Chicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan

8/13/2019 Chicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan

1/82

CHICAGO LAKEFRONTH A R B O R F R A M E W O R K P L A N

OCTOBER 2007

CHICAGO LAKEFRONT


2/82


3/82

A Flexible 20-Year Plan for the Chicago Park District Harbor SystemOctober 2007

Richard M. Daley

Mayor

Chicago Park District Board of Commissioners

Mari N. Saldaa, PresidentBob Pickens, Vice PresidentDr. Margaret T. BurroughsM. Laird KoldykeReverend Daniel Matos-RealCindy MitchellRouhy J. Shalabi

Timothy J. Mitchell, General Superintendent & CEO

C H A R B O R F R A M E W O R K P L A NCHICAGO LAKEFRONTHICAGO LAKEFRONT


4/82


5/82

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T SI. PLAN BACKG ROUND & OVERVIEW p. 1

1.1 Introduction by Timothy J. Mitchell, General Superintendent & CEO p. 21.2 Guiding Principles p. 5

1.3 Goals & Objectives p. 61.4 Existing Harbor System p. 81.5 Economic Impacts of Chicagos Harbors p. 111.6 Market Demand Analysis p. 161.7 Financing Harbors in Parks p. 171.8 The Public Planning Process p. 181.9 Physical Planning Process p. 20

II . THE CHICAGO LAKEFRONT HARBOR FRAMEWORK PLAN p. 23

2.1 South Lakefront p. 27 87th Street Harbor p. 28 Jackson Park Outer & Inner Harbors p. 32 59th Street Harbor p. 362.2 Central Lakefront p. 39 31st Street Harbor p. 40 Burnham Harbor p. 44 Downtown Harbor p. 48 Gateway Harbor p. 48 DuSable East Harbor p. 52 DuSable Harbor - Monroe Harbor p. 562.3 North Lakefront p. 61 Diversey Harbor p. 62 Belmont Harbor p. 66 Montrose Harbor p. 68 Chicagos Far North Lakefront p. 702.4 Harbor System-Wide & Lakefront Recommendations p. 712.5 Greening & Sustainabili ty Components p. 73

PARTICIPANTS Inside Back Cover


6/82


7/82

Plan Background & Overview

C1. PLAN BACKGROUND& OVERVIEW


8/82

2 C HICAGO LAKEFRONT HARBOR FRAMEWORK PLAN

1.1 INTRODUCTIONBY TIMOTHY J. MITCHELL,GENERAL SUPERINTENDENT & CEO

The Chicago Park District owns and operates the largestmunicipal harbor system in North America, consistingof 9 harbors with over 5,100 boat slips and moorings.These public harbors are vital to the character ofChicagos famous shoreline, attracting not only regionaland international boaters, but also a larger public drawnto the beauty and activity of boats entering and leavingport. Harbors have appeared prominently in lakefrontplanning and development since the creation of Burnhamand Bennetts plan of 1909. Todays harbor system, whilenot as extensive as originally envisioned by Chicagosfounders, contributes significantly to our economy and ourreputation as a world-class waterfront destination.

Chicagos harbors serve their host parks in several

ways. They provide unique opportunities for personsof all ages and abilities to interact with Lake Michigan,with accessible promenades, great fishing, and sailingprograms for children and adults. Like our beaches, ballfields, and nature areas, harbors are essential to the ParkDistricts mission to provide a wide variety of recreationalopportunities for everyone. In addition, harbors are anincome producing asset, generating millions of dollarsin annual revenue to the benefit of tax payers and theirneighborhood parks.

The harbor system is now operating at capacity, withlong waiting lists and demand rising. Given the desirefor balanced growth of the system, the Chicago ParkDistrict retained a team of consultants led by JJR, LLCto assess the existing harbor system, conduct a marketanalysis, and create a 20-year harbor system frameworkplan through an inclusive public planning process. Theteam was instructed to take a holistic approach, focusingon the entire lakefront and considering several options fornew harbor development. The resulting plan purposefullycontains more concepts than are needed to satisfy projecteddemand, and serves as a valuable tool for discussion and

prioritization.A primary design criteria imposed by the Park District wasthat harbors should be self-funding, or in other words,produce enough income to pay for their constructionand long-term operation. Most of the concepts in theframework plan appear to exceed this cri teria. However,

basic financial viability was not the only criteria and

concepts with the potential to benefi t developing areashave also been considered. Other design goals includedbeautification of host parks, increased public access andamenities, accessibility for persons of all levels of ability,increased safety, minimization of traffic and parking,creation of aquatic habitat, preserving water quality, anduse of sustainable building practices. This broad rangeof goals, developed with community participation, haspointed to the collective benefits of balanced harbordevelopment.

The Park District would like to thank the planning teamand the many citizens and civic organizations who devotedtheir time to working groups and public meetings. Theresulting plan creates a flexible vision for the future ofChicagos public harbors.

Timothy J. Mitchell, General Superintendent & CEO

The mission of the Chicago Park District is:

To enhance the quality of life throughout Chicagoby becoming the leading provider of recreationaland leisure opportunities;

To provide safe, inviting and beautifullymaintained parks and facilities, and

To create a customer-focused andresponsive park system


9/82

Introduction

The History of Chicagos Harbors

Nine harbors comprise the Chicago Harbor System. Fromsouth to north, they are: Jackson Park Outer Harbor,Jackson Park Inner Harbor, 59th Street Harbor, BurnhamHarbor, Monroe Harbor, DuSable Harbor, DiverseyHarbor, Belmont Harbor, and Montrose Harbor. Theharbors were developed over a centurys time, spanning

from the boat basins that would eventually becomeMonroe and Burnham Harbors deriving directly fromBurnham and Bennetts Plan of Chicago to the openingof DuSable Harbor in 2000.

Three harbors Diversey Harbor, 59th Street Harbor,and Jackson Park Inner Harbor are located west of LakeShore Drive, and boats entering or exiting them must passunderneath Lake Shore Drive overpass bridges, limitingthem to motorboats, as sailboat masts cannot pass beneaththese bridges. The other six harbors house a combinationof motorboats and sailboats.

In 1995, after years of managing the Harbor Systeminternally, the Chicago Park District privatized theirmanagement, and in 1996 prepared a comprehensiveplan for the renovation and modernization of the HarborSystem. Over the past decade, almost all of that plan hasbeen implemented, including the conversion of manyexisting multiple-boat star docks and mooring cans intofloating slips on piers, the addition of a variety of boateramenities, and the development of DuSable Harbor.

MontroseHarbor

BelmontHarbor

DiverseyHarbor DuSable

Harbor

MonroeHarbor

BurnhamHarbor

59th StreetHarbor

Jackson ParkInner Harbor

Jackson ParkOuter Harbor

Chi cago

A 1920s photo of Jackson Park I nner and Out er H arbors The current Chi cago Harbor System

Lake Michigan


10/82


History of Chicago Lakefront Planning

Over time, there have been numerous thoughtful plansdeveloped for Chicagos Lakefront, including:

Burnham & Bennetts Plan of Chicago 1909 The Lakefront Plan of Chicago 1972

Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront ProtectionOrdinance 1973 The Lincoln Park Framework Plan 1995 The Chicago Park Districts Harbor

Improvement Plan 1996 The Burnham Park Framework Plan 1999 The South Lakefront Framework Plan 2000 The Calumet Area Land Use Plan 2001 The Grant Park Framework Plan 2002 The Chicago Central Area Plan 2002 South Lakefront Access Study 2003 The Chicago Shoreline Project ongoing

In addition to the plans listed, numerous community-based plans have been developed. In 1973, the City ofChicago passed into law the Lake Michigan and ChicagoLakefront Protection Ordinance commonly known asthe Lakefront Protection Ordinance. This ordinancereinforces the Plan of Chicago goals of a continuous andpublicly accessible lakefront, prohibits private developmenteast of Lake Shore Drive, encourages a diversity of lake-oriented leisure time activities, and calls for a harmoniousrelationship between the lakefront and the adjacent

community.Many lakefront plans focus on developing and maintainingpublic access to the lake, and providing a variety ofrecreational amenities along the lakefront. A number ofthese plans, including the Burnham and Bennett plan of1909, specifically focused on improving and potentiallyexpanding the harbors within the Harbor System. Thisproject i s intended to create a Chicago Lakefront HarborFramework Plan that addresses these goals in a balancedand forward-thinking manner.

A Word about Defnitions

In every day conversation, the terms harbor andmarina are often used interchangeably. For thosepeople involved in the planning, development oroperation of such waterfront facilities, the terms havesomewhat different meanings.

