Be a better neighbor. Sign up for EveryBlock to follow and discuss neighborhood news.

Sign up for free →

Added Sep 12 2011

This is a new thread to discuss the boulevard parking and not confuse it with the previous heading of Farmer's Market.

To those who were following previously, it's laughable to say I am against or afraid of gentrification. I am against congestion when it's not necessary and is avoidable. I do know that each of you 'newcomers' came here most likely because the LS area presented a good look. If the area had looked bad - you would have moved (bought or rented) somewhere else. I believe if you are honest with yourself - one of the reasons you moved here was the feeling of space. The open landscape. If you wanted lots of gentrification - you would have moved to Lincoln Square, Lakeview or Bucktown. But, you chose here. I'm glad you did.

Yes, the apartments are larger for less rent. That helps. And our lots tend to be wider and deeper than other areas too. That helps. AND - we have the lovely pastoral boulevards which now have a total of 40 hours of parking on Kedzie, 40 hours of parking on Humboldt and 30 hours on Logan. Yes, I would be fine with Sunday parking. 4,6 or 8 hours. But no one had an opportunity to add their opinions. Only the churches did. Why not us? Why weren't we included in the discussions the churches had with Rey and the police department? I'm upset with that. Call me old school, but I like to be involved, so do each of you, or you wouldn't be responding to this thread.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    As for JT's wondering if I was opposed to Starbucks? Funny you should bring that up. I did discuss with them the Landmark restrictions on signage. They were most cooperative and willing to have a smaller interior sign, instead of the larger exterior sign - which would not have been approved by Landmarks. So, their bottom line has not been affected - but the way the commercial space presents visually to the community is much lower keyed. We had a community meeting and we all got to discuss it and the biggest change was the sign. Please don't box me in as being anti gentrification or anti business. I think businesses should work with the community they operate in so both residents and businesses can co-exist. Likewise the churches. The churches could have insisted on a community meeting instead of just grabbing what they could get.

    The Stan Mansion (2408 N. Kedzie) had a shindig last night and guess what, the attendees parked on the boulevard. The Stan Mansion has a deed restriction that they agreed to several years ago stating they will have 'off street parking' for events. Now, how do we enforce that? In order to get a liquor license, they had to get a zoning change of some sort. That zoning change was allowed by the neighbors and Stan Mansion got a liquor license. In return the neighbors wanted a parking agreement for off street parking. Now, they are not abiding by the agreement because Rey has made it so easy to park until 11 PM four nights. Their business will be booming. What about the residents? Is this good? Try getting a two year old to sleep when the place is rocking and rolling a few doors away. Businesses by nature only think about the bottom line. Not the neighbors.

    If residents don't plan ahead - believe me businesses and in our case, churches, with dictate what the community becomes instead of the residents. Everyone should have a voice in the changes

  • Buster

    Through all your notes Paddy, I'm still not sure what solution you're presenting. We know our churches hold regular services and host lots of additional activities. When you look at Armitage Baptist church for example... say they're having services at 9:30 and 11:00 am. Maybe another gathering at 12:30, and an evening activity starting around 7 or so. What would you do? Let them park for 2 hours in the morning and say "screw them" later? Or would you extend the right to park all day/evening? How would you set it up if the Alderman appointed you the head of the parking-planning committee? I want to hear how you would consult with all the churches and come up with a better plan for all the community activities and events they host, knowing there is no money for offsite parking and that asking all churchgoers to give up their cars is a pipe dream. And also please factor in that the churches were here long before you were born. And to them, you're the 'newcomer'. Thanks.

    p.s. sounds like you have a grudge with Stan Mansion. With the new parking on-street, are you saying that they no-longer provide off-street parking? They never had loud shows until just recently with this new plan? They've only had daytime show before this?

  • Jamie C In Logan Sq. since 2004

    If you walk around the neighborhood there are a great many churces on the side streets off of the boulevards. Most all of them have been there for a significant time. Most of them also don't have parking lots and, despite their being no significant amount of parking space available on the side streets they are able to server their congregations. I would be happier to see the boulevard churches have zero parking privileges. I too want to see the boulevards kept as open spaces.

  • Buster

    Yeah. We should probably eliminate all the parking for churches. You know... because the people that just moved into the neighborhood like Jamie want it that way.

    Does that make any sense? I'll never understand people moving into a community like ours, where the churches have parked the way they've parked for decades...thinking they deserve to call the shots...telling the churches to take a hike.

    Like moving into Wrigleyville and complaining about baseball fans taking up all the parking spots. Didn't expect that? The streets around Wrigley would sure look a lot more pastoral if they just told those pesky Cub fans they couldn't park in the neighborhood. Just have them all take public transportation! Or maybe the Wrigley organization could set up a parking lot somewhere, where all the fans could park.

    Never gonna happen!

  • I spoke to several SOB people on Sunday at the market. My conclusion was that nearly all of them lived on one of the boulevards, had an axe to grind with Colon.

    Several people have asked Paddy and SOB generally how they propose to address the issue of parking for the churches if they were successful in eliminating it on the Boulevards. Nobody has suggested an alternative beyond "so what" (Jamie) or "put on your thinking caps" (paddy).

  • Buster

    Another thing. I happen to drive down Logan on Sunday around 2pm, near the church west of the expressway. While the new parking rules grant the right to park there at that time...not a soul was parked on the boulevard. Because church was over. At least on that part of the boulevard, absolutely nothing has changed.

  • Inactive user

    One thing has changed, those that go to Church no longer get tickets.

  • Picking up on Brians report of last week, I walked my dogs down Logan Blvd Saturday at about 6:00 pm. Except for the block immediately in front of the 7th day Adventist church at Richmond, and St John Berchmans at Campbell, both which had services, there was no additional parking taking place.

    Walking them again on Sunday morning, the Farmers Market was already parking and setting up at 7:30 am, and by 9:00 am had trucks parking solid going east of Sacramento.

  • JT

    "If residents don't plan ahead - believe me businesses and in our case, churches, with dictate what the community becomes instead of the residents. Everyone should have a voice in the changes".... -- Paddy

    Churches and businesses are an integral part of our community. And yes, everyone should have a say as to what happens within the community-- that means churches, business and residents. I think you are forgetting that many parishioners that attend these very churches are RESIDENTS of our community. Logan Square is a very large neighborhood and not everyone is within walking distance to their church.

    Residents voices were heard: we need to attend service for about an hour and continue to park in the same manner we have been for decades. LAZ is now giving us tickets, when before chicago cops used to turn their heads. We have nowhere else to park, so make it legal for us to park for a couple of hours.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    The residents had no say in the parking decision. Those church goers who parked in Tow Zones or LAZ spaces and got an occasional ticket, complained to Rey, who in turn created the parking to stop the complaining. Residents' voices were not heard.

    No Boulevard Parking is not about churches. Parking is not a God given right nor is it a constitutional right. Government should not be involved with securing parking for churches. Drivers going to churches in Logan Square are mostly visitors and should be considerate of our desires and neighborhood. Where is it written that church goers must have parking directly in front of their church? It is not our responsibility to secure parking for them either. That is the job of each church and its attendees. No Boulevard Parking is about preserving the character of our historic neighborhood; the open, wide, airy, and green parkways and scenic architecture.

