
Rendering of what will be the city’s second largest fire station in West Pullman (DLR Group)
Excerpts from chicagoconstructionnews.com:
The city is preparing to build its second largest fire station for $30 million in the West Pullman Neighborhood. The structure at 11900 S. Morgan Dr. for Engine Company 115 has been designed by DLR Groupand will be developed by the Public Building Commission.
The new building will be the second-largest fire station in the city, housing a Chicago Fire Department (CFD) District Office, an Office of Emergency Management, and Communications (OEMC) radio communication tower, and three ambulances.
The new 25,000 sq. ft. single-story fire station will include an indoor physical training space, full-size living quarters, and a workout facility for approximately 20 firefighters/EMTs/paramedics and eight officers. The facility will also feature a state-of-the-art emergency communication hub, watchtower, open office spaces, and a 4-bay apparatus room with a hose drying tower.
The city plans to build the fire station on vacant land at 119th Street and Morgan Street, replacing the existing Engine Company 115 located at 11940 South Peoria St. The anticipated opening is summer 2020.
#1 by John Antkowski on March 4, 2019 - 12:08 PM
Thank you, Bill Post. I wonder how things will go for the CFD when a new mayor is elected? I see sweaping changes coming. If they don’t keep the minimum staffing stipulation; manpower will change. The NFPA requirement for staffing on fire apparatus is 4. I also see the city closing firehouses and decommissioning rigs. Milwaukee lost the minimum staffing and now they are 1/3 less in strength. I know local 2 is quite powerful, but if the city is not doing well financially the first to get cut is fire companies. Time will tell. John
#2 by Bill Post on March 3, 2019 - 6:53 PM
John Antkowski, even though a case can be made for another squad company for the far south side, under current conditions I don’t see it happening for several reasons. One is that the city would have to increase the payroll to add about 20 men for a squad. That is based on 6 per shift and another 2 men for days off and absences. The fire department’s current contract, while expired, is still in effect and it has a stipulation that the same amount of fire companies must remain in service as at the time of the contract agreement. That is one reason why no further companies have been taken out of service. In order to put a new fire company in service, another would have to be taken out of service for the manpower.
When Has Mat 512 was put in service around 2005, Engine 77 was taken out of service. Truck 6 was created when Engine 100 was taken out of service and Truck 12 was created when Engine 61 was taken out of service.
In my opinion, that stipulation in the contract is very important in keeping the current levels of fire protection. If Chicago didn’t have that in the contract there is a good chance tat Engine 59 would have been taken out of service. Over the years Chicago has had some double engine company stations and in within a few years usually one would be taken out of service. That was not alway the case however. The year before Engine 104 was relocated to Truck 61, Engine 104’s house at 1401 S Michigan was shut and they were doubled up with Engine 1 at 419 S Wells. Also, when Engine 83’s new house was opened in January of 1969, Engine 79 was moved in with them. Engine 79 moved to a new house at 6420 N Lehigh in March 1970.
Getting back to the wishful thinking of putting another squad in service, Engine 115 is not a good location for as it is on the edge of the city. It is also why it really isn’t the greatest place for a tower ladder either. A squad should be more centrally located and it needs to follow other companies on still alarms, special duty runs, and extra alarm fires.
Squad 5 can be moved further south however so that it can better cover the south side. When today’s Snorkel squads were put in service on September 19, 198,3 they were placed in more central locations that better covered their portions of the city. Snorkel Squad 5 was at Engine 122’s house which is a better spot from which to cover the far south side. Engine 122’s house is only a block east of the Dan Ryan Expressway allowing for access around the city. It was also closer to the 23rd, 21st, 22nd, and 24th Battalions. They were moved to Engine 116’s house a few years later because there were many of fires in Englewood, but Engine 122 is still a better location.
Snorkel Squad 1 was put in service at Engine 5’s house which is located off of the Spaghetti Bowl interchange, an ideal location for getting around the city and to the west side. They were first moved to Engine 13 on January 1st 1992 because Truck 12 had been taken out of service. It took Truck 12’s place and allowed them to relocate Truck 2 to Engine 5 from Engine 18’s station at the time. Squad 1 was relocated to Engine 42 when Truck 6 was put back in service with Engine 13.