The Chicago Harbor System is technically comprisedof small craft harbors that are not necessari ly fullservice marinas. A small craft harbor is defined as abasin in a body of water that provides protection fromthe elements (waves, wind, tides, ice, currents, etc.) fora variety of watercraft. These facilities typically providerecreational boat berthing (docks and moorings),launching and retrieval capabilities, basic boatersupplies, auto parking lots, walkways, and associatedland-based support facilities and services.

Beyond satisfying the basic requirements of small craftharbors, full service marinas strive to meet the needsof an increasingly sophisticated boating communityto remain competitive in the market place. Marinapatrons are typically boat owners who desire safe,comfortable and attractive facilities that supportrecreational boating, including stable and aestheticallypleasing boat berths with utility service, restroomsand showers, fueling and sanitary pump-out stations,food service and other amenities. The boating publicis generally willing to pay for the convenience of aneasily accessible and properly appointed second homeatmosphere, above and beyond the mere provision asafe place to store their boat.

Because of the Harbors locations within the cherishedlakefront parks, maintaining the publics visual andphysical access to the waters edge is an importantdesign, development and operational objective forthese harbors. Finding ways to both maintain publicaccess to the lakefront and provide the facilities andamenities of modern harbors is an achievable goal.

As the Chicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan

focuses significant attention on the lakefront parksthat house the harbors themselves, this document willuse the term harbors rather than marinas whenreferring to the waterside boat basins themselves as wellas the landside environment in which the boat basinsare located. This document uses one term for purposesof consistency, and it should be understood that thisterm refers both to the boat basins as well as theirsurrounding environments.

M ontrose Harbor


11/82

Guiding Principles

1.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

All significant planning efforts are based upon a set of fundamental principles that help establish the projects contextand provide the values under which it is performed. These principles also help frame the civic discussion that underpinsthe planning effort itself. The Chicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan is no exception. It builds upon the legacy ofChicago lakefront planning, and incorporates the values and principles that have grown over time in the stewardship ofChicagos lakefront.

Chicagos Lakefront is a primary civic amenity, and it should be protected and enhanced forall types of users;

The Chicago Park Districts mission of offering a diverse range of recreational opportunitiesincludes providing and operating a set of lakefront harbors;

Chicagos magni cent lakefront parks and the Chicago Harbor System are interconnected, and what affects one affects both;

Boaters comprise an important stakeholder group who help bring activity, vitality andinterest to the lakefront;

Thoughtful planning and design can develop lakefront harbors that mutually bene t boaters

and non-boaters; and Signi cant civic bene ts can be derived by identifying appropriate opportunities for

improving and expanding the Chicago Harbor System.

The following Guiding Principles are behind the Chicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan:


12/82


1.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

One of the key outcomes of the public planning processwas confirmation of the projects Guiding Principles andidentification of consensus Goals and Objectives. TheseGoals and Objectives expand upon the projects GuidingPrinciples and provide a means to evaluate lakefront andharbor planning options.

The consensus Goals and Objectives include:

Maintain public universal accessibility to theentire lakefront. The City and the Park District arecommitted to providing waters edge access over theentire length of the lakefront for all members of thecommunity, and this plan should contribute to thiscommitment.

Develop the harbors as a string of destinationsalong the lakefront. The harbors should be a seriesof active nodes along the lakefront that can serve aslinkage points.

Provide adequate security along the lakefrontfor boaters and non-boaters. A wide range ofprogrammed and informal activity enhances onessense of securi ty. The Plan should further lakefrontsecurity while at the same time recognizing the specificsecurity needs of boaters in the harbors.

Increase the transient-friendliness of the Chicago

Harbor System. Boaters within and outside of theChicago Harbor System have pointed out the lack oftransient mooring opportunities along the lakefront,and have urged the Plan to address this insufficiency.

Better link Chicagos harbors to other areaamenities. The harbors should be more effectivelylinked to other area amenities. The harbors shouldbe envisioned as a series of concierge-type stationsthat can help link the lakefront to the adjacentcommunities.

More fully recognize the economic developmentpotential of the harbors. Viewing the harbors inbroad economic development terms, the Plan shouldemphasize the positive fiscal impact that they can haveon the adjacent communities and the city in general.

Accommodate the sustainable use of the lakefrontby a diverse range of users. The Plan shouldseek balance between the many types of lake users,including recreational boaters of all types and sizes,personal water craft users, commercial boating users,recreational anglers, and beach users.

Leverage existing lakefront infrastructure whereverpossible. To plan for the lakefront harbors in a costeffective and environmentally responsible manner,the Plan should utilize existing infrastructure such aslandside parking areas and waterside shore protectionstructures.

Link to available transportation resources andthe general community. The Plan should envisiontransportation, access and parking issues for theharbors as one element of an overall lakefronttransportation plan. The Plan should leverage allavailable opportunities to connect the harbors to thecommunity.

Example of public access walkway at DuSable HarborNavy Pier serves as one of the Ci tys premier waterfront destinations


13/82

Goals & Objectives

Support transit, pedestrian and other non-vehicularmodes of lakefront transportation. Recognizing thebenefits of enhancing transit, pedestrian and non-vehicular transportation modes along the lakefront,the Plan should support and encourage all strategies toaugment the lakefront harbors without adding to itsvehicular traffic load.

Improve basic lakefront amenity opportunitiesfor all users. All lakefront users boaters andnon-boaters alike desire convenient access to well-maintained restroom, shelter and concession amenityfacil ities. The Plan should promote their developmentwhere appropriate.

Maximize the social and educational benefits byaccommodating boating and other water-basedleisure activities. By providing opportunities for thegeneral community and non-traditional boaters to

experience boating and other recreational activitiesalong the lake, the Plan can support and further suchexisting programs and efforts.

Improve water quality along the lakefront. The Planshould identify appropriate opportunities or solutionsto mitigate existing water quality issues in the harborsand along the lakefront where possible.

Promote environmental sustainability along thelakefront. The harbors should be conceived as partof a green corridor along the lakefront, and a varietyof environmentally friendly techniques and practicesshould be adopted to promote the overall sustainabilityof the harbors and their operations.

Develop new harbors that support themselves and/or add money to the Park District. The Plan shouldidentify and promote for development new harboropportunities that appear likely to support themselvesand have potential to contribute additional revenues tothe Park District for use throughout the community.Consideration should also be given to those harborsthat can enhance local economic conditions.

Support other lakefront plans by reference in theChicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan. Aseach plan exists within the context of other existingplans, this Plan should further other lakefront plans bygeneral support and by specific reference of their goals,principles, and uncompleted initiatives.

Coordinate long-term harbor improvements withthe potential 2016 Summer Olympic Games.Towards the latter part of the Chicago Lakefront

Harbor Framework Plan process, Chicago successfullybid for the right to be named the U. S. Applicant Cityfor the 2016 Summer Olympic Games. In October,2009, Chicago will learn whether it will, in fact, bechosen to host the Olympic Games. A number ofpotential lakefront and harbor enhancements arecontemplated as part of the Olympic Games. It isimportant that Olympic lakefront enhancementscontinue to be carefully coordinated with the Plan.

A cross-secti on of the diverse range of water-based acti vi ty andtouri sm supported by Chicagos muni cipal harbor system

A combined securi ty gate and accessible ramp at DuSable Harbor


14/82


1.4 EXISTING HARBOR SYSTEM

Nine harbors comprise the Chicago Harbor System (seemap on page 3). From south to north, they are: JacksonPark Outer Harbor, Jackson Park Inner Harbor, 59thStreet Harbor, Burnham Harbor, Monroe Harbor, DuSableHarbor, Diversey Harbor, Belmont Harbor, and MontroseHarbor. The harbors were developed over t ime, from the

boat basins that became Monroe and Burnham Harborsderiving directly from Burnham and Bennetts 1909 Planof Chicago to the opening of DuSable Harbor in 2000.

The harbors do not all share a single design. For instance,three harbors Diversey Harbor, 59th Street Harbor,and Jackson Park Inner Harbor are located west ofLake Shore Drive, and boats entering or exiting themmust pass underneath Lake Shore Drive overpass bridges,limiting them to motorboats, as sailboat masts cannotpass beneath these bridges. The other six harbors house acombination of motorboats and sailboats. Monroe Harborand DuSable Harbor were built out into the lake off ofthe shoreline edge with constructed breakwaters providingprotection from wave action. The other seven harbors areall substantially enwrapped by constructed landforms. Evenamong the seven enwrapped harbors, there are differences.Burnham Harbor is enwrapped to the east by NortherlyIsland, which was an island until it was connected to themainland in 1938, result ing in the creation of the boatbasin that became Burnham Harbor.