    On 9/11 at 11:10 AM I surveyed the Emmett Street parking lot. Except for the 17 monthly parkers and 5 hourly parkers, the other 89 parking spaces were empty. Chicago Parking Meters/LAZ made a commitment to the city to work with organizations for preferred rates for special circumstances. Have the churches (and Farmers Market vendors) approached LAZ?

    These are other rent-able parking suggestions: Darwin and Brentano Schools (50 cars), lot at California and Diversey (100 cars), lot at 2410 N. Sawyer (45 cars), Liberty Bank parking lot (30 cars), Regal Theater parking structure (100+ cars), and many street spots on Fullerton, Diversey, Western, California, and Milwaukee. Even during the height of the Farmers Market this past Sunday, there were open parking spaces on Milwaukee south of Logan.

  • Paddy says, "Drivers going to churches in Logan Square are mostly visitors and should be considerate of our desires and neighborhood."

    Paddy, we are your neighbors. We vote too. We didn't ask for anything new. We didn't take anything from the people that own big houses on the Boulevard. The fact that you were not consulted, doesn't mean that residents weren't heard. Residents were heard. You just want to have some veto power over decision making. My church is more than a mile from where you live. Why are we obligated to ask you for permission to continue a tradition that's been in place for 50+years. I didn't vote for you.

    We live here. When I looked around a full St. John Berchmans on Sunday morning, almost everyone that I saw lived in our community. You should be considerate of those of us who bring young kids and older relatives with us to church and can't walk there. Give it a rest.

  • Inactive user

    Its over let it go. It won't be changed back unless your willing to take on a few thousand Parishioners. THE END.

  • JT

    You say No Blvd Parking is not about churches, yet you go on for several sentences about churches. This discussion has come full circle. Your mission is to keep cars off the blvd.-- in general--but the Farmers Market or whatever else you deem worthy is OK to park there. Those trucks are a huge eyesore and create a dangerous situation for pedestrians, yet you haven't spoken as harsh about them as you have church-goers for parking there. If there were spaces on Milwaukee to park during the FM, why aren't you dictating that the trucks should be parking there, instead of ruining your scenery? Because if you spoke negatively about the FM parking the way you do churches, the entire community would be against you.

    You throw out these other lots as options-- but without thinking it through. 30 spaces is not enough for some congregations, such as the Seventh Day Adventist Church. There are a lot of churches spread throughout this community, and on Sundays with masses at similar times. How do you accommodate all of those people in a lot or 2 holding 30-50? Some lots are privately owned and don't want to rent out their spaces -- for insurance reasons or whatever. Thats their business. Sundays are a big day for business at The Regal Theater. Do you really think they would be willing to give up parking for their patrons, to accommodate church-goers? I highly doubt it. And its just not realistic for my family to walk 1+ miles from the Emmett st lot to St Johns.

    So try again with a better solution, or just stop already.

  • Paddy, glad to see that after acknowledging that you'd fabricated a number to "make a point" that you've dusted off your lie about the 124 hours of parking on Chicago Tonight this evening.

    Nothing like a little honest discourse. You should take that argument to Fox News.

  • JT

    Maybe Patty should run for office.
    She would make a perfect Chicago politician.

  • Buster

    Nice appearance on tv Paddy. What was your quote again "No church needs 140 hours of parking a week!"...or whatever your bogus total was. Again...all about the churches...and all about misinformation.

    Paddy, would you mind if the diesel buses idle outside your house for hours every weekend and weekday evening? Can we set up the bus parking area there? That's what we're going to need if your pipe dream plan ever comes to fruition. Say every church suddenly had the money to rent remote lots (they don't have the money...and never will. Most have trouble just keeping the lights on). And say they had the money to hire buses for every service and every church activity (again...not remotely possible). And say every church made shuttle bus arrangements to serve these parking lots day in and day out.... Do you think that would be better than simply having a little parking on the they've done for over 50 years?

    If this complex array of satellite parking lots was within the reach of their limited budgets...and if we as a neighborhood wanted buses idling at all hours...I think it would have happened a long time ago. The residents have parking the way they've parked for decades.

  • Buster

    Paddy, obviously you have your own private garage. And likely you have a nice large house on the boulevard. And likely you feel your view is being spoiled. But for the rest of us residents, we appreciate having a place to park our cars on the street. And if you think all churchgoers would put up with remote parking, long waits for buses, etc., you're kidding yourself. They're going to park on the sidestreets, and make life miserable for those trying to get home...drop off their groceries, etc. You'd create a parking nightmare for area residents that would greatly overshadow the inconvenience or "eyesore" of cars parked on the boulevards.

    Good luck with your efforts to shut down the farmers market and the churches. And good luck with your SOB protest on Monday outside the Alderman's office. You should stage your pickets at the farmers market and at the churches. I'd like to see how that would go.

    Why don't you picket the "trouble-makers"....the farmers market and the churches? Why don't you disrupt their events to prove your point? I'd like to see the conversations that ensue.

  • Inactive user

    Great piece on WTTW last night. Hopefully, it spreads the awareness since the impact of parking on the city's historic boulevards impacts more than the blocks immediately adjacent to it. And, thanks, Brian, for the reminder about the SOB protest on Monday outside the Alderman's office. Can someone post the details for that? Thanks!

  • JT

    Just a reminder to the people advertising SOB in their home windows and participating in SOB protests -- you are also advertising the demise of our Farmers Market and protesting against the Farmers Market as we know it. If you are against parking on the Boulevard, you are against having the Farmers Market on the Blvd. No parking means no parking for EVERYONE-- you cant have exceptions!

  • Raleigh, I'm sure Paddy and the other owners of big houses on the boulevards appreciate you taking up the cause of protecting their views.

    So protest away Raleigh and Paddy. The churches and the silent majority of parishioners and church neighbors that don't want their streets swamped with displaced church parkers will turn out far more people if necessary. The Alderman knows that.

  • Inactive user

    If this protest is a success you can kiss the Farmers Market goodbye.

  • Buster

    Have fun at the protest. It's too bad you're too scared to protest in front of the cause of the "problem." If you're really against the church parkers and the farmers market parkers, I'd love to see you be gutsy enough to protest there...during church service....or during the market...rather than taking the chicken's way out and protesting at the alderman's office. How about SOB? Up for the challenge? Are you against the parkers (who have always parked there)...or are you against the alderman, who is trying to respect tradition?

  • Inactive user

    I'd prefer that he respected the tradition of leaving the boulevards as intended -- open green space for community enjoyment. Or, the democratic tradition, whereby the community has a reasonable opportunity to voice opinions on the subject rather than quietly sneaking an ordinance through.

  • Buster

    We should also knock down all those houses and restore the farms that were here while we're at it to. To respect tradition and all. Did they quietly sneak those cars into their boulevard parking spots for the past 50 years when you weren't looking (from avondale)?

  • Buster

    Here's a snapshop from the history books for you too:

    1914 - Modernization of the boulevards
    From 1914 to 1918 Chicagoans were converting from horsepower to automobile power. The roadways along the boulevards were paved and electric lighting was installed. Automatic traffic towers called "dummy policemen" were installed at busy intersections along the boulevards to regulate the flow of traffic. During these years, curved drives were straightened, medians were bisected and parking areas were developed.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    Thank you for your comments, criticisms and useful suggestions. No one at SOB wants to 'kiss the FM goodbye'. Maybe the trucks could park around the corner on Milwaukee, but that's all. For safety. It's worth checking out. We are looking into it.