Snorkel/Squad 2 was put in service at Engine 106’s house. Engine 106’s house is only about 2 blocks from the Kennedy expressway and also being located on Elston avenue it allows the Squad to get to the Northwest side and downtown quickly due to it’s angular direction. Engine 106 is also less then a mile from Western avenue which is another good route to use to get further north and south. Less then 2 years later Squad 2 was relocated to Engine 91 when Truck 14 was relocated to Engine 117’s house.
So while a 5th Squad is not in the cards it is possible to relocated Squad 5 further south like to Engine 122’s house.
#3 by John Antkowski on March 3, 2019 - 10:29 AM
What about another Squad company? I read about discussions that Squad 5 is way too far north to be of any use at fires in the far south side. With the mega station being built it might be the time bring up the idea again? I’ve also read of the increased response times for the Squad? Maybe relocate the Squad 5 to Engine 115 and Truck 24 to Engine 116? Just wondering. John
#4 by Bill Post on March 2, 2019 - 11:06 PM
Jim Mitidiero, it’s interesting that you had mentioned about ” back in the day” when Engine 97 was running as a combination (quad) company and before Trucks 61 and 62 were in service. I’m sure that you know that Engine 97 also did the “inhalator” and resuscitator and what was known as “special duty work” also. In effect Engine 97 acted as a Squad company as well as a Truck company. The Original Squad 5 who was the Squad that was first due in Engine 97’s district had to travel even further to get into the area then Trucks 17 and 27 did. Squad 5 had to respond from Engine 72’s house and before 1949 they had to travel even further from Engine 100’s house. If they would have had to wait for Squad 5 to get to Hegwisch for a fire the place would have burned down long before that and you if would have had to wait for them to assist a heart attack victim, the victim would have been long DOA before they would have arrived.
Engine 97s district was isolated and difficult to serve because it was surrounded by railroad tracks , drawbridges, the Calumet River, Lake Calumet , Steel Mills and there are only 3 main arterial streets that the connect it to the rest of Chicago. It really isn’t hard to figure out why Engine 97 could use a new and a larger fire station then the puny one that they are operating out of.
#5 by Chuck on March 2, 2019 - 8:56 PM
Phil, I’m not sure how familiar you are with actual still district boundaries for some of the companies you mention moving, but a great many of these would never even work, and the 7 that stand out as stunningly bad are Engines 5,29,30,43,69, and 94, and Truck 29. The huge gaps would leave horrible coverage issues, not to mention severely affecting ISO ratings and causing humongous community uproar. Perhaps it’s time for the City to consider the quint concept for some of these single engines, with those being 6 man companies.
#6 by Bill Post on March 2, 2019 - 5:57 PM
Jim Mitidiero, thanks for bringing up the fact that 126th pl is a new street. I thought it might have been new as I had thought that years ago Truck 61 would have had to go further south in order to go west to Torrence avenue.
I wonder what the city and fire department were thinking when they built Truck 61’s new house. They had good advice from the Maatman report and yet they ignored it. Robert J Quinn was still the fire commissioner when Truck 61’s new house was built. That’s why I think that there could have been some kind of kick back for building at 11659 Avenue O. Engine 97 needed a new house years ago and it still does.
The study done by the CFD in 1986 that I’ve mentioned called for a new house for Engine 97 which was ignored. That same study also recommended moving Truck 16 into Engine 81’s house so there would be a truck on the west side of the 24th Battalion. At the time, Engine 63 and Truck 16 were still at 62nd Pl and Dorchester. Considering that Tower Ladder 37 and Truck 30 were less then two miles from there, the CFD research and planning department thought it made more sense to move Truck 16 to Engine 81’s house. The manpower from Engine 63 would then have been assigned to a new truck company with Engine 75 at approximately Indiana and 130th Street. The city ignored that as well. If they had followed through, Engine 100 would have remained in service.
#7 by Jim Mitidiero on March 2, 2019 - 3:14 PM
One thing to keep in mind about T61 was that when they were first assigned to Avenue O, 126th didn’t exist. They would have to go west on 133 to Brainerd then to Torrance to go north. Even more of a delay because 133rd is a rather narrow residential type street. Also Engine 97 was a combination back in the day. Your closest Trucks were 17 and 27 both from great distances before T61 or T62.