There is one additional small harbor along the lakefront.

The Calumet Yacht Club was privately developed andowned on property that only recently came under ChicagoPark District ownership. This small harbor is not officiallypart of the Chicago Harbor System, and its operationand management is not included under the harbormanagement contract. Its capacity is quite limited, and itsshore protection structures and facilities were not designedto Chicago Park District standards. For purposes of theChicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan project, theCalumet Yacht Club was assessed more on the potential ofits location than on the nature of its current infrastructure,and its capacity has not been included in the calculation ofthe total capacity of the Chicago Harbor System.

Jackson Park Inner and Outer Harbors

Belmont Harbor

Excursion boats docki ng at Navy Pier(wi th di lapidated Dime Pier i n foreground)


15/82

Existing Harbor System

Lake Michigan Technical Considerations

A number of considerations provide the technicalunderpinning for harbor design, engineering andconstruction, regardless of the specific location or bodyof water for which planning harbors or shore protectionstructures. The specific technical conditions affecting theChicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan are discussedbriefly below.

Water Levels/Fluctuation

Lake Michigan water levels have fluctuated continuouslysince the Great Lakes were formed at the end of the IceAge. Monthly average lake levels have been recorded since1918, and typically are stated in feet above sea level. Thelowest recorded monthly average lake level was 576.05 feetin March, 1964. The highest recorded monthly averagelake level was 582.35 feet in October, 1986. This equals arecorded fluctuation of 6.30 feet.

For general discussion purposes, one could state thatthe average Lake Michigan water level historically isapproximately around the mid-point between the lowestand highest recorded monthly average lake levels, or inthe 579+ foot range. At the present time, Lake Michiganis approximately one foot below its average water level, at

approximately 578.5 feet.

Water Depths

The bathymetry or water depth to the bottom of LakeMichigan is fairly consistent along the Chicago shoreline,and slopes gradually further offshore. The actual waterdepths along the shoreline vary depending upon the extentof fill material used over the last century to create much ofthe current shoreline. From a harbor planning perspective,costs increase as a function of the depth of the water inwhich a harbor is built.

Shoreline Protection Structures

Chicagos lakefront, including the harbor system, LakeShore Drive, and other infrastructure, is protected fromhigh lake water levels and wave action by a hybrid systemof shoreline protection structures. The function of thesestructures, which includes both shoreline edge and offshorebreakwater structures, is to withstand and dissipatethe incoming wave energy rather than allow it to causeshoreline or inland damage. Chicagos shoreline protectionsystem is primarily a combination of different types of largeconfined stones, either capped with concrete or uncapped,and steel-edged concrete stepped structures.

Wave Climate

The primary factor affecting the design and cost ofharbor and shoreline protection is wave action. The size,force and direction of waves is a function of lake levels,bathymetry (lake bottom shape and depth), prevailingwind direction, and the distance over open water that windblows (fetch). Lake Michigan is typically characterized bya steadily rolling low level wave climate, with occasionalstormy weather periods of higher choppy waves. Shorelineprotection structures must be engineered to withstandthese higher wave heights, which in the case of Chicagoslakeshore can range from 10 to 15 feet.

Water Quality

Water quality within a harbor basin is a concern forboaters, the marina operator, environmentalists, andregulatory agencies. The water quali ty within a givenharbor is related to a combination of considerations,including hydrological factors, discharges into the harbor,and user impacts. Harbors throughout the world areworking to improve operational, technical and otherpractices to address water quality challenges.

Burnham Harbor DuSable Harbor


16/82


Littoral Transport

Wave action is the predominant cause of most shoreline

erosion, and the resulting sediment transport anddeposition of li ttoral materials. This general movement ofsediment, also known as littoral transport, is an importantconsideration in the planning of harbors, and harborentrances in particular. In any given location, the volumeof littoral transport and its mitigation by shore protectionstructures will dictate the frequency and amount ofdredging that could be required to maintain harbor access.

Winter and Ice Conditions

Winter and ice conditions often pose significant challenges

to harbor infrastructure that is left in place over the winter.Wind, waves, swell and seiche action can move ice, bothhorizontally and vertically, which in turn can cause agreat deal of damage during the winter months. Thereare a number of emergent technologies being employedelsewhere on the Great Lakes to mitigate the damagingeffects of winter and ice.

Planning and Design Guidelines

In their work on the Chicago Lakefront HarborFramework Plan, the planning team utilized several ofthe most widely-used published guidelines for harbor andmarina planning, design and development that provideindustry standards for such technical elements as boatslips, dockage, fairway, and entry channel dimensions

and design. The planning team also referenced thegeneral standard ratios that help determine the number ofrestrooms, showers, laundry facilities, and pump-outs fornew harbors depending upon their size.

Parking, access and drop-off standards are somewhatmore difficult to prescribe. Harbors in dense urban areaswith existing transportation infrastructure have differentrequirements and opportunities than do harbors in moreremote locations. A range of ratios of parking stalls perboat slip from 0.5 to 1.0 parking stalls per slip is typicallycited. Harbors in urban locations with nearby parking,public transportation and taxi service generally provide lessparking than do harbors in remote locations.

Universal accessibility at all harbor facilities is a goal of theChicago Park District for the Chicago Harbor System, andthe planning team respected that goal in its work.

Ice damage to dockage at Burnham Harbor

This existing offshore structure isdesigned to minimize the li tt oraltransport of beach sand i nto theent rance to Jackson Park H arbor

Navy Pier


17/82

1Economic Impacts of Chicagos Harbors

1.5 ECONOMIC IMPACTS OFCHICAGOS HARBORS

As a component of the Chicago Lakefront HarborFramework Plan, Applied Real Estate Analysis (AREA)and the project team studied the existing and potentialcontributions of the Chicago Harbor system to the localeconomy. Putting the harbors into their fiscal context helpsto frame discussions of potential future system expansion.As the analysis shows, the full economic impact of theharbor system extends far beyond the boating community.

Direct Craft-Related Expenditures

Of the more than $24 billion in direct expenditures byvisitors to Illinois, almost two-thirds is spent in CookCounty. The overall economic impact of the lakefrontparks and harbors is essentially incalculable, but we canestimate at least a portion of the economic impact that

the harbors have on Chicagos economy. The RecreationMarine Research Center (RMRC) at Michigan StateUniversity conducted a survey of more than 6,000 boatersnationwide in 2004 and followed it in 2005 with anational survey of more than 12,500 boaters. Using figuresderived from these surveys and combined with estimatedslip revenues in Chicago harbors, RMRC developedestimates of the average annual expenditures of Chicagoboaters on year-around storage, maintenance, fuel, andsupplies.

In 2005, RMRC estimated that Chicago had 4,647 boatsat slips and moorings in its harbors. There are at least300 persons on a waiting list for space. The waiting listincludes requests for specific harbors in addition to personswilling to accept space in any harbor. In addition, almost

all of the waiting list is for slips and only a small percentageof persons on the waiting list are willing to accept amooring. However, moorings constitute 24% of thedocking potential in Chicagos Harbors. Discussions withharbor management, confirmed by casual observation,indicated that the districts slips and star docks weremore than 99% occupied. However, almost a third ofthe moorings may have been vacant. Most of the vacantmoorings were in the south end of Monroe Harbor and inJackson Harbor, where wave action makes these mooringsless desirable.

Even allowing for the vacancy in moorings, the estimatedoccupancy rate may be low. The following report is basedon RMRCs analysis, with adjustments made to reflect thehigher rate of occupancy cited by harbor management.This analysis is based on 4,986 boats, or an occupancy justshy of 98%.

It is estimated that the boats in the Chicago Harbors areeach operated an average of 41 days each year. The ownersof these boats spend about $69 million annually on theircraft. This includes $13.6 million for seasonal and non-seasonal storage, $7.1 million for fuel, $10.7 million onrepairs and servicing, and $8.9 million on accessories.Other expense categories included boat payments, taxes,insurance, new outboard motors, and new trailers. Averageannual spending varies by the size and type of boat. In

general, power boat owners spend more per boat thanowners of sail boats and larger boats cost more to store andoperate than small boats.