    If you review the calendar of Armitage Baptist and see that they don't have events scheduled or posted for Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings. That begs the question - why is there legal parking those four days 52 weeks a year on Kedzie? Also, their cars have never been parked south of Fullerton! But now, Rey made legal parking there 4 days a week. Yes, I am upset about that. Also east of California on Logan never used for church parking. But now, he has made parking there.

    When Armitage Baptist bought the building in 1982, there were 200 parishioners. They don't list how many people belong today but as they have grown, they have encroached the neighbors without once asking the neighbors who live there how they feel. Now that they have the parking, they are entitled to take what they can. All they say about the neighbors is that they are all gang bangers and dangerous!

    The precedent of giving parking to churches is a very slippery slope. Businesses will be able to demand it as well. In the eyes of the law, the precedent has been set. We will eventually (5-10 years) become a parking lot. If you like that, fine. I don't. @ Brian: I know about the parking congestion more than you can imagine and I have always had parking in front of my home. Rey's parking affects me because it makes driving, biking and walking more treacherous.

    We are all entitled to our opinions. I respect yours, even if I don't agree with them.

  • JT

    Paddy, what you cant seem to comprehend is that by saying no parking on the blvds you are saying you want to "kiss the FM goodbye". You are advocating no parking on the blvds. period. That includes the Farmer Market. You cant pick and choose who can and cant park there.

    And what is wrong with businesses asking for parking? Don't you want to support your local businesses and see them succeed? When you elude to "those pesky businesses, and churches-- they want to ruin our neighborhood with cars parked in THE CITY. The nerve of them! Who do they think they are?" it makes you sound anit-business, anti-church, anti-community.

  • Buster

    Paddy, you keep bringing up the hours and locations. That leads me to believe you’d be comfortable with parking on the boulevards in certain areas directly near churches, during certain hours? Is this the case with SOB? Is that your stance? That you want to limit the hours strictly to church/farmer’s market hours? Or is your organization against parking period? If you’re against parking period, just say so, so we can understand your stance. Focusing on the hours leads me to believe you’re interested in compromise. But part of me thinks that you’re opposed to compromise, and simply want the parking removed 100%, 100% of the time. Can you clarify your stance?

  • Inactive user

    I really interested in this protest..I would like to see just how representational this group is of the neighborhood.

  • Buster

    And by the way, when you talk about saving the boulevards, you don't just need the farmer's market trucks off the boulevard. You need the farmer's market off the boulevard....if you're true to your mission! Or are you fine with people setting up grocery store stands on the actual boulevard??! What's next!? Building brick and mortar businesses on that grass??? What kind of slippery slope have we allowed to start with that market on the boulevard!

  • This comment has been removed by EveryBlock staff.
  • @Paddy -- People have been parking in front of St John Berchmans for a very long time before the new permitted hours.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    I think this comes back to the two points RaleighsMa makes. This is about respecting the tradition of the boulevard and, probably more importantly, respecting the residents of the community. Showing respect for the community comes by involving the community in the decision, discussing the decision before it is made and not simply stating it's too late and there's nothing anyone can do about it. With that in mind it seems entirely appropriate to take the protest to the alderman's office. The groups that benefit from the change made the request, but the alderman decided to implement it.

    I have no idea what the overall view of the community would have been if the alderman actually started a dialog about this matter and listened to the feedback. I know he didn't and hence we have a very different conversation now. I also know that is not what I expect from those elected to represent me and I will do what I can to change my representation the next time that decision is up for reconsideration.


  • Inactive user

    I have a feeling that all those talking about "showing respect" did not, have not and would not vote for Alderman Colon. Why would he care for your opinion now?

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    Gregory, Unfortunately your feeling is wrong. I've lived in the ward long enough to remember the bad old days of Vilma. When Rey decided to run I supported him with great enthusiasm, donated to his campaign and voted for him. I similarly supported him when he was up for re-election. Since he was elected for his second term I've been increasingly unimpressed with how he's conducted himself. The two showiest examples for me have been his apparent attempt at retribution to the LSCC over the farmers market and his handling of the parking ordinance.

  • Buster

    If we're going to "respect the traditions of the boulevard," I would say we have to respect the long-standing tradition of parking along the boulevards for churches. This tradition has been in place longer than most of us have lived in this community. This tradition has existed perhaps longer than any other "tradition" on the boulevards. If you feel 50 or 60 years isn't going back far enough to call it a "tradition" that must be respected, how far back do we go? Should we only allow "traditions" that were in place in the late 1800s? Are we prepared to remove the pavement, lighting, gas engines, etc. etc.? How about requiring motorists to switch to horseback when they reach the boulevard boundaries? (I guess that does sound kind of cool.) In my opinion, the Alderman simply turned tradition into that newfangled LAZ parking enforcement would not cause greater consternation among our community members parking for church. Of course, for generations, Chicago cops gave church parkers a pass, because of a little thing called common sense and decency and civility. The churches, are, after all, an intrinsic part of the fabric of our community.

    Now, also, we have a relatively new tradition that is a farmers market. We allow business owners to close streets, set up their commercial enterprise upon the Emerald Necklace, trampling the grass and clogging up the traffic lanes. But is that really such a bad thing?

  • Buster

    SOP. Save our Parking! Who's with me? Or perhaps SOPP. Save our pastoral of the oldest traditions in all of Logan Square!

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    So on Logan by St. John Berchman there is parking from 7am - 9pm Saturday and Sunday, right? There's a 5pm mass on Saturday. That's the only event scheduled on Saturdays according to the Parish website. So, should the organization by name SOBELSMDP? (save our breakfast, errands, lunch, siesta, mass, and dinner parking)

  • Many comments refer to boulevard mansion owners...well I live on
    a side street and have planted trees on Logan and Kedzie Blvds
    over the last 20 years to improve the green belt and get to know my neighbors. The boulevards are our parks and having cars
    along them will completely destroy that pastoral feeling. If we
    residents would of been included in a discussion with the churches,
    solutions for their parking problems could have been resolved without using the boulevards. We were denied this opportunity
    by our can he possible have thought this
    would go unchallenged? Regarding the farm market vendor
    trucks....again a solution can be found. Many other neighborhood
    farm markets find lots or make a special concessions. We
    S.O.B.'s love the farm market....don't try to make us into
    enemies of either the churches or the farmers. We are just
    good citizens who want our neighborhood respected.

  • Buster

    Have you driven by St. John Berchman outside of service hours? Guess what, no one parks there! Imagine that! They only park there when they need to! But, thanks to the Alderman, they can, without a ticket! Holy smokes, what a concept! But, I digress.

    SOB is not interested in refining the schedule of Boulevard parking. They want everybody off 24/7. No farmers market. No churches. No breakfast, lunch, dinner, concerts, etc. The tradition is wealthy homeowners looking at the grass unobstructed. Not community residents going about their lives!

  • What is the forum that Ben and Patty are invited to but Brian, Gregory, JT and I are not invited to? Where do we get to meet to give our elected Alderman authority to proceed to introduce an ordinance to City Council for referral to public hearing the Traffic Committee and approval in a public meeting in City Council. I've been here a long time, I'm well versed in Chicago government but I've never been invited by Ben or Patty to any meetings to review and authorize or reject draft measures that effect the community that we all live in.

