The Chainlink

For those of us who live in Lakeview or end up there pretty often, the amount of car traffic there can be pretty awful. This was sent to me, and it seems like it's a pretty crappy deal by an alderman that I thought would be more in favor of reducing traffic in his turf:

Alderman Tom Tunney is negotiating with the Cubs, and he wants more parking -- as much as 20 percent of Wrigley Field's capacity.*  Many of us feel Lakeview has enough cars on our streets already, and we would rather see investments in bicycling, transit, shuttles and sidewalks instead to serve residents and visitors.  Do you agree?
Please sign the petition TODAY and send this message to Alderman Tunney and the Cubs.  The Cubs have set a deadline of Monday, April 1 for an agreement around renovations, parking, and more.  They need to hear our voice.

Thanks!

Views: 3248

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That seems like direct empirical evidence against the more parking = more cars adage.  Are there really places close to Wrigley that aren't filled up? I admit I try to avoid the neighborhood during game day (mostly successfully) but the few times I've been around, it looks like the lots are all packed to capacity and then some.

Lee Crandell said:

Yes, speaking of Yankee Stadium, they've made this mistake already and built a massive parking garage that sits more than half empty, leading them to default on bond payments.

What a great investment that turned out to be. Let's not repeat the same mistake. We already have spaces that aren't filling up in the neighborhood, and we've already invested too much in trying to get people to drive their cars into Lakeview by forcing other private developers to build too much parking. Forcing people to build excess parking is a form of public subsidy that floods the market with supply in order to drive prices down, encouraging more people to drive.


Duane Waller said:

Actually, you should be asking if a lot of NYers drive to see the Mets or Yankees, and the answer is yes. Also, MSG isn't in an area that is predominantly residential, like Lakeview, so no one would really give a rat's a** if a billion people drove there. 


Alex Z said:

Do you think a lot of New Yorkers drive to Madison Square Garden to see the Knicks? What about Chicagoans driving to Lollapalooza?

We need to pick battles that we can win and not merely tilt at every windmill.   The Cubs also want to build a hotel.  Like it or not, hotels, with VERY rate exceptions, are expected to have parking.  Ultimately that's going to be the "basis" for the garage.   The effective solution is eliminating all of the "unofficial" parking that has appeared in the area... the private houses that rent out their space, the stores and gas stations that rent out their parking during the game.  If they want to build the big garage?  Okay.  Regulate it, limit the paths going into the garage and eliminate all of the other parking in the neighborhood on game days and nights for non-residents.    Require that the Cub garage parking be "pre-bought" with the equivalent of a boarding pass that is scanned at the time of entry.  That's going to, in the longer term, reduce the number of cars that come into the neighborhood.

But, just like the Viet Nam War protesters, occupy wall street, and Critical Mass, I am sure that many well meaning people are going to engage in ineffective protests that will prevent effective solutions, and ultimately lead to results that are not optimal.

How so? If the garage is half empty, that still means it's half full of cars that are driving into the neighborhood. And as I mentioned, forcing developers to build too much parking puts pressure on other lots to reduce prices, until it's more attractive for more people to drive into the neighborhood and park. You can see the end result of this approach when you compare urban neighborhoods to suburban sprawl, where regulations require building massive amounts of free parking at every destination, so everybody drives. And there's no shortage of cities that have also tried this approach.



S said:

That seems like direct empirical evidence against the more parking = more cars adage.  Are there really places close to Wrigley that aren't filled up? I admit I try to avoid the neighborhood during game day (mostly successfully) but the few times I've been around, it looks like the lots are all packed to capacity and then some.

Lee Crandell said:

Yes, speaking of Yankee Stadium, they've made this mistake already and built a massive parking garage that sits more than half empty, leading them to default on bond payments.

What a great investment that turned out to be. Let's not repeat the same mistake. We already have spaces that aren't filling up in the neighborhood, and we've already invested too much in trying to get people to drive their cars into Lakeview by forcing other private developers to build too much parking. Forcing people to build excess parking is a form of public subsidy that floods the market with supply in order to drive prices down, encouraging more people to drive.


Duane Waller said:

Actually, you should be asking if a lot of NYers drive to see the Mets or Yankees, and the answer is yes. Also, MSG isn't in an area that is predominantly residential, like Lakeview, so no one would really give a rat's a** if a billion people drove there. 


Alex Z said:

Do you think a lot of New Yorkers drive to Madison Square Garden to see the Knicks? What about Chicagoans driving to Lollapalooza?

Translation- we need to pick battles that are in line with what David crZ finds important?

David crZven 10.6 said:

We need to pick battles that we can win and not merely tilt at every windmill. 

The "more parking brings more cars" argument is going to be too abstract to have any persuasive power over non-believers with only anecdotal evidence to back it up.

The petition and efforts surrounding it may be useful in giving the developer some ammo to show that there is public support for not being required to provide automobile storage.

Still, it seems like an opportunity is being missed in terms of having a clear message of what we want, rather than don't want.

Is there not potential to have at least some sort of strategy meeting, with the help of a Lee Crandell type who's good at pulling up stats and knowledgeable about what happens in other cities, to come up with something to push for rather than against?