M onroe Harbor Entrance to 59th Street Harbor


18/82


1

The average amount spent on storing and operating boats each year also varies by the type of berth the boat occupiesin a Chicago harbor. As indicated in the discussion of vacancy in the system, there is less demand for moorings and therates charged are considerably lower. Thus, the amount spent for seasonal storage is lower. Estimates of annual averagespending by boat type and size are shown in Table 1.

Of the $69 million spent by boat owners in Chicago harbors, approximately 45% is spent on trips. Not all of this isspent in the Chicago area; a portion of it is spent in other harbors around Lake Michigan. This includes money spent onrestaurants, hotels, entertainment and retail goods. There is not yet enough data to accurately measure what portion of thetrip spending remains in the Chicago area but RMRC is conducting a survey of Great Lakes boaters this year that shouldenable more accurate estimating of this amount. Because these figures will not be available for several months, the teamhas estimated that about 20% of trip expenditures are made outside of Chicago. Whatever the final percentage proves to

be, there is likely a very real opportunity to capture more transient boater expenditures by providing transient slips.

The Museum Campus, wi th Burnham Harborto the left and M onroe Harbor to the right


19/82


2-Related Spending

Job and Dollar Impacts ofChicago Harbors

As shown in Table 2, the direct and indirect sales impact of craft-related spending from the boats in Chicagos harborsamounts to approximately $87.8 mi llion each year and generates more than 900 jobs. The total economic impact, orValue Added, to the local economy is approximately $49 million. This is the net value added to the economy after the costof producing the goods and services is subtracted.

The direct impact of the spending by boat owners creates about 603 jobs. However, impact of the harbors is larger. Thedirect expenditures circulate through the economy and generate additional jobs. For example, the workers in Chicagosharbors spend their pay checks on housing, clothes and groceries at local stores. These expenditures support additional

jobs and those employees also spend their paychecks locally. This multiplier effect can be calculated for differentcategories of economic activity through input-out analysis. When the multipliers for the Chicago region are applied to theexpenditures generated by boats in Chicagos harbors, they generate an additional 299 indirect jobs.

The jobs created by the spending of boat owners creates jobs in the marine industry; management and maintenance ofthe harbors, boat repairs, fuel and marine equipment and accessories. The indirect jobs are in retail trade, restaurants, andentertainment.


20/82


3Downtown

Economic Impacts of Transient Boaters inChicago Harbors

One of the major complaints among boaters in Chicago isthat there are essentially no transient slips. Local boaters,especially boaters from the more distant harbors such asMontrose, Belmont and Jackson Park, would like to beable to dock downtown, have dinner and visit downtown

attractions. This would keep more of the trip-relatedexpenditures in the Chicago area. Even more important,however, for the local economy, is the need for transientslips to accommodate boaters from other Lake Michiganharbors. Estimating the potential impacts of transientslips on Chicagos economy is extremely difficult becausewithout available slips, boaters from other harbors do notmake trips to Chicago and certainly do not make extendedstays in Chicago. Thus, one must make numerousassumptions to estimate what the impacts might be if slipswere readily available.

Table 3 shows the impacts of 300 new slips in ChicagosDowntown Area at an occupancy rate of 50% for a fivemonth season. The estimate allows for low occupancyof 15% to 25% during the first and last months of theseason but assumes 75% to 80% occupancy during thepeak months of the season. Total expenditure estimatesinclude expenditures for slip revenues and an average of

$95 per day per occupied slip for other expenditures. Thisnumber assumes that boating visitors will have spendingpatterns for food, entertainment, and shopping that reflectthe general tourist population. Since a boater, on average,may be more affluent than the average tourist, this may bea conservative estimate. Because tourist expenditures cyclethrough the local economy differently from boat-relatedexpenditures, the multipliers are different. The team conservatively estimates that 300 downtowntransient slips could create at least 85 new jobs and addmore than $3 million in economic value to Chicagoseconomy. This is a conservative estimate because the teambelieves that actual spending by visiting boaters would behigher and, with cooperative weather, the occupancy ratefor the slips could be higher than 50%.

Table 4 on the opposite page presents a very simplifiedestimate of the potential economic impacts from a new830-slip harbor at 31st Street. Without knowing the

mix of sail and power boats that would be docked in theharbor, the team used a combined average expenditure perboat rate based on the current estimated mix of boats inChicago harbors. The team thus estimates that a new, 830-slip harbor would create approximately 150 jobs and addmore than $8.1 million in value to the local economy.


21/82


4

Conclusions

The analysis indicates that although Chicago effectivelyhas only a five to six month boating season, Chicagosharbors have a significant impact on the local economy.The estimated impacts include more than 900 jobs andapproximately $49 million in economic value added tothe economy. The addition of new harbors to the system

would add to this impact. The team estimates that at leastone new job would be created by every six new slips addedto the system. Assuming that the mix of new slips wouldinclude a higher percentage of larger boats that the currentmix, the impact could be one new job for every five newslips. Each new slip would also add at least $9,800 in neweconomic activity. Estimates show that the impact fromslips reserved for transient boaters could be even greater:one new job for every four slips and more than $10,000 innew economic value added.

An important aspect of this analysis of economic impactis that the harbors currently pay for themselves andprovide additional revenues for the Park District to usein developing and maintaining neighborhood parksthroughout the city. In addit ion, many of the new harborsevaluated in this study would also pay for themselves.Thus the economic impacts of new harbors can begenerated either without public funds, or with only minorpublic expenditure.

However, the total economic impact of ChicagosHarbors is essentially incalculable. The harbors reinforce

the development of land side activities and are an integralpart of the citys ambiance that attracts millions of visitorseach year. As an example, looking to the future, a newharbor at 87th Street could reinforce and benefit from thecreation of a new neighborhood on the former site of U.S.Steels Southworks.

M ontrose Harbor

DuSable Harbor


22/82


1.6 MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS

To determine the degree of potential additional demandfor boat berthing space within the Chicago Harbor system,the project team performed a market demand analysis.

Market Trends

A review of national and regional boating industry trendsand statistics indicated that boating continues to be agrowing pastime, with national participation growingby almost 47% over a recent ten-year period. Boatregistrations totaled nearly 12.8 million in 2003, with theGreat Lakes region contributing the largest amount, or 3.4million boats. The demand for boats and boating relatedproducts has been forecasted to grow by more than 6%annually.

Recent boat purchasing trends indicate a move towards

larger and more powerful boats, with boats in the 26 to40 foot range and the 40 foot and over range showing thehighest sales figure increases.

Demand Analysis

The Chicago harbor system is one of the largestmunicipally-owned system in North America with spacefor approximately 5,100 boats. Currently and historically,the system has a waiting list of boat owners wishing to getinto the system, and a transfer list of boat owners already

in the system who wish to relocate to a different size ortype of anchorage, or to a different harbor.

Over 80% of the boaters who currently lease or in therecent past have leased space in the Chicago harbor systemreside in Cook County. About 10% reside in DuPageCounty, with the bulk of the rest split between Lake, Willand Kane Counties. It i s notable that during the 1990s,when the supply of Chicago boat slips remained level whilethe supply in Lake County and in Wisconsin and Indianagrew, these percentages remained constant. The fact thatmany of the boaters leasing space in harbors in these other

areas reside in metropolitan Chicago leads many to believethat a significant number of them might prefer a slipwithin the Chicago harbor system were one made available.

The analysis identified several market components that arelikely to contribute to the overall demand for additionalboat slips within the Chicago harbor system. They includenational trends such as the increases in boat ownershipamong non-tradit ional boat owner groups such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and women, regional factors

such as potential demand among boaters who currentlydock in newer Wisconsin and Indiana harbors, and localconsiderations such as the burgeoning downtown familyand empty-nester residential population, and the recentexplosive growth of market-rate developments in severalsouth lakefront neighborhoods.

The possibility of Chicago hosting the 2016 SummerOlympic Games would very likely have a positive effecton the demand for new boat slips along the lakefront.This demand analysis, however, does not presume a 2016Chicago Summer Olympic Games.

Demand Projection Factoring together the different components of likelyfuture demand, in addition to the existing demand asrepresented by the waiting and transfer lists, The teamestimated potential demand for up to 2,500 new boat slips or an additional 50% above and beyond the currentsystem-wide capacity of approximately 5,100 boats -- overthe next twenty years. This demand would likely absorbwell over 1,000 new slips over the coming decade, werethose new slips able to be provided within that timeframe,with the rest able to be absorbed in the following decade.

Reflecting recent leasing trends, the team recommendedthat all future boat space added to the Chicago harbor

system be in the form of slips, rather than moorings or stardocks. Also, specific new harbor slip layouts should reflectthe trends towards larger boat sizes.

