I noticed in Chicago several streets where it looks like the street is at a higher level than the ground. Like on a levy. Most houses reach the sidewalk at level, some with a little bridge and some with a few steps. If you look between the houses you can see the ground is below street level. Surprisingly is the ground back to street level when you go to the next intersection.
Can a Chicago resident shed some light on that surprising effect?
This is just one example. Peek on both sides of the street between the houses.
https://maps.google.de/maps?q=chicago+il...54,,0,4.92
Chicago streets were elevated and buildings raised starting in the 1850s. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-chicagodays-raisingstreets-story,0,4385820.story">http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/poli ... 5820.story</a><!-- m --> This would become a major issue for layout construction if you chose to follow it.
Thanks for that link jwb. I live in the far north suburbs, but was not born here, growing up on the South Shore of Long Island.
I was aware that the area in question ( photos/Google maps/etc. ) was quite close to the South branch of the Chicago River, and that the City of Chicago was built in a "less than ideal geographic area", but was not aware of the need to raise the sewer system, and therefore, the need to raise many of the buildings. One more "sharp leading edge" of one more learning curve.
My wife and I were in Chicago visiting relatives in October. It was closer-in than some of the other places I've been, and one thing that struck me was the different levels between streets, rail lines, and watercourses. Rail lines are often elevated on viaducts. The more I look at Chicago railroading, the more I'm impressed by the variety of operation and the overall distinctive atmosphere. However, in that case, I don't necessarily hold with the philosophy that you often see in UK layouts in particular, where a guy puts pine trees on his layout and says it's Alaska one month, and then changes the pine trees to palm trees and says it's Florida a month later. To do Chicago properly, you'd really have to incorporate various specific Chicago features, like the elevated streets, the viaducts, the variety of transfer and industrial operations, etc. -- and then you really couldn't get away with putting in palm trees and saying it's Florida whenever it suited you.
That is a great story and history lesson. Thank you!
ps. To my luck are the street and the buildings at S. Blue Island Ave at level.
jwb Wrote:My wife and I were in Chicago visiting relatives in October. It was closer-in than some of the other places I've been, and one thing that struck me was the different levels between streets, rail lines, and watercourses. Rail lines are often elevated on viaducts. The more I look at Chicago railroading, the more I'm impressed by the variety of operation and the overall distinctive atmosphere. However, in that case, I don't necessarily hold with the philosophy that you often see in UK layouts in particular, where a guy puts pine trees on his layout and says it's Alaska one month, and then changes the pine trees to palm trees and says it's Florida a month later. To do Chicago properly, you'd really have to incorporate various specific Chicago features, like the elevated streets, the viaducts, the variety of transfer and industrial operations, etc. -- and then you really couldn't get away with putting in palm trees and saying it's Florida whenever it suited you.
Are you having a pop at me now, John?
jab Wrote:.... To do Chicago properly, you'd really have to incorporate various specific Chicago features, like the elevated streets, the viaducts, the variety of transfer and industrial operations, etc. ....
I agree but you need a lot of space to "do Chicago". Most layouts are smaller ISL and deal in one or the other way with Goose Island some decades ago.
If I could "do Chicago" I would start with the bridges over the Chicago river. They are truly amazing. I watched them many times in operation on my business trips a long time ago. A large areas of the down town area has also an exciting underground. That is the reason why you see relative few small delivery trucks on the streets in that area.
jwb Wrote:I don't necessarily hold with the philosophy that you often see in UK layouts in particular, where a guy puts pine trees on his layout and says it's Alaska one month, and then changes the pine trees to palm trees and says it's Florida a month later.
That is such a sweeping, inaccurate assessment, it barely warrants a response. However, I'll force myself. Having attended more exhibitions than I can recall over more years than I care to, I would be hard pushed to think of a layout that has swopped identities in such a simplistic manner. It most certainly is
not a UK trait. With regard to the layout to which you are clearly referring, I would urge readers to visit the RMWeb threads of the two layouts in question. Your assertion that its location was changed simply by swopping trees is just a 'straw man' argument. Yes, the trees
were changed. So were the buildings, so was much of the ground foliage. All earth ground cover and ballasted areas were re-painted, plus other changes. I know this because, as the Welsh comedian Max Boyce would say, 'I was there'.