    I've relied on the guy that I voted for and I appreciate that he responded to outreach from his constituents to address an issue that unexpectedly arose that affected a lot of us community members and the important institutions that have been here longer than we have.

  • JT

    So, what "Have a day" is saying is that this issue isnt actually about parking, but not wanting to support Rey. Which is what others have been saying all along.

    Im not a big Rey supporter. Didnt vote for him. Yet, Im failing to see how this issue turns him into a dictator.

    This parking has been going on for years and no one made an issue about it -- until now. Because our Alderman made a decision to fix a problem. He was trying to keep the very beautiful and historic institutions, you are trying to preserve, and the residents who attend them, happy. It was a good compromise. Its really a win. win. The parking could have been 24/7. That would be something to complain about. But its not. Paddy is exaggerating the number of excessive hours allowed for parking.

    Does this really need to be spelled out?
    Church services range from 8 am -1 pm on Sundays. So, they need parking from 7:45 am- 2:30 pm. THe farmers market runs until 3. Trucks need time to load. So now we need parking until 4 pm. Sunday evening services can be from 5-6:30 pm (St. Johns has a 6:30pm mass on Sunday, by the way)-- taking the parking until 7:45 pm. Thats 12 hours of parking needed on Sunday. So rey threw in 2 extra hours on each end. I know at my church, Saturdays are used for events such as Weddings, Baptisms, etc., thus the all-day allowance. (Can I not have a wedding at my church because the people attending will be ticketed?) Other churches have weekday services that were covered by the new parking ordinance, for a few hours. Thats it.

    What about the other events that happen in these historic institutions? Funeral processions. Can we give them some courtesy to park along the blvd and not get ticketed? Where does it stop?

  • Buster

    Kathleen, you write: The boulevards are our parks and having cars
    along them will completely destroy that pastoral feeling. If we
    residents would of been included in a discussion with the churches,
    solutions for their parking problems could have been resolved without using the boulevards. We were denied this opportunity
    by our Alderman."

    The Alderman traveled back in time 50 or 60 years and allowed parking on the boulevards? Why did you move here 20 years ago if the parking on the boulevards is ruining it for you? They've been doing it for decades!

    And when you say: "Regarding the farm market...many other neighborhood
    farm markets find lots or make a special concessions."

    Where is this magical lot and where are the magic buses going to come from that quietly and affordably transport every farmer, farmers market shopper, churchgoer, and funeral and wedding attendee to and from all services every day of the week. And by "special concessions" for the farmers market...does that mean it might be ok for them to use the boulevard for parking/vending...but not the churches?

    Again, I'm getting really mixed messages.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    Thanks for the words in my mouth but those aren't mine so I'm not going to chew them. What I'm responding to are two separate matters. One was the implication that my agenda is that I don't like Rey. I was saying that I don't have anything against Rey but that recently I haven't been impressed by his actions. As he's an elected official at the next opportunity to give my feedback, in the form of a vote for or against, I will do just that and give my feedback. Secondly I was responding to the assertion that because I don't favor parking on the boulevard I am inherently anti-religion.

    Lastly, you've raised a new point which is the entitlement or lack thereof to have parking provided for your wedding if you chose to have your wedding at a church. That's an interesting one, is it the alderman's or the ward's responsibility to make sure you have parking for your wedding? Does St. Hedwig on Webster have parking that was made legal just to be sure their parishioners have ample parking? No, though they do have a parking lot the parish owns. What about the parishes on the side streets that neither have a boulevard right there to park in nor a parking lot? If we follow the pattern Rey should probably pass an ordinance allowing parking on the sidewalks there.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    I also think the response that no one is parking outside of church hours is both disingenuous and inaccurate. Firstly, I would agree that very few are parking outside of church hours but I also suspect that's a temporary thing as many people haven't yet realized they can. Secondly and more importantly, it's not that no-one is parking there, it's that very few are. But the reality is that it only takes one car there to disrupt the flow of traffic. I also believe that is likely the most dangerous configuration, when you see an entire block of cars parked along the curb you pretty quickly realize there are a bunch of cars parked, I think it's much easier for the eye to skip right past one car that is parked and fail to realize the car is stationary. But yet, regardless of what that person is parked for, they are there totally legally.

    And to be clear, I don't know what SOB is advocating for but I would like to see the ordinance rolled back in its entirety, if that doesn't happen I would like to see it tightened up to the point that it only allows parking for the purpose Rey cited in passing the ordinance. I don't believe with 14 hours on a Saturday for 1 hour of mass that is happening.

  • JT

    My church will need to build a parking structure/lot to accommodate my wedding guests. Guess what? There isnt a lot to purchase to do this. Unless we buy a blvd. lot next to my church and tear down the house. How would that go over with the community?

  • Art Logan Square resident

    This whole 'no parking on the boulevard' thing is hilarious. Don't you all have more important issues to worry about in this neighborhood other than a few cars 'blocking' your precious view? It seems just a bit silly to be that concerned about parked cars of all things when we have people getting beaten half to death walking home, homelessness, and plenty of other issues going on.

  • Buster

    You're right on HaveADay. The churches should either come up the big bucks to knock down neighboring (likely historic) houses to build giant parking lots at all these churches, or we should make it as difficult as humanly possible for those entitled pricks who think they can come to our neighborhood to get married. Keep that kind of riff raff in Bucktown. They already have lots for marrying.

  • Inactive user

    Strange and sad that folks think that caring about the community is a finite resource. I can care about preserving the best features of my community while working to stamp out the worst.

  • Buster

    And please, people. Do your dying someplace else too. I can’t stand the sight of all those funeral procession cars with their blinkers all in my face. The sense of entitlement, thinking they can park and drive in one long row just because someone kicked the bucket. How inconsiderate. But, I guess if they die at the right time, maybe we could let them park. But only if everyone attends a meeting to agree.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    @ RaleighsMa you are of course correct, I just think a lot of people take issue with the anti-parking people since the tone is often one of dire straights and impending doom. MY VIEW IS RUINED. WOE IS ME. Etc etc.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    Brian, that's a more than extreme interpretation, but your world is that black and white I'm certainly not going to invest the energy to try and show you shades of gray. Good luck with that.

  • JT

    Brains "extreme interpretation" is about as extreme as Paddy's interpretation of allowing 124 hours of parking on the blvds.

  • I'm interested in the SOB thinking on the point of its organization. Is the hope that the parking hours more accurately reflect the church hours, or is it to eliminate all church-based parking on the boulevards at any time?
    They are very different agendas.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    srcabeza, I'd agree they are different. I know I said above that I'd first favor rolling back the ordinance in it's entirety but I guess I'd like to think about this. The problem I've got with this is a lot about the process. We started with a long standing but unwritten practice of not ticketing people while they attended church. The city privatized parking and in so doing authorized a bunch of non-city employees to write parking citations. Now the unwritten rule is being broken. So we write down the rule and everything is good? I'm inclined to think not so fast.