H' - yes!  Bike Uptown has posted more info and flyers http://bikeuptown.org/ and contact info at wrigleyparking-no@yahoo.com.  People are meeting in person at 2:30 tomorrow to walk/bike the area during opening day.  As that's not convenient for many people, it would be great to have a meeting later in the week/weekend.  I'm in.

Not sure my communication was understood-- by strategy meeting I was thinking of more of a small, focused group of people with some degree of expertise.  All I see at the links is the same "don't turn Wrigley into a parking lot"  without much substance behind it, which I think is an unfortunate framing of the message.

Howard - A small group of residents was already connected via email outside of Chainlink before this was posted here, and I'm looped in. Anyone who wants to be more involved should probably email wrigleyparking-no@yahoo.com rather than trying to organize on here. There's a lot of conversation happening that's not on the Chainlink.

I understand where you're coming from as far as positive framing, but considering the context and how fast things are moving in this situation, the opposition framing seems fine here. The parking garage (what we don't want) is a specific proposal that doesn't necessarily need an alternative (what we want) in the context of the Wrigley Field restoration project and negotiations (though investment in the alternatives would certainly be nice). In the broader context and if this were about more parking generally, yes, it would be good to articulate a vision of what we want for the future of the neighborhood as public education, but this is moving too fast to do more than make it clear where residents stand on this specific project. That said, it is good to point to some specific alternative approaches, and the petition does outline some of these, which I agree with. I've also suggested to the alderman's office that instead of building a garage, maybe the Cubs could fund an actual parking utilization and management study (which would include evaluation of some of the innovative ideas in the petition). This is something Wicker Park-Bucktown is doing now: http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/moving-forward-in-detail/-/asset_publi.... I'm participating in a meeting between Tunney, the Cubs and Lake View Citizens' Council on Tue., as an LVCC board member, and I'll be reiterating these alternative ideas there along with the concerns of residents about adding parking. Keep in mind, this also isn't the only touch point people like us have in the neighborhood to share what we're for. Many of us also participate in community meetings and are in touch with the alderman or his staff, supporting and praising positive steps toward the future we'd like to see in Lakeview (for example, I've vocally supported Tunney in community meetings when it comes to allowing developers to add density, and I've expressed my excitement about stop-for-pedestrian signs and a Neighborhood Greenway on School) -- these are opportunities to promote a different vision for the neighborhood.

I also think you'd be surprised how many neighborhood stakeholders get the "more parking brings more cars" argument. As an engaged citizen of Lakeview, I can tell you this has come up before, and the block club by Wrigley has even taken an official position in the past that more parking should not be built near the field. Let's not underestimate how many people agree with us.



h' 1.0 said:

Not sure my communication was understood-- by strategy meeting I was thinking of more of a small, focused group of people with some degree of expertise.  All I see at the links is the same "don't turn Wrigley into a parking lot"  without much substance behind it, which I think is an unfortunate framing of the message.

Wow, lots of different moving parts in this discussion thread. I have lived in the City of Chicago for just over 30 years and as others have mentioned in this thread, Wrigleyville has been a disaster on game days for probably 15-20 of those years. As others have also suggested, I avoid Wrigley Field on game days and frankly, the neighborhood has "evolved" over the years into an area populated by bars I don't want to drink at, restaurants I don't want to eat at, and full of people I don't want to socialize with. And so I don't.

The Chicago Cubs are a unique animal in MLB in that they are not just a professional franchise, but THE TEAM that attracts more out of town visitors than any other team in major league baseball. For a lot of people around the world, making a trip to Wrigley Field is tantamount to a pilgrimage to Mecca. Don't think for a minute that the Ricketts haven't focus-grouped this fact in determining that the construction of a $200 million hotel at the corner of Clark & Addison is a financially viable-and likely profitable business venture. That hotel is not intended for Chicago residents, it's intended for the Cubs' worldwide fans, out of state fans, and probably some ticket holders from outlying suburbs.  

Ald. Tunney is elected by, and is responsible to his constituents. He has held meetings and his constituents have rightly or wrongly determined that the additional Disney-fication of Wrigleyville is going to require additional parking capacity. So be it. The proposed parking garage either will or will not bring more cars into Wrigleyville. Wrigleyville has been dead to me for at least 10 years. Why exactly should I be concerned if it becomes a little more dead?

Kevin C said:

Wrigleyville has been dead to me for at least 10 years. Why exactly should I be concerned if it becomes a little more dead?

Because some people actually live in the area (shocker, I know) and don't want more cars clogging up the neighborhood. Way to be totally selfish here, buddy.

Is this parking garage the only thing standing in the way of your otherwise idyllic existence in Wrigleyville? And at the risk of running afoul of the Chainlink Community Discussion Rules, "Buddy this."

Adam Herstein (5.5 mi) said:

Kevin C said:

Wrigleyville has been dead to me for at least 10 years. Why exactly should I be concerned if it becomes a little more dead?

Because some people actually live in the area (shocker, I know) and don't want more cars clogging up the neighborhood. Way to be totally selfish here, buddy.

First they came for the Loop,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Loop dweller.

Then they came for  River North,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a River North dweller.

Then they came for Lakeview,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Lakeview resident.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

-Ghandi

RSS

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service