Demand will likely vary for different potential new harborlocations. The strong demand for downtown and centrallakefront boat slips will likely continue. Ease of accessand recent improvements to the South Lakefront arelikely to help stimulate demand for potential new harboropportunities. Detailed absorption scenarios should be

Market Demand Analysis - Key Points

There is demand for over 1,000 new boat slipsover the next 10 years

There is demand for over 2,500 new boat slipsover the next 20 years

There is a strong demand for transient boat slipsdowntown

Future slip demand will be strong for boats40 feet and larger


23/82

1Financing Harbors in Parks

1.7 FINANCING HARBORS IN PARKS

The Chicago Park District is not unlike most privatesector businesses in that it has both an Operating Budgetthat covers the costs and revenues of running its everydaybusiness, and a Capital Development Budget that providesfor the construction of new facilities and the renovation ofexisting ones. The primary business of the Chicago ParkDistrict is that of building, maintaining and operatingparks and many of the programs that run within the parks.Even though the Chicago Harbor System is the largestmunicipal system in North America, it is a relatively smallcomponent within the overall Park District operation andbudget.

Within the Park Districts Operating Budget, the harborsystem is isolated as its own cost and revenue center. Thismakes it relatively easy to track the harbor systems finan-cial performance, and determine whether or not harborsystem revenues cover harbor system costs. In recent years,the operation of the harbor system has been profitable, notonly covering the costs of improvements and operations,

but also contributing a significant sum of money into ParkDistrict coffers from which the rest of its citywide facili-ties are operated and maintained. This positive revenuescenario has become a requirement for the harbor system,and will continue to be so in the future.

Items identified within the Park Districts Capital Develop-ment Budget are typically financed through the sale pro-

ceeds from General Obligation bonds. The harbor systemplays a slightly different role than do most of the compo-nents that are funded by the Capital Development Budget,however. Harbors have an easily identified and recoverableincome stream.

Therefore it is possible to isolate costs and develop boatslip and other revenue pricing so that the harbors can meetestablished cost recovery criteria. While the cost of offshorewave protection structures, docks, and other infrastructurebasic to new harbors is substantial, the potential revenuesfrom most new harbors are capable of covering the basiccosts associated with the harbors development.

New parks often get financed by grants and other financ-ing mechanisms in place of or in addition to bond rev-enues. These grants often write down the costs of provid-

ing specific environmental, recreational or other featuresof new parks. This is the case whether or not these newparks are being developed in concert with new harbors. Incases where new harbors in parks are being developed inwhich the basic harbor infrastructure is being incorporatedinto significant new accessible public open spaces along thelakefront, the financing package should consist of a com-bination of elements. Whi le it is often realistic to requireharbor revenues to cover the basic costs of developing thenew harbor, it is unreasonable to expect these revenues toalso cover the costs of the community amenities that arenot specific to the harbor. In such instances, it is reason-able to apply traditional park funding sources to these parkelements.

M ontrose Harbor Belmont Harbor

investigated for each proposed new harbor, recognizingthe possibility of phased implementation of certainharbors, particularly larger ones in locations further fromdowntown.


24/82


25/82

1Public Planning Process

Topical Stakeholder Meetings

At appropriate times throughout the planning process,small topic-specific stakeholder meetings were convened tofocus on general issues of interest to specific groups suchas boating, open space, fishing, or economic developmentbusiness organizations. Similarly, a number of location-specific stakeholder meetings were convened to discussissues or impacts related to specific potential new harborlocation alternatives. In addition, there were severalbriefings of key leaders and public officials at appropriatetimes throughout the planning process in order to facilitatea good flow of information.

Project Website

In order to make the project even more accessible tothe community, the Chicago Park District establishedan interactive project web page on its website that bothserved as a repository of evolving project informationand plans, and facilitated direct e-mail correspondencewith the project managers from both the Park Districtand the planning team. Presentations from the publicmeetings were placed on the web page and made easilydownloadable.

What Themes Were Heard Duringthe Public Process

Over the course of the public planning process, stakeholdercomments began to form consistent themes that wouldreceive balanced consideration in the planning teams work.The themes may be characterized as:

The harbor system contributes significantly to thecharacter of Chicago its shoreline. Harbors should bedesigned to create a strong sense of place, appropriateto each location, and strengthen Chicagos reputationas a world-class waterfront destination.

Provide a competitive level of services and amenities inattractive and secure harbor settings.

Maximize general public access along harbor basins, ataccessible piers, and everywhere along the lakefront.

Harbors should be self-supporting, with new revenues

covering the cost of harbor infrastructure andoperation. Harbors that benefit the local economyshould also be strongly considered.

Plan for the entire park, not an individual marina.Supplemental funding sources should be consideredwhere there are opportunities to create park land,public amenities, habitat enhancements, or other parkimprovements that maximize public benefit.

Use planning thats already been completed. Buildupon existing park framework plans and considerrecommendations from neighborhood, civic, and

environmental groups. Use infrastructure thats already in place. Where

possible, take advantage of existing breakwaters,parking areas, and transportation routes to minimizedevelopment cost and impact on the environment.

Build where demand exists, but also give priorityto harbors that can serve as economic developmentengines for revitalization of nearby neighborhoods.

Use best environmental practices and create harborsthat contribute to Chicagos green reputation.

Pay close attention to water quality, geophysicalfactors, and habitat. Design according to U.S. EPArecommendations for healthy marinas, considerlake bottom sediment dynamics, and pursue habitatrestoration opportunities wherever possible.

Consider creative financial partnerships, includingpublic/private partnerships for new harbordevelopment.


26/82


1.9 PHYSICAL PLANNING PROCESS

The physical harbor planning approach utilized by theconsultant team forms the basis for the recommendations,associated costs, and financial projections outlined in thisreport. The planning team worked to balance the demandsof boaters and non-boaters while providing a detailedtechnical analysis of each harbor site to guide the final

design concepts.

Since every harbor has specific issues related to itsdevelopment or refinement, each project received sitespecific evaluation to understand the physical environmentand regulatory climate in addition to determiningpublic needs and private demand for facilities. Once theconstraints and opportunities were understood, alternativeconcept plans were developed and appropriate constructionmethodology and materials were explored.

Design solutions were informed by the consultant teamsextensive work on recently completed and similar projects.This has provided a wealth of information on constructionmaterials, cost saving methods for building coastalstructures, and current bid prices.

The recommended Chicago harbor system improvementshave been designed to provide a safe, secure environmentfor boaters and efficiently serve the harbors operationalrequirements, while meeting the broader needs of thegeneral community. The harbors have been designed toreflect an understanding of current market conditions,

physical conditions at the sites, and each harbors role inthe context of long term plans for the lakefront.

Boater Bene ts

The physical design process was based on theunderstanding that in order to maintain and enhance theimage of the Chicago harbor facilities in the eyes of theboating community, the harbor must provide:

Convenience and accessibility; Levels of service and amenities preferred by the boating

community; Safety, securi ty and privacy; and A park-l ike atmosphere (exceeding the standards of

other competing regional marinas)

The improvements required to produce these boaterbenefits have been designed to maximize revenue potentialand minimize installation and operating costs.

Technical Approach

The framework planning process has required a carefulblending of engineering analyses and creative design ideaswithin the constraints of fiscal and regulatory realities.A number of general principles and structural designcomponents were utilized to plan for optimal harbordevelopment.

For example, breakwaters (or a new land mass) are typicallyrequired to provide the desired level of protection fromwind and waves for boats entering and mooring in theharbor. The harbor needs be deep enough to providesafe anchorage, while minimizing the need for expensiveharbor/shore protection structures and dredging/disposal.For the Chicago Harbors boat mix, this suggested thatbreakwaters ideally be placed at a water depth in therange of ten to fifteen feet and that the harbor depths bemaintained at about a ten foot depth.

Any harbor improvements proposed at locations that areopen to the full expanse of Lake Michigan are subject to

much larger waves than those that reside within existingharbor protection structures. Generally speaking, the


27/82

2Physical Planning Process

proposed harbor site that requires the least amount ofexcavation, dredging, filling, breakwater construction,disturbance of sensitive environmental resources, and cleanup of contamination will be the most cost effective siteto develop as a harbor. Straying too far from these simpleguidelines can cause development costs to sky rocket.These important considerations were at the forefront of thedesign teams efforts.