    Unwritten rules in cities of millions or people are dangerous. They are frequently things that you can't really write down because they have issues. So rather than just saying it's okay to park for a church function you have to codify it and pick all encompassing hours. And it's not like you can put up a City of Chicago sign that says, "Hey, it's okay to park here for church if there's no other parking, but if there is please don't block the boulevard, okay? Thanks" So instead you end up with 14 hours of parking for 1 hour of church. Plus, now you've got issues of fairness, why did the boulevard churches get parking but not the side street churches? But the thing about an unwritten rule is that no one really had to stop and think that long and hard about whether it's the cities place to provide parking for religious groups and their functions. But now they're written down and we have to answer questions like why do religious organizations get parking accommodations but others don't? Should hospitals get lots of parking created for them? What about Senior Housing? People want to visit them? How about businesses? It's an interesting move in a city that for the most part has been making it harder to park everywhere to pick religious institutions to accommodate.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    And this is just one unwritten getting written down. How about dibs? Should we write that one down? Same problem, once you write it down and codify it you've got to think about all the unintended implications. Or should we enforce littering ordinances against people who save parking spots?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again. I think the issue has more implications than Rey realized and that it should have been discussed in an open forum in the community before being passed. City council meetings are open but they are cleverly designed open meetings that are as unopen as they can be within the confines of the law.

  • JT

    I agree srcabeza. Its clear that SOB hasn't effectively communicated their position. I think this discussion has taken a wrong turn and needs to get back on track.

    SOB, I think it would be very helpful for all here, if you could clearly state what exactly SOB stands for. (Other than Save Our Blvds.)

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    I'll say it again, a transparent process would have satisfied many of us. The fact that we are all taking time to write thoughtful comments, regardless of our position is great. I believe that codifying the courtesy parking wasn't the only solution to provide parking on the boulevards. I know you all want me to come out and say what SOB wants - first and foremost, we want discussion, ideas, alternatives.

    Secondly, we want the churches to understand they are not islands, but need to exist with their neighbors. The church parking has increased recently (last 5 years). They want parking, we want safety. We want historic preservation. Just because some flunky from CDOT comes out for two hours and looks at things, then says 'it's ok to have parking 110 hours a week' - that doesn't work for me. Aldermanic prerogative is what dictated this as being 'safe'. We believe there is a way to make use of the boulevard safe. It's not codifying the parking. Free parking will eventually lead to more congestion. The signs can't say "church parkers only" - the ACLU would be all over that one, I suspect.

    Thirdly, we want to keep the plan for the bike lanes.

    All this could have been solved if we had been able to discuss this before the parking went in. I believe if Rey had said to the churches and us (ALL of us, not just SOB) 'you guys work this out - come to a solution' - we could have done it. However, the churches have the upper hand now. What will make them come to a compromise? That horse left the barn now - - those who attend church here would you talk to your churches about considering a compromise to the legal parking?

    Keep in mind no one has even seen a whole line of church parkers who received tickets any given day. Maybe some, here and there. Were they in front of hydrants? Cross-walks? Double parked? Who knows? Was this codifying necessary because of a few tickets?

  • JT

    Paddy, as the head of this coalition, it's imperative that you take a stance. Yes. We want you to come out and say exactly what it is SOB wants. And you still haven't. If you wanted discussions, ideas and alternatives, you wouldn't have started with an anti-parking campaign first. How about starting with a community meeting or think tank? SOB is an impulsive, angry response to Rey.

    Yes. Church parking has increased in the last 5 years. That means our neighborhood is growing. We have to figure out a solution to this problem of "modernization". Re: Brian's post of Blvd history – people were probably upset by those changes happening too. They were a result of accommodating growth. The last I checked, you still haven't offered one viable solution to the situation. Replacing historic buildings on the blvd to put up parking structures or busing people are not options. We don't have many options, that is why it is so critical that we can continue to do what we have been doing for the last few decades. It is the least of many evils.

    You want safety. Historic preservation. Well, isn't part of that preservation keeping historic churches alive? Isn't part of a safe community, a community with activity, bustling businesses and attended churches?

    You not only proved yourself to be an urban planner, but now claim to know more than the "flunky CDOT" professionals who assessed the situation as safe, if not safer than before.

    Do you think we could have come to a solution and worked this out together? Look at all the different perspectives here – in this minuscule representation of the community.

    If SOB is about historical preservation, church opinions would matter. You would have an ounce of sympathy for the situation and realize, there is little we can do. Talk to our churches about a compromise? But you haven't clearly stated what it is that you want?

    If there was only an occasional ticket or two, SOB and this nonsense would have never started.

  • Buster


    I think those of us who support church parking (and the farmers market parking and boulevard street and grass use) have thought about all of the implications. And to us, the positives far outweigh any negatives. Yeah, the grass dies beneath the market traffic. Yeah, the street is cut off during market hours. Yeah...vendors park ugly trucks on the street. I don't mind all that. But I can see why SOB wants to shut it all down in favor of some dream parking lot location TBD.

    As for my "extreme interpretation," how is asking people not to park for weddings or funerals extreme? That's exactly what SOB is asking for. "NO PARKING." "BOULEVARD PARKING HAS GOT TO GO." Those are their protest cries.

    They claim to want dialogue and new ideas. Yet the protest chant is "BOULEVARD PARKING HAS GOT TO GO" and "NO PARKING". No meaning zero.

    My world is not "black and white." It's quite colorful. Sorry you won't invest the energy to try and show me your "shades of gray." Good luck to all you SOBs trying to keep the Emerald Necklace free and clear of parked cars. I look forward to your brainstorming meetings, where I'm sure you'll create very cutting-edge ideas for parking and shuttling thousands of churchgoers to and fro each day.

    I'll sure your ideas will come to fruition quickly. Perhaps as fast as the construction on the innovative parking lot that was supposed to go up on Milwaukee ave., just east of Western. Oh wait...that never happened...because parking lot costs are out of reach in the real world.

  • Buster

    I just rewatched Paddy' tv appearance from last night. What really struck me was that it was all about religion. It featured her talking about the separation of church and state. No mention of the farmers market or the arts festival...which they support...where they recruit members.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    I'm not in favor of parking on the boulevard. I'm also not a fan of some of the tactics that have been used in opposing parking. I agree whole heartedly that there aren't 130, 120, or any other number approaching 100 hours of parking being allowed. There's only 168 hours in a week and parking being permitted on multiple streets can't do anything to change that.

    I'm also not here to suggest how the problems of a few religious organizations should be solved. There are a couple of reasons for that. The first is I don't believe that problem belongs to the city, the alderman or anyone but the organization itself. Doubly so because the only organizations for which any attempt to solve the problem are the more fortunate ones that are on the boulevard. The smaller, likely less resourced, organizations are on their own with this ordinance. Secondly the fact that there has been a wink and a nod accommodation for a very long time doesn't equal any right to a formal ordinance. First of all that's back door decision making at it's finest. Rather than a formal decision making process we have a watch commander, lieutenant or sergeant telling patrol officers not to ticket 20+ years ago turning into the basis of legislation. If we codified every practice that's been followed for the last 20+ years there are a ton of really awful "Chicago way" items we'd be committing to law.