Sorry guys,but,Bucyrus is the same way as are most cities and towns.I think its more drainage then sewer..Also not all house have that high foundation if you check several houses.
faraway Wrote:jab Wrote:.... To do Chicago properly, you'd really have to incorporate various specific Chicago features, like the elevated streets, the viaducts, the variety of transfer and industrial operations, etc. ....
I agree but you need a lot of space to "do Chicago". Most layouts are smaller ISL and deal in one or the other way with Goose Island some decades ago.
If I could "do Chicago" I would start with the bridges over the Chicago river. They are truly amazing. I watched them many times in operation on my business trips a long time ago. A large areas of the down town area has also an exciting underground. That is the reason why you see relative few small delivery trucks on the streets in that area.
My method would be to focus on the industrial area that I'm modeling not the city its self.
jwb Wrote:My wife and I were in Chicago visiting relatives in October. It was closer-in than some of the other places I've been, and one thing that struck me was the different levels between streets, rail lines, and watercourses. Rail lines are often elevated on viaducts. The more I look at Chicago railroading, the more I'm impressed by the variety of operation and the overall distinctive atmosphere. However, in that case, I don't necessarily hold with the philosophy that you often see in UK layouts in particular, where a guy puts pine trees on his layout and says it's Alaska one month, and then changes the pine trees to palm trees and says it's Florida a month later. To do Chicago properly, you'd really have to incorporate various specific Chicago features, like the elevated streets, the viaducts, the variety of transfer and industrial operations, etc. -- and then you really couldn't get away with putting in palm trees and saying it's Florida whenever it suited you.
Rocky Mountains does not Appalachians make yet I've seen that.The flat lands of Ohio doesn't make a very good Kansas either no more then the rolling foot hills of the Appalachians in Southern Ohio/Northern Kentucky makes the Appalachians.
When one builds a ISL attention to detail is a must since industrial areas varies from city to city and a ISL focuses on that area not the city its self like I mention.
Choosing industry names should fit the city's industrial area being modeled not generic whimsical names since that would kill the illusion of modeling (say) Packard Street Industrial lead in whatever city industrial area you're modeling....
Brakie Wrote:....My method would be to focus on the industrial area that I'm modeling not the city its self.
That is what most do by the pure practical reason of available space. Goose Island is very popular for an ISL: It has/had a lot of street running and provides a nice "big city" flair and you can run MP15AC from MILW, SOO and CP depending on the time you choose if you are an MP15AC lover.
Anyhow I am at the lumber district at the south branch of the river due to the nice CIRY switchers. The streets that really concern me are as flat as almost all industry areas. My initial question was triggered by an area some blocks north. The elevated streets are of no interest to my little layout but I was curious when I noticed the strange "gaps" between the houses and sometime between the house and the street/sidewalk.
Well, OK, if that's what people have signed on to. On the other hand, the approach of saying my ISL is in Alaska, so I have pine trees -- whoops, now it's in Florida, I have palm trees, and I've renamed this spur for whatever supermarket chain is prevalent wherever, begins to take on a same old-same old. Where's the challenge? I'm not referring to anyone's single layout; there's a million like that in the UK (and I've discovered they get really upset when I make this comment, especially if I mention the Miley Cyrus of ISL builders in the same post). I can partly see the space issue if all you have and all you'll ever have is a 1 x 6, but even L**** M*******, given the chance, builds custom layouts for things like the Northeast Corridor, and I'll bet he'd get pretty bored if all anyone asked him to build was Florida-theme ISLs, convertible with a few hours work to Seattle if they really felt like it. Even there, part of the challenge in life is to find a way to go beyond what you think is the minimum space you have. But each to his own. Nevertheless, there's such a thing as same old-same old.
This is not my topic anymore
Sorry = it has just dumped my reply = and I really can't be bothered to get involved in an argument about the semantics of modelling - Life is too short and it's a HOBBY for @@@@@ sake - I go on the basis of "Whatever floats your boat!" and Rules One and Two
#1 its my railway
#2 where other opinions differ from my modelled interpretation, see rule#1