Careful attention to these physical design issues andimpacts will not end with the framework planning phase.Prior to beginning the next stage of implementation,each site and project will require a more intensive level ofphysical investigation, analysis and modelling to ensureoptimal and cost effective design solutions.

Dockage Layout and Design

The design of a dockage system must address convenienceto the boater and benefi ts to the harbor operator. Layoutand system utilization must be properly addressed tomaximize revenues and minimize annual maintenancecosts of the harbor.

The design team has extensively researched slip layoutdesign standards to safely provide for the greatest numberof boats within a given protected water space. This spaceis expensive to create, making close coordination betweenrevetment/breakwater configuration and dockage layoutessential. Boater safety and maneuverability have also beengiven careful consideration in the design process.

Harbor Infrastructure

Infrastructure for a harbor facility is very specialized.Although many of the elements involve standard civilengineering, their function is much different than mostsite development projects. The manner in which theinfrastructure is designed can significantly affect theconstruction cost and will be important in determining thecontinued success of the Chicago Harbor System.

59th Street H arbor

Belmont Harbor

Entrance to Diversey Harbor


28/82



29/82

2

CII. THE CHICAGOLAKEFRONT HARBOR

FRAMEWORK PLAN


30/82


The Chicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan

provides a flexible vision for growth of the ChicagoHarbor System over the next two decades. Althoughfocusing specifically on harbors, this plan wasdeveloped with the belief that public access to ourlakefront should be preserved and expanded, andthat harbors should be planned to integrate with andbenefit their host parks and surrounding communities.

During the planning process, the planning teamevaluated several locations along the lakefront forpotential harbor development. These locationssurfaced from historical plans, community input, andrecommendations of the team. A variety of logistical,social, and financial considerations were assessed anddiscussed with numerous stakeholders. The HarborFramework Plan presents concepts for some of themost compelling locations. The number of locationsselected for concept development somewhat exceedsthe overall growth target established by market analysisto provide flexibility, generate discussion, and serve asa tool for priorit ization. As with all planning efforts,it is understood that future developments in Chicagoand the region could diminish the feasibility of various

concepts, or lead to possibilities not yet considered.

As stated earlier in this report, during the latterportion of the planning process, Chicago became theUS Applicant City for the 2016 Summer OlympicGames, with the final decision due in October, 2009.The Chicago Park District and members of the JJRplanning team have been very actively involved in thepreliminary planning effort for the Olympic Games.They continue to work to ensure that the goals of thisPlan and legacy components of the potential OlympicGames are internally consistent, and both contributeto an enhanced lakefront experience for all.

In general terms, the Plan has identified and developedpreliminary concepts for two new harbors along the

lakefront south of the downtown. One concept is

located alongside the single largest lakefront openspace and potential redevelopment site in all ofChicago: the former US Steel production facilityon the Southeast Side. The other concept is locatedalongside an area that has seen much redevelopmentactivity in the recent decade: the Near South Sideportion of Chicagos expanding downtown, at thesouthern edge of the Central Lakefront.

The Plan has also identified and developed alternativesfor new harbors within the heart of downtown, whereexisting demand for new Central Lakefront boatslips continues to be strong. Located at Chicagosurban heart, each of these potential new harborsoffers an exciting setting, a unique set of logisticalconsiderations, and complex urban design challengesand opportunities. The Plan has clarified many ofthe issues involved in order to facilitate the process ofevaluating and deciding between the alternatives forimplementation.

Along the North Lakefront, there are differentchallenges inherent to identifying potential new harbor

locations. Along the Near North and Mid-NorthLakefront, with its density of development, the threeexisting harbors, and intensive public use of existinglakefront amenities, ideal settings for new harbors arenot apparent. Along the Far North Lakefront, theissues involved in potential new harbor developmentare similar to many of the needs expressed within thecommunity, including the shortage of open space,the lack of access to and connectivity along thelakefront, and traffic concerns. While there may befeasible locations for harbor development on the FarNorth Lakefront, any development of potential newharbor opportunities is better considered as a part ofa comprehensive plan that addresses these larger scaleissues.

T H E C H I C A G O L A K E F R O N T H A R B O R F R A M E W O R K P L A N


31/82

2Framework Plan Overview

South Lakefront

Central Lakefront

North Lakefront

59TH Street Harbor

Jackson Park Outer& Inner Harbors

87 TH Street Harbor

Gateway Harbor

DuSable East

DuSable Harbor

Monroe Harbor

Burnham Harbor

31 ST Street Harbor

Montrose Harbor

Belmont Harbor

Diversey Harbor

Existing Harbor

Proposed Harbor

State Line

City Line


32/82



33/82

2South Lakefront

2 . 1 S O U T H L A K E F R O N T

Jackson Park Inner &Outer Harbors

59 TH Street HarborExisting Harbor

Proposed Harbor

87 TH Street Harbor


34/82


87 TH STREET HARBOR A NEW OPPORTUNITY

The project team has developed an exciting opportunityfor a new harbor along the south lakefront, a harborthat could provide an economic generator for the long-anticipated rejuvenation of one of Chicagos largest andmost significant redevelopment sites: the 573 acre formerUSX steel property. An 87th Street H arbor and potentialnearby Marina Services Area could provide considerableenergy to further fuel the areas renaissance.

The 87th Street Harbor which could developincrementally in pace with the growing demand for thefirst large new harbor in this area -- will eventually providesignificant revenue that will benefit the community wellbeyond the harbors boaters. Continuing the uniquelyChicago relationship between its lakefront harbors and thegracious parks that nestle them, this harbor could include a

sizable, accessible landscaped breakwater connected to thelands edge via a formal boulevard.

The planning team explored two alternative scenarios forthis new harbor. In addit ion to the full harbor scenariothat would include the accessible landscaped breakwater,a reduced harbor scenario was explored that included anoffshore breakwater structure that would protect a slightlyreduced harbor basin wi thout providing public access.

As redevelopment plans for the former USX site begin tobe realized, they should be coordinated with those of the

new harbor, in order to leverage the benefits of neededinfrastructure improvements such as the Park Districts newland at the waters edge, parking areas and pedestrian trails.The new harbor has been planned to accommodate theareas most current redevelopment plans.

Harbor Components

Full build-out at approximately 1,016 new 30 to60-foot boat slips

A fuel dock easily accessed by resident andpassing lake boaters

Secure boater parking convenient to the harbor

As redevelopment continues, a variety of harbor-edge amenities and attractions Convenient access to the nearby Metra station

and parking lot

Community Bene ts

Over 3,000 feet of fully accessible and landscapedoffshore breakwaters

A formal landscaped boulevard taking visitorsover 1,000 feet from the shoreline

A fully accessible offshore public facility withunique and breathtaking views

Provision of additional activities to help energizethe new lakefront park

Future potential location for water shuttles andwater taxis

Implementation Considerations

Harbor can be planned to facil itate incremental

development over time. Harbor slip revenues appear likely to supportmuch, but not all of the basic harbordevelopment costs. Additional financing wouldprobably be required.

Additional funding sources would be neededfor community amenity options, including anaccessible and landscaped breakwater.

Harbor parking area could be reduced throughshared parking arrangements with neighboringdevelopments.

Existing site of proposed 87th Street Harbor


35/82

2South Lakefront: 87th Street Harbor

60 38

50 5045 12840 14435 34230 314 1,016 Total Slips

BoatersFacility

BoatersFacility

PublicFacility

Fuel Dock

212ParkingStalls

324ParkingStalls

388 Slips

296 Slips

332 Slips

Plan of proposed 87th Street Harbor


36/82


Overlay of proposed plan for 87th Street Harbor showing reduced harbor scenario

60 3250 4245 10840 12035 29030 258 850 Total Slips


37/82


Proposed Infrastructure Improvements

The proposed harbor will provide two new protectedboat berthing areas for over one thousand boats varyingin length from 30 feet to 60 feet, along with a separatearea for a fuel dock and boater service facility. The waterdepths located approximately 1,000 feet offshore drop offrather dramatically from 15 feet to 24 feet deep. Harbor

protection will be provided by a new 3,000 foot longlandfill area that runs parallel to the shoreline. Publicaccess to this new parkland will be provided by a causewaythat supports a new landscaped boulevard, complete withparking, walkways and appropriate landscape amenities.A quarry stone revetment was chosen from the shoreprotection alternatives that were considered becauseof its superior wave attenuation properties and relativecost advantages. The sloped sides of this type of coastalstructure limit wave run-up and reflection; and it can bedesigned so that it has less height than a vertical steel orconcrete stepped structure and therefore be less visuallyobtrusive.