    All that said, if we're stuck with random times when parking is permitted on the boulevard shouldn't there be a much closer correlation between the amount of time churches are holding mass and parking is permitted? Parking by St. John Berchman's is permitted for 30 hours a week. St. John's has mass for a total of 10 hours a week, including five hours during the day on weekdays when parking isn't provided.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    @JT-- You hit head on the fact that this forum presents lots of different opinions and hence it would be difficult to come up with a solution. I agree, it is challenging, however I strenuously disagree with the notion that because it's a contentious issue the solution is to move the legislation through as silently as possible and before anyone notices. I don't believe that is the way you handle controversy.

  • I think a discussion about more closely tying the parking hours to church hours is reasonable. If that's what SOB wants, it should say so. I would venture to guess that youd find agreement from most of us who have been so annoyed with Paddy and Raliegh's condescending rhetoric that we've spent far too much time arguing on Every Block.

    The hyperbole about destroying the neighborhood and desecrating the emerald necklace, along with the dishonesty about the number of hours is totally counter productive in my opinion. As is the unwillingness to acknowledge that the logical conclusion of their rhetoric is clearly at odds with the FM in it's current popular form.

    The campaign in its current form is elitist, for the primary benefit of Boulevard homeowners, and dismissive of people that go to church. The campaigners may not like to think about themselves this way, but it's unambiguously true. It's dismissive of them as neighbors, community members and as people invested in our community institutions.

    I don't agree with Haveaday's ultimate conclusion, but I appreciate the thoughtful discussion. It's a refreshing reprieve from the knee-jerk righteousness, entitlement and prophesies of doom that we keep hearing from SOB. I also agree with Art that too much time has been wasted talking about parking, so I am going to withdraw from this discussion for a while. If there is a meeting to discuss better aligning the parking hours with church activity, I'm in.

  • Y_2_K I aspire to be who I am.

    This thread is pretty funny, honestly. I will say that I really like the (few) open areas we do have in LS, and I'd like to see them preserved. In another neighborhood, I routinely walked 3-4 blocks from my car to my house, b/c parking was restricted, and there were too many people competing for too few spots.

    I agree that some compromise has to be worked out w churches, it's not right to simply not ever allow parking for services, but at the same time, times change, and the idea that churches should just get street parking b/c they're churches isn't a very strong argument, or at least not any stronger than Paddy's argument.

    The LS farmer's market is so ridiculously overpriced it's a joke, and its current location creates healthy congestion on Sundays. I can't say I'd lose sleep if it were forced to relocate.

  • Parking on Logan Blvd is a safety concern and it is turning our blvds into parking lots. Despite the fact Alderman Colon insists that it doesn't, it does. They look like parking lots when cars are parked on the blvd.

    I met with Alderman Colon a few weeks ago and I was sadden by my meeting. He didn't seem to care that me and my neighbors were frustrated by the fact that he passed this ordinance without any input from his constituents. He didn't mention the ordinance during the 2011 election because he knew he would lose if people caught wind of the ordinance. I do not like being deceived especially when it directly relates to my safety.

    I questioned Alderman Colon about how long has he known about creating the parking ordinance on the boulevards and he responded 8 months (which would take it back to December 2010), but the plan has been in motion for about a year (August 2010). He should have addressed this during the February 2011 campaign. He had every opportunity to address his intention at the 35th ward candidate form at the Logan Square Auditorium on February 9, 2011.
    He knowingly withheld information from his constituents to win our votes. It was during the same form that Nancy Schiavone discussed religious boulevard parking on Saturday and Sunday. She states “it has become a parking lot and it has become a safety issue.” She believed a committee needed to be formed to address these issues. Alderman Colon never once mentioned his intentions of the ordinance. His response at the form was “I think that from within our commercial corridor our parking is there and it has been underutilized.” He went on to speak of various parking lots nearby. He had every opportunity to address this to the community and he chose not to.

  • When I pointed out to the Alderman that the parking times go well beyond church hours, he said it gives it a "cushion". He INSISTED this was only for church parking and he said if I saw other people parking there I should let him know. I told him I believed he was doing this for businesses and he said no, it would be illegal for valet to park there. He is adamant that parking will not change along the boulevard, but we all already know it has changed. I asked him why he couldn’t create permit parking for the churches and he said “let’s see if this works.” I explained to him that is the very reason I am upset. The community deserved to be heard, he pulled a fast one on his constituents.

    It was during Alderman Colon's victory speech on February 22, 2011 that he said “Thank you very much for your confidence and your trust and I look forward to serving you for four more years.” I don't know how I could ever trust someone who withheld such important information that would directly impact the community.

  • BTW my family has been members of SJB church for over 30 plus years and I have never heard or seen of anyone getting parking tickets.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    @ Jaime: "he didn't mention the ordinance during the 2011 election because he knew he would lose if people caught wind of the ordinance. "

    That sounds unrealistic. I don't think this issue is that high on the Alderman's, or most voter's radar.

    However, and something to keep in mind before continuing the Sisyphean task ahead of you, is that the alderman will absolutely cater to and continue to give a nod to large numbers of church-going constituants as a ready source of votes before catering to a smaller but vocal group. There's much more of them than there are anti-parking types, and the last thing he'd want to do would be to piss off a large group of church-goers who have been enjoying their relatively harmless weekly perk for time immemorial.

    I'm curious though what's the safety issue with the parked cars?

  • JT

    @Jaime. Just curious.
    Do you live on a Boulevard?
    Are you able to walk a half mile or less to church?

  • @Art I am entitled to my opinion and he obviously withheld it for a reason. Rey didn't win by that many votes and unfortunately I cast my vote his way. I can honestly tell you that I went up and down my block talking with neighbors and everyone disagrees with the parking. Maybe it isn't a big issue for you, but it is for us. I would love to see how many people that attend the churches in the community can vote in the 35th ward. Now that you mention it, I will try to answer that question. I asked Rey that very question and he implied that they don't live here. It is well known that most accidents occur in parking lots.

    @JT I do not live on the blvd. I am able to walk, some members of my family are not able to walk. I am not denying parking is an issue. I believe there needs to be more discussion and more ideas. I don't have all the answers but I do know that I personally have almost been hit several times during times that parking is allowed on the blvd and I am not being careless. It is a real problem. I walk to boulevards several times a day.

    I am not looking for an argument or to be attacked, I am merely looking for the community to come together and respectfully talk about the issues and come up with ideas on ways to help create a safer community. It isn't asking much for the Alderman to get community input.

  • EveryBlock Becca Director of Community Management

    Hey everyone, just a reminder about our community guidelines.

    Please help us keep the conversations neighborly and friendly. Thanks for your cooperation.

  • JT

    Perhaps the safety issue is not that of parked cars, but pedestrian cross-walks not clearly marked with proper signage indicating to cars that pedestrians have the right of way. I know when I try to cross Logan, most of the paint is worn away at most of the crosswalks and the majority of drivers do not stop for pedestrians waiting to cross.

    Your disenchantment with Rey is a separate issue from SOB.

    I agree Jaime. Lets come together to discuss this and more of these issues as a community in some civil way. Rather than start an elitist, knee-jerk reaction, lack-of-direction, fact-embellishing, coalition that protests and cries "hey ho. BLVD (church) (farmers market) (valet) PARKING HAS GOT TO GO.

  • @JT "Your disenchantment with Rey is a separate issue from SOB."

