Crossing the Street

One blogger wrote, “If you’ve ever ventured out into one of Chicago’s famous six-corner intersections, you know the streets don’t always feel safe.”

Blair Kamin called Belmont, Lincoln and Ashland “one of the ugliest and most anti-pedestrian intersections in all of Chicago”

Someone taking exception with plans for the Lincoln Park Hospital site wrote, “Six corner streets are very dangerous under the best of conditions”

A photographer wrote, “To many visitors of Chicago unacquainted with the workings of a six-way intersection, these spots can be a confusing and dangerous experience, particularly if driving a car or simply trying to walk across the street.”*


I have lived near the Milwaukee, North and Damen intersection since the mid 80’s, and I never noticed how dangerous it was. I have walked across the intersection at least once a day for the last 25 years, and I have never felt any more imperilled than when crossing any other intersection.
Have I been lucky?

I started looking into it and a few years ago CDOT commissioned a study about pedestrian safety and here are the results.
The study was prepared for the city of Chicago by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, June 2007.
Worst intersections for pedestrians:
Number of pedestrian collisions: Location
 13: M L King & 79th
 11: ASHLAND & 79TH
 10: CALIFORNIA & NORTH
 9: CICERO & MADISON
 8: Pulaski & Irving Park
 8: KEDZIE & NORTH
 8: HALSTED & 95TH
 8: MICHIGAN & MONROE
 7: CLARK & WASHINGTON
 7: DEARBORN & RANDOLPH
 6: CENTRAL & BELMONT
 6: PULASKI & LAKE
 6: PULASKI & ROOSEVELT
 6: CALIFORNIA & 63RD
 6: WESTERN & ADDISON
 6: WESTERN & 63RD
 6: WESTERN & 71ST
 6: Paulina & 79th
 6: ASHLAND & 69TH
 6: Wacker & Madison
 6: CLARK & DIVISION
 6: DEARBORN & WASHINGTON
 6: WABASH & JACKSON
 6: STATE & 79TH
 5: AUSTIN & BELMONT
 5: AUSTIN & CHICAGO
 5: LARAMIE & CHICAGO
 5: PULASKI & 26TH
 5: KIMBALL & BELMONT
 5: Kimball & 16th
 5: CALIFORNIA & 55TH
 5: CALIFORNIA & 71ST
 5: WESTERN & DEVON
 5: WESTERN & NORTH
 5: SOUTHPORT & ADDISON
 5: SHEFFIELD & WEBSTER
 5: Halsted & Clark
 5: HALSTED & 69TH
 5: WELLS & MONROE
 5: CLARK & MADISON
 5: DEARBORN & MADISON
 5: Dearborn & Jackson
 5: STATE & MONROE
 5: STATE & ADAMS
 5: MICHIGAN & CHICAGO
 5: MICHIGAN & DELAWARE
 5: COTTAGE GROVE & 81ST
 5: JEFFERY & 79TH

You will notice that not a single one of these dangerous intersections is a six corner intersection.

Only one came close, Halsted & Clark. It is a five corner intersection. If you have been there, you know that it is not really an intersection at all, but an unholy maelstrom of surface parking and curb cuts.
Even then, it was at the bottom of the list.

Clearly, they aren’t any more dangerous than a four corner intersection.
So why are they getting such a bad rap?

Because we have confused the concept of not being “pedestrian friendly” with being dangerous.
We have to cross more streets than we would on a four corner. To perform the simple task of traveling on the same street in the same direction, we have to cross twice as many streets and traffic in twice as many directions.

We have to travel farther and check the traffic twice as often and percieve this as dangerous.
In reality it is much more dangerous crossing at a corner with a gas station or a parking lot on it.

Paul K. Dickman

The full study can be read at:
http://www.walkinginfo.org/training/collateral/resources/ChicagoPedestrian_final.pdf


*I owe this guy an apology for taking his statement out of context.
“To many visitors of Chicago unacquainted with the workings of a six-way intersection, these spots can be a confusing and dangerous experience, particularly if driving a car or simply trying to walk across the street.”
The rest of the paragraph is this:
“But to us locals, six-ways are where we want to be.”
It is part of the introduction to an enjoyable photo essay on six corner intersections and can be found here:
http://www.gabrielbiller.com/sixways/index.html

The Death of a Thousand Cuts

When a building or a district gets landmarked, it is not about restricting development or creating some historic theme park. It is simply the recognition that pieces of our culture, the stories of our common heritage were carved in our buildings. This is something that belongs to all of us and needs our protection. That heritage is no less significant for a workers cottage than it is for a mansion or skyscraper.
For the most part Chicago’s landmark ordinance, realizing that a building needs some flexibility to thrive, limits itself to a building’s exteriors. It puts most of its energy into the portions of a building that is visible from the street.
The ordinance can’t make you restore your building or put back elements that were lost before it was landmarked. Instead, it directs the Landmarks Commission and their staff (who oversee the ordinance) to identify those portions of a building that are still original or significant and gives them the power to protect them.
Sure they protect them from demolition, but that is rare. The grueling day to day work of these people is not protecting them from the wrecking ball, it is saving our heritage from the death of a thousand cuts.
Every new owner, every new tenant, every new manager looks up at the front of their building and says, “This would be better with….”.
The cuts all seem small: It needs a bigger cornice, I want French doors or a picture window.
The reasons all seem good: It’ll look more historic, no one is ever going to use that door again, I can’t sell a condo without a balcony and the latest buzzwords “adaptive reuse”.
But historic preservation is not about what your building could be. It is about saving what remains of what remains of what they once were.
Each little cut takes a piece of that away.
Enough cuts, and there is nothing left.

Paul K. Dickman