It is recommended that quarry stone reinforcement alsobe placed along the north side of the existing east-westbreakwater located north of this site as shown on theplan. In addit ion, a floating breakwater structure willprobably be required to provide wave protection along theboundary of the north berthing area. Although this typeof breakwater system is typically less effective at attenuatinglong period waves, it can handle shorter period andlength wave conditions that might be expected to develop

west of the proposed harbor entrance. The advantage of

floating breakwaters is that they are very cost-effective inthe relatively deep water conditions similar to those thatexist at this location of the site. The south entrance will bedefined by two bioengineered rubble mound structures.

Both boat berthing areas were laid out using acceptedguidelines for small craft harbors. The main channel widthhas at least 100 feet of usable protected navigable water

depth along the back of the proposed new landfills out tothe harbor entrances. Secured access is provided to eachheadwalk from the floating breakwater in the north basin.The south basin provides a main floating walkway out to anew boater services building centrally located in the centerof the new boat basin. Headwalks run in a north-southdirection from this main walkway. These main accessroutes will be designed to accommodate motorized shuttlesthat will provide continuous access from parking areas tothe slips. A double slip side-by-side layout arrangement i srecommended to maximize the slip rental revenue capacityof the harbor.

A separate maneuvering basin is reserved for the fuel andboat service dock (including fuel, supplies, sanitary pump-out facilities, berthing for water shuttles and taxis, etc.) islocated along the existing shoreline near the south harborentrance.

The land based facilities have been designed to optimizethe park and harbor experience for both boaters andnon-boaters. The roadway system will provide access forthose who visit the new parkland as well as those who

permanently moor their boats in the harbor. Roadwayshave been laid out to serve each typeof parking, taking into account safety,security and convenience concerns.Harbor parking needs should becoordinated with the overall USXsite redevelopment plans. A publiclyaccessible facility would be located onthe newly built park land and reachedby the causeway. This building couldprovide restrooms, concessions andmeeting facilities. Boaters needswould be provided by the facilitieslocated on the walkways servicingthe boat slips. These buildingscould include secured restroomsand showers, a marina office andpossibly a ships store. The nearbyarea adjacent to the existing southslip could be developed to offer boatservices, repair and winter storage.Additional study of the demand forsuch services would be necessary.

Aeri al obli que i ll ustrati on of proposed 87t h Street Harbor


38/82


JACKSON PARK OUTER AND INNERHARBORS A SIGNIFICANTREFINEMENT OPPORTUNITY

The project team has identified a circumstance wherecrafting a creative solution to a long-standing technicalproblem at Jackson Park Outer Harbor has led to anopportunity to improve and expand both Jackson ParkHarbors. The current configuration of the harbor mouthhas left Jackson Park Outer Harbor susceptible to severalfoot high waves rolling into the harbor and requiringperiodic dredging of accumulated sand at the entrancechannel.

In response to this technical challenge, the project teamhas designed a new harbor entrance comprised of a set ofquarry stone breakwaters that will calm the waters withinthe harbor basin, allow for the expansion of its boat slipcapacity, and create a much safer harbor entrance. In

addition, the frequency of maintenance dredging shouldbe reduced since the new entrance would be located innine feet of water. Depths at the entrance are currently inthe four to six foot range, causing problems for sailboatsand deep draft power boats. These enhancements will alsobenefit Jackson Park Inner H arbor, and should generateadditional demand for slip expansion there as well.

The goal of the proposed harbor refinements is to raisethe level of attractiveness and visibility of the JacksonPark Harbors and the nearby recreational and culturalamenities, and transform them into the center of gravityof the South Lakefront. Better physical and institutionallinkages should be established to connect the harbor andits visitors with area amenities. Few other harbors in theworld offer access to such diverse activities as a round ofgolf, museums like the Museum of Science and Industry orthe DuSable Museum, or a visit to Wrights Robie Houseor other University of Chicago attractions.

Harbor Components

Approximately 369 new boat slips, giving anincreased total of over 700 boats

New offshore breakwaters A calm water harbor entry built adjacent to the

existing Rainbow Beach pier

Easy signalized access from South Lake ShoreDrive at 67th Street

Convenient dockside parking, with nearbyadditional secured parking

Community Bene ts

A new curving 900 foot-long fully accessiblebioengineered breakwater

Economic benefi ts accruing from linking theHarbors to other area amenities

Maintaining the unique character of the JacksonPark Harbors


Harbor slip revenues appear likely to support theproject development costs.

Additional funding sources may be sought forthe community amenity costs.

Additional dockside parking will need tobe provided to support the new slips. Acomprehensive traffic, parking and access study

should be undertaken to coordinate the needs ofthe harbor and La Rabida Childrens Hospital.

Existing Jackson Park Harbors


39/82

3South Lakefront: Jackson Park Harbors

Plan of proposed Jackson Park H arbors

Jackson InnerNew Slips40 935 2430 90 123 New Slips

Jackson OuterNew Slips60 1250 1440 3835 6830 116 248 New Slips

136ParkingStalls

131ParkingStalls

S . P r o m o n t o r y D r i v e

H a y e s D r

i v e

S . R i c h a r d s D

r i v e

S . L a k e S h o r e D r i v e

E. 67th Street

S . J e f

f e r y D

r i v e

S . C o a s t G

u a r d D r i v e

Rainbow Beach

Pavilion

La Rabida Childrens Hospital

Jackson Park Yacht Club

Restaurant, Harbormaster,Fuel Dock, and CPD Facility

Enhanced Harbor EntranceSouth ShoresYacht Club

E. Marquette Drive


40/82



The project team evaluated the performance of severalalternative reconfigurations for the harbor entrance withrespect to various storm wave conditions. A new rubblemound breakwater is recommended, extending thecurvilinear line of a proposed concrete walkway alongthe north side of the harbor entrance out into the lake.

This breakwater structure would transition into a quarrystone revetment lining the vertical bulkhead structure inan effort to control waves traveling along this wall and/orreflecting off this vertical surface back into the entrance. Along shore tied breakwater on the south side of the harborentrance extending perpendicular to the existing shorelineprovides protection for the harbor entrance from wavesgenerated by winds from the southeast. This breakwaterwill also help maintain a relatively deep water channel fromthe berthing area to the lake. Although periodic dredgingwill be required to maintain the channel, this shouldbe required on a much less frequent basis than todayssituation.

The capacity of the protected boat berthing area in theouter harbor will be greatly increased because of theproposed harbor entrance improvements. The additionalboat slips were laid out using accepted guidelines for smallcraft harbors. The main channel will be at least 100 feet

wide and is located along the west end of the outer basinfrom the harbor entrance to the bridge and channel to theJackson Park Inner Harbor. In general, the larger slips arelocated nearer the harbor entrance, and only power boatswill be able to dock in the Inner H arbor. A double slipside-by-side boat layout arrangement is recommended to

maximizing slip rental revenue vs. cost.

The harbor management team has made ongoingimprovements to the bulkheads, sidewalks, fencing,lighting, landscaping, roadways and parking lots over thepast ten years. Progress has been made with the harborrehabilitation and maintenance program, but services andaesthetics still need improvement to bring this harbor up tothe standards set by the newer harbors.

Harbor greening refinements that could be made include:naturalized edge treatments, bio-swales and bufferplantings, habitat creation opportunities, greenwayconnections, natural areas, native plantings, andsustainable parking lot design. For example, parking lotscould be reconstructed with a landscaped bio-swale bufferstrip between autos and the new pedestrian promenadealong the waters edge.

Entrance to Jackson Park Inner Harbor under South Coast Guard D ri ve


41/82

3South Lakefront: Jackson Park Harbors

Aerial oblique illustrat ion of proposed refinements to the Jackson Park Harbors


42/82


59 TH STREET HARBOR REFINEMENTS TO EXISTING HARBOR

59th Street Harbor, located at the north end of JacksonPark, and nestled behind the Museum of Science andIndustry, is the smallest of the Chicago harbors, and wasoriginally a component of the Jackson Park lagoon sys-tem. As it is immediately west of South Lake Shore Driveand has vertical clearance restrictions under the roadwayviaduct, it is limited to powerboats.

The harbor has been renovated over the past decade,retaining its small private marina feeling with its enclosurefencing and its 125 boat capacity. The harbors limitedamenity facilities are located in a converted utility buildingthat also houses the Museum Shores Yacht Club.