    My issue with Rey is NOT a separate issue from SOB. It is my main issue and I have already voiced my concerns to him. A good friend of my family has known Rey for a long time and I have supported him throughout the years, but I am very unhappy with the fact he deceived us. He involves the community on numerous other issues and posts updates on his website, yet this ordinance was quietly passed. We can discuss all we want but Rey likes the blvd parking and isn't willing to change it. He isn't open to looking for alternative solutions. I really hope he changes his mind we can come together as a community and try and come up with better solutions.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Alright Jaime I'll bite, what's your proposed solution ?

    This brings up an interesting issue though, in that what gives one group more say over how a community space is used than another?

  • @Art I wasn't looking for you to "bite." Please read above, I don't have all of the answers but I do know that the parking is creating problems. I wish I did have the answers or the perfect solution. I believe open respectful dialogue would be the best solution for the present situation at hand. I asked Rey about shuttle buses etc for the churches and he said let's try and see how this works out. There is a need for parking but I do not believe the blvd is the place for it.

    The answer to your question is the people that live and use the community should vote on how the space is used. I do not think that people that lives in other wards should be deciding how my community/home looks or functions.

  • OK guys. As a result of this, Im certain, No Parking signs were just put up in front of my house on the service drive of Logan that state no parking 9/25, 7 am - 4 pm.

    I can only assume this means that it is to allow the Farmers Market trucks to park on the service drive, rather than the boulevard itself.

    So, I will need to get up at 7 am to move my car on Sunday morning. Where are myself and tens of others supposed to move our cars to? Pay for parking at the Emmett St. Lot for the entire day??????

    I guess we will have to park on the Boulevard. Its a good thing they just made it legal to park there.

  • . . .

    @ only - why not you move your car Saturday so you can sleep in Sunday? Just a thought.

  • Buster

    Only1...just watch, the trucks are still going to park on the boulevard. It's already a tradition...and traditions are hard to break.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    Thanks again for the attention this matter of public parking on the boulevard is creating. I agree with Jaime, had the community discussed this prior to the law being created (June 2010) we could have come to a solution that made most people happy. A good solution involves give and take from everyone, so no one would have been 100% satisfied.

    Good News - due to people like Jaimie and many others going to speak with the Alderman, he now realizes that some of the new public parking he created was 'a mistake'. He will be removing the parking on Kedzie, south of Fullerton because there is no need for the churches to park in that block. I asked him to consider another section on Logan that has never been used for church parking. He said he would think about it.

    The SOB's will be meeting this week to discuss options to the public parking - that will allow churches to park on the boulevard but they will need to be involved in protecting the safety of the community. I am not willing to share my ideas at this time because our group needs to work on it. If Rey likes our agreement, he can take it to the community for more changes and input, so people aren't blindsided by another new agreement that they didn't know about. One step at a time.

    I also spoke with Paul Levin and learned more about the FM trucks and the permits they get and the patrolling of the parking they have volunteers doing.

    If you are reading this and have concerns about the new public parking on the boulevards, share your concerns with Rey. He's listening.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    I would like to add that the proposed agreement we are working on would be a replacement for the public parking. For this to work, the churches will need to be included in working out the agreement as well.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    @Only1 - just called Paul Levin for clarification about signs on service drive near Logan. He said a new crew of City workers posted them incorrectly - he will move them later today to the boulevard. He thanks us for letting him know!

  • Y_2_K I aspire to be who I am.

    @Only1. Be lucky you don't live in Lincoln Park, Lakeview, The Gold Coast, or anywhere else that truly has parking issues. You might have to walk 3-4 blocks. Nobody said parking in LS was all peaches and cream.

  • Aaron Miller illustrator | 10+ yr LS resident & owner

    true, but I've only really seen the issue as being dangerous. Someone will be dead because of this parking. There will be an accident involving a legally parked car (and it will be the only one on the block) and someone will be dead.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Aaron could you elaborate what you mean? How is parking on the blvd different than most city parking with travel lanes next to parallel parking?

  • Aaron Miller illustrator | 10+ yr LS resident & owner

    it's more restricted and most of the parking we see is on Sunday's or during other church functions. it's when there's one car that just looks abandoned that this will happen. I've seen on too many occasions people going so fast they blow through the light on Cortland. So add that to a car someone isn't expecting to be parked there and that's our perfect storm. It's going to happen.

  • Buster

    Over the years, I’ve seen countless accidents on the boulevards (predominantly on Humboldt/Sacramento…near where I live). Including a number of fatalities. People keep pointing out the risk of accidents as a reason not to allow parking on the boulevards. I would be interested in any statistics anyone can produce lending credence to that argument. Parked cars and a reduction in traffic lanes are proven to have a calming effect. A Cochrane Review of studies found that there is evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of traffic calming measures in reducing traffic-related injuries and may even reduce deaths. Anecdotally, traffic slows so much on Palmer during church services, that I am often waved on at crosswalks by drivers who stop at crosswalks. When they would normally just blow through during faster, non-parking hours.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Brian is right. The fewer and more constrained travel lanes you have, the slower and safer traffic will become for everyone.

  • Mark Rector Logan Square and loving it!

    Great! Let's constrain the travel lanes with wide bike paths and planters down the middle like on Ashland!

    More cars - parked or otherwise - are not the answer to keeping the Boulevards or our city beautiful!

  • Inactive user

    Neat idea, Mark! That might present an opportunity for community gardening or native plants that don't require much/any maintenance (and would look a heck of a lot better than a row of cars and be more true to the purpose of the boulevards -- green space and community-building).

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Sarcasm fail?

  • Aaron Miller illustrator | 10+ yr LS resident & owner

    i think so.

  • based on past posts, i think not.

  • PRL Moved here in 1987. Loved it then, love it now!

    @ Brian - what you say about narrowing the traffic lane by adding parking would work on a side street that is narrow to begin with. However, the boulevards are wider. Adding a lane of parking at the curb - widens the driving lane. Thus cars will speed more. When the cars aren't parked in an area we have cars swerving around to pass each other - or to avoid left-turning cars. The talk about parked cars calms traffic - in this case isn't true. However, the point is - the boulevards will look cramped and loose their beautiful appearance with parked cars. We want an open landscape. Bicycle paths would be great. Planters would be awesome.

    Keep in mind that the City (Rey?) has the Emmett Street public parking lot for sale. If / when it sells, those metered spaces will have to be moved to replace the revenue to Chicago Parking Meters (LAZ). We are concerned that the long term plan will be to sell the lot and have metered spaces on the boulevards.

    We need to find a solution that allows the churches to park during their services while not creating a pubic lot on the boulevards.

  • Aaron Miller illustrator | 10+ yr LS resident & owner

    how many patrons really have to drive? couldn't the Churches do their part and ask their patron to walk a bit? I know it's the 21st century and we can't be bothered to walk more than a block for anything. But maybe it's about time.

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Aaron you are assuming everyone that drives to those churches are already living in the neighborhood and also within walking distance. These sorts of things are self-selecting, so we can assume from the number of cars that most of the church-goers are coming from more than a few blocks away, or have other issues (elderly, etc)

  • @Paddy, please give the doom and gloom a rest The city has no obligation to replace the revenue to LAZ at Emmett, and you know darn well that nobody is talking about putting parking meters on the boulevard. You got your meeting with the Alderman let's save the hyperbole for another topic.

