buildings in the Grand Boulevard neighborhood that you couldn't see the L from Washington Park. Now, you definitely can.

For that matter, Halsted between Garfield and about 69th also appears to be a disaster zone [except for Kennedy-King], which got the 20th ward alderwoman (Troutman) indicted in a bribery scheme over purported development.