Potential harbor refinements include: improving the Mu-seum Shores Yacht Club and opening it up to use by boat-

ers and non-boaters, and making security adjustments thatwill allow the removal of the enclosure fencing in orderto improve the harbors links with the nearby communityamenities.

Better physical and institutional linkages should be estab-lished to connect the harbor and potential harbor visitorswith area cultural, commercial and recreational amenities.

Harbor greening refinements that could be made include:naturalized edge treatments, bio-swales and buffer plant-ings, habitat creation opportunities, greenway connections,

natural areas, native plantings, and a sustainable parkinglot.

Potential Future Harbor Re nements

Providing improved restroom and food serviceamenities in a multi-use facility

Removing the enclosure fencing to enhance thelinkages with the community

Community Bene ts

Providing improved restroom and food serviceamenities in a multi-use facility

Better linkages between the harbor and otherarea amenities


The refinements can be made incrementally, andcould be funded with revenues

Additional funding sources may be sought forthe costs of the greening elements

Vi ew of 59th Street Harbor with entrance under the South LakeShore Dri ve roadway viaduct vi sible in the background


43/82


Photo showing the cultural and open space/recreati onal context of the 59t h Street Harbor

Co l u m b ia Dr i v e

C o r n e l l D r i v e

Museum Drive

Museum of Scienceand Industry

59th StreetHarbor

Jackson Park

Story Island

Avenue

S . L a

k e S h o r e D r i v e

Rainbow Beach

CPD Facility

Museum ShoresYacht Club


44/82



45/82

3Central Lakefront

2 . 2 C E N T R A L L A K E F R O N T

Burnham Harbor

31 ST Street Harbor

Gateway Harbor

DuSable East

DuSable Harbor

Monroe Harbor

DOWNTOWNHARBORS

Existing Harbor

Proposed Harbor


46/82


31 ST STREET HARBOR AND BOATLAUNCH A NEW OPPORTUNITY

The project team has identified a rare and excellentopportunity for developing a new harbor along thecentral lakefront, where the demand for new boat slipsis unquestionably very high. The proposed 31st StreetHarbor and Boat Launch would draw upon the same

energy that has fueled the exciting rejuvenation of theSouth Loop and the Near South Side in recent years.The 31st Street Harbor would be located adjacent to theOlympic Village proposed for the 2016 Summer OlympicGames.

The development of the 31st Street Harbor and BoatLaunch will provide additional amenities to the existingrecreational activity node that consists of the 31st StreetBeach, the Beach House, playground, and the skate park.It will also help to further activate this recently expandedstretch of shoreline.

A proposed harbor with an approximately 2,600 foot longbreakwater will provide a new protected boat berthingarea for 830 boats varying from 30 to 60+ feet along witha separate boat basin for a new boat launch ramp facility.The water depths in the area located approximately 300feet offshore are much deeper than are typically foundalong the Citys shoreline (24 feet deep in some areas),making it an ideal location for new harbor development.

Harbor Components

Approximately 830 new boat slips, ranging from30 to 60 feet long

A new boat launch for trailer-mounted boats(already partly in place)

A new bio-engineered breakwater creating acalm water basin immediately offshore of theexisting 31st Street Beach pier

Easy access from the 31st Street/Lake ShoreDrive interchange

Adjacent parking, with nearby additional shuttle-accessed parking west of Lake Shore Drive

Potential for a multi -purpose amenity building Protected space for community boating and

sailing programming

Community Bene ts

An accessible new public green space off of the31st Street Beach pier Augmenting the existing 31st Street central

lakefront recreational activity node Opportunity to improve the 31st Street Beach

House with a complimentary multi-use facility Consolidation of all site parking from 31st to

33rd Streets/Eliminating the inefficient parkingfrom 33rd to 34th Streets

Dedicated space and pier access for communityboating and sailing programs

Providing new fish habitat and shore fishingopportunities

Future potential location for water shuttles andwater taxis

Reduces parking on the lakefront by possibleremote, spillover parking west of Lake ShoreDrive


Harbor slip revenues appear likely to supportthe harbor infrastructure costs

Additional funding sources will be sought forthe community amenity costs

Harbor implementation should be coordinatedwith the planning for the 2016 SummerOlympic games.

Site of proposed 31st Street Harbor, south of Burnham H arbor


47/82

4Central Lakefront: 31st Street Harbor

TrailerParkingTrailerParking

Plan of proposed 31st Street H arbor

31s t S t r ee tBeachhouse

31s t S t r ee tB e a c h

S . L a k e S h o r e D

r i v e

60 5850 11245 14640 18635 21230 116 830 Total Slips

BoatersFacility

362ParkingStalls

Parking for Park

BoatLaunch

L a k e f r o

n t T

r a

i l

S k a t e b o a r d Park


48/82



The proposed appproximately 2,600 foot long breakwaterwas sited further offshore where depths actually decrease to14 or 15 feet. A rubble mound breakwater was consideredbecause of its superior wave attenuation properties andrelative cost advantages. The sloped sides of this typeof coastal structure limit wave run-up and reflection;

it can also be designed so that it has less height than avertical structural and therefore be less visually obtrusive.A bio-engineered breakwater could add a communityparkland amenity for incremental costs that might befunded separately. A floating breakwater structure maybe considered inside the harbor entrance, delineating theboat berthing area from the boat launch basin. Althoughless effective at attenuating long period waves, this type ofsystem can handle steeper, short period chop conditionsthat might develop at the harbor entrance. The advantageof floating breakwaters is that they are very cost-effective inrelatively deep water conditions similar to those that existat this site.

The boat berthing area was laid out using acceptedguidelines for small craft harbors. The main channel widthhas at least 100 feet of usable protected navigable waterdepth along the back of the proposed breakwater out tothe harbor entrance. In general, the larger slips are locatedcloser to the harbor entrance. A double slip side-by-sidelayout arrangement is recommended to maximize the sliprental revenue capacity of the harbor.

A separate maneuvering basin is reserved for the boat

Alt ernati ve off-site parki ng locati ons for 31st Street H arbor

launching and retrieval operation of the new six laneboat launch ramp. Much of the infrastructure for thisfacility was previously put in place during constructionof a recently completed shoreline protection project. Aservice pier, including fuel, supplies, sanitary pump-outfacilities and a potential berth for water taxis, would belocated along the proposed floating breakwater near theharbor entrance. Developing the Boat Launch will providesmall boat and personal watercraft users an improvedopportunity to access the central lakefront, and willallow for the elimination of the existing Boat Launch inBurnham Harbor, which causes operational conflicts atthe harbor and congestion at a highly trafficked area of theLakefront Trail.

The land-based facilities have been designed to minimizethe impact on park users while adequately serving theneeds of the slip renters and launch ramp users. Theroadway provides access for those who permanently moor

their boats in this harbor; for boat launch ramp patrons,and for the general public. Roadways have been laid outto serve each type of parking, taking into account safety,security and convenience. Remote parking lots that canbe served by shuttles will take care of overflow parkingneeds. A harbormaster building could be centrally locatedto service the needs of boaters and non-boaters alike.Functionally, the building would include secured restroomsand showers for boaters, public restrooms, a marina office,ships store, and concession area. The costs for landscapingand amenities (lighting, benches, security gates, etc.) havebeen included in the cost estimates.

Opt ions


49/82

4Central Lakefront: 31st Street Harbor

Aeri al obli que i ll ustrati on of proposed 31st Street Harbor

The planning of t he 31st Street Harbor i s compati blewi th its potenti al use as the Saili ng Venue for t he

2016 Summer Olympic Games


50/82


BURNHAM HARBOR REFINEMENTSTO A DOWNTOWN HARBOR

Burnham Harbor is nestled between Northerly Island andthe shoreline it shares with Soldier Field and McCormickPlace at the south edge of the Museum Campus. It is sur-rounded by lots of activities including concerts and sport-ing events, with the predictable traffic and noise impacts.

The harbor has been renovated over the past decade,retaining its double-sided configuration with slips dividedinto those accessed from the land side and those accessedfrom Northerly Island. With the future redevelopment ofNortherly Island as an environmental park, the impactson the harbor will need to be carefully coordinated. Thereshould be coordination of traffic, parking, and amenity fa-cilities among the many entities and users of this intenselyprogrammed stretch of shoreline, including the harbor.

Potential harbor refinements include: replacing or improv-ing the Burnham Park Yacht Club and opening it up to useby boaters and non-boaters, constructing a breakwater andrevetment at the harbor entry to attenuate wave action, in-creasing ber

Chicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan

Documents

Transcript of Chicago Lakefront Harbor Framework Plan