    @Aaron, this is rehash of many previous posts, but in summary --lots of people walk, but not everyone lives walking distance, particularly older people and people with small children. There are also many people that have moved away from the community but come back to their home parish for services. The problem is exacerbated by the many months of lousy weather we get in this climate challenged city.

  • @srcabeza Nobody was talking about creating legal boulevard parking and it happened. Not only did it happen, but it happened without the knowledge of the community. If it happened once, it can happen again. There is no need to disrespect others on this form with your "hyperbole" talk.

  • Buster

    Paddy, I appreciate your passion for wanting the boulevards free and clear. I agree, it would look very pretty. And if there are solutions to be found in terms of church bus systems and multiple parking lot rentals somewhere that are within financial reach of each church, that would be great. I hope you are in contact with church leaders, as I know they are receptive to open dialogue.

    But, in the meantime, I have to differ with your opinion that a lane of parked cars will increase speed on the boulevards. That just doesn't jive with DOT studies or least that I've experienced. You can literally stand and watch traffic when cars are parked and see a notable reduction in speed on the boulevards.

    I drive regularly on the boulevards, during the week and on the weekends. There is a considerable reduction in speed when cars are parked along the sides. This is also evident with the new lane removal on Humboldt/Sacramento through the park (where they added the new concrete medians). The remaining lane is wide, but trust me, it creates a slowdown. While I don't enjoy sitting in traffic, I do think the reduced speed is for the better good.

    Again, I don't mean to disparage your efforts. I appreciate people wanting a more pastoral ambience in our neighborhood. But I also want to live in a place that is welcoming and accommodating to the institutions that have been here for generations...longer than any of us.

  • @Jamie, Paddy has made a dozen or more posts to the board. She and no one else has suggested the meter concern. To suggest it now as SOB's concern is consistent with past hyperbolic posts, most notably that 110-140 hours of parking had been legalized on the boulevard.

    Sure, I suppose anything is possible, an expressway, a Walmart, a drag strip, a red-light district, or an oil refinery, but reasonable people know it's not happening.

    Many continue to contend that the community was not consulted on the decision. The churches were consulted, as both institutions and membership organizations they are important community members. They are the stakeholders that were most affected by the change in parking enforcement and were consulted, as is appropriate.

    I reject the notion that SOB is the community and SJB is not, Or that any decision that Paddy hasn't weighed in on is not legitimate. I ask again why a decision about parking in front of churches that she doesn't attend, located a mile from her house requires Paddy's sign off. Who elected her as our representative? And what is the forum where she's been able to bless or reject past decisions? I've never been invited to any such meetings.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    @srcabeza, you state as fact two things I don't believe to be simple fact.

    Firstly you state that reasonable people know meters aren't happening. What about Chicago's recent history with meters tell you they're not happening? The last bastion of meter free areas in the city are residential streets. I'd say it's an easy argument to make that the traffic lanes of the boulevards aren't residential streets. Meters have been placed in many places where free parking was formerly the norm. Many of the lakefront parking lots used to be free, not any more. Many side streets in business areas used to be meter free, not any more. Why not the boulevards? I'd say the leap from no parking on the inner traffic lanes to parking is a bigger leap than meters.

    Secondly you argue that the churches are disproportionate stake holders in the parking decision. I disagree. They are members of the community, just like the residents, and all should have been consulted. It makes no sense to have a dialog on the issue in which only one side of an issue is consulted.

    I think there are a couple of common sense issues underlying this that really aren't that controversial. First, do the hours make sense? Does there need to be 14 hours of legal parking on Logan by SJB for one hour of mass? Second, should the community as a whole be engaged in a dialog before an ordinance like this is introduced and passed?

  • Art Logan Square resident

    Unfortunately for everyone common sense is a notoriously subjective point of view. :)

    I think making the churches out to be huge and disproportionate stake holders is a bit much though. What's wrong with us just letting them do their thing on Sundays? They aren't pitching tents on the boulevard every weekend having rallys and taking up the green space or anything.

    It's cars. Parking. On the street. Once a week.

    This seems to be a case of people wanting to control others vs people who want to just let things be.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    I hear what you're saying Art, but I don't agree. When a change is made in the neighborhood that affects many residents of the community it's not really about letting things be. It's about a major change and how that change impacts residents in a new way. You may, and I'd guess do, see that change is minimal. I'll tell you that's not how I see it. And that is exactly why I think there should have been a dialog before the change was made. Those like you that think the change was no big deal could indicate that or simply speak with their silence. Those like me who felt this wasn't a good idea would be able to make their case for why they think it's a bad idea.

  • While the effect may have been in-artful, my attempt was to argue that the churches have an institutional role in the community in that they have been here for 100+ years (SJB, others) and they have membership that is comprised disproportionately of community residents.

    As such, I'm disagreeing with the suggestion by many that zero community consultation has taken place. I believe the churches by definition are community members.

    I'm also arguing that consultation with the churches is at-least as important as consultation with SOB/Boulevard property owners. I do believe that church members were disproportionately affected, because it was church members that had a long-standing, never significantly disputed, privilege taken away.

    And finally, I'm saying that I don't believe that Paddy or SOB represent the community and don't believe that they should have veto power over decisions about churches that they don't attend or even live near.

    As I said to posts you and Paddy made last week, if the discussion is about better relating the parking hours to high-traffic church hours, then that is a good discussion that I look forward to being invited to join. I only re-joined the discussion when new, in my view, alarmist claims were made about the issue. Count me as a skeptic that the self-appointed "Community" will reach out to the rest of us if/when this is re-litigated with the Alderman.

  • . . .

    @ HaveADay - "Does there need to be 14 hours of legal parking on Logan by SJB for one hour of mass?"

    Please check you facts before posting. Every Sunday there are 5 masses @ 1 hour each. Sprinkle in baptisms, weddings, first holy communion ect and you can add on another 5 hours depending on the day.

  • HaveADay Life long Chicagoan, Logan Square for 15+ years

    @That Guy, thanks for the fact check but I never said it was on Sunday. Saturday parking on Logan is permitted on Saturday from 7am-9pm. The only mass on Saturday is at 5pm. That is one hour of mass with 14 hours of parking. As I said.

  • Alex M. Jeff Park, web design, DJ, thinker

    Meh...this is why I won't live in areas like Lincoln Park, Logan Square, Wrigleyville, Lake View, or Wicker Park. Not unless I plan on parking my car someplace and not moving it most of the time. It's even why I won't live on a main street. It's horrible if you own a car....but ideal if you don't.

    This is life in the big city.

  • Y_2_K I aspire to be who I am.

    I'd be willing to say that the area affected by these parking changes hardly constitutes a 'neighborhood (wide)' change that affects 'many of the residents.' Logan Square is a large hunk of land. The boulevards in question are on a very small piece of it. Obviously, people are pretty passionate about their opinions, but to throw the "this effects everyone, we weren't even asked!" card on the table is a bit much.

    And, in my experience, sliding stuff through like this is EXACTLY how it gets done. The alderman clearly wanted to appease a certain group of people, which he did. If we don't like it we can vote accordingly, but I doubt that will happen.

11 neighbors are subscribed to this conversation.

Posted to Logan Square

This was posted to Logan Square

What's the news in your neighborhood? Search for your ZIP code:

e.g. 60615