#8 by Bill Post on March 2, 2019 - 11:59 AM
Phil Stenholm, the problem with moving Engine 74 to Truck 61’s new house (at the time) was that Truck 61 was in a poor location in a virtual no mans land. For them to go the west side of the 24th Battalion, (previously the 14th) it would have to go over a mile south to 126th place to go west to Torrence Avenue and then north again over the Calumet River. Otherwise they would have had the option of going north on Avenue O back to 106th Street before going west over the Calumet River and south on Torrence Avenue.
The Maatman report of 1968 didn’t recommend building a new station for Truck 61 at it’s current location. It recommended building a station or annex next to Engine 74’s quarters and relocating Truck 61 with Engine 74 at or near Engine 74’s current location. Engine 74 is off of 106th Street so Truck 61 could much more easily get across the Calumet River without having to double back. Engine 74 is still in a much better spot in a more congested area. It is also near the Chicago Skyway and Indianapolis Boulevard which are key transportation routes. At the same time the study had called for opening a new station for Engine 97 and putting Truck 2 in service with them. In case you wonder who would have relocated to Engine 5’s quarters instead of Truck 2, it would have been Truck 39 which was on the near west side with Engine 103.
That’s beside the point however. The real point is that the CFD put Truck 61’s house in the wrong location. The city owned the land so either they were trying to do things on the cheap or perhaps there could have been a kick back involved. The only thing that Truck 61’s location did was put them a little closer to Engine 97’s district, but even that is still a little too far from Engine 97. The fire department’s 1986 study recommended a new station for Engine 97 to accommodate a truck. It would have been much smarter if the city would have followed the 1968 recommendations and built a new house for Engine 74 at its current location and a new house for Engine 97 so they both could have accommodated trucks.
#9 by Tim on March 2, 2019 - 11:45 AM
I think my head is going to explode. 🙂 A ton of info. All good too.
#10 by Phil Stenholm on March 2, 2019 - 5:41 AM
BILL: Very interesting information about the Maatman reports and the recommendations contained in the reports regarding the relocation of CFD companies.
And it got me to thinking.
With Engine Co. 75 and Truck Co. 24 (and two ambulances?) supposedly scheduled to relocate to the new Engine Co. 115 mega-firehouse to be built at 119th Street & Morgan, I wonder if the City of Chicago might look to further consolidate companies beyond just the new E115 fire station.
As I’m sure you remember, when the City of Chicago was building new and larger firehouses in the 1960’s and 70’s, it was not uncommon to bring two engine companies and a truck company together in the new station, sometimes from three different single-bay firehouses. But after a period of time the second engine would quietly be disbanded, and the station would roll onward with just one engine and one truck. But with Engine Co. 59 and Engine Co. 70 sharing the same station for more than ten years with no end in sight, and with Engine Co. 75 about to do the same with Engine Co. 115, is it possible that the CFD is beginning a firehouse consolidation program that does not involve eventually taking the second engine company out of service?
Because consolidating companies by closing older firehouses and relocating companies to newer existing stations could eliminate maintenance costs on perhaps as many as twenty of the the city’s oldest firehouses, and allow the city to sell the abandoned properties for cash.
Also, having twenty or more firehouses with two engines and one truck would allow more companies to arrive as a group at the scene of a fire or other major incident. It also would provide engine company redundancy in still districts that have a firehouse occupied by two engine companies (like Engine 59 and Engine 70), so that if one of the engines responds to a vehicle fire or an ambulance assist or as a second engine to a fire in an adjacent still district, the other engine company is still available.
The problem is (and this is not insignificant), the distance from the nearest firehouse would increase in areas where firehouses are closed and not replaced. This happened in the 1960’s and 70’s as well, but in most cases the firehouses that were closed and consolidated were fairly close together (they were constructed back in the day based on travel times from the horse-drawn era).
The thing is, an increase in distances between firehouses today would not actually result in distances that don’t already exist in some outlying areas and locations within the city limits right now (like Howard & Harlem, Belmont & Pueblo, and parts of Altgeld Gardens on the far south side). And it’s kind of obvious that relocating Engine Co. 75 to a firehouse that will be a mile further west from its present company quarters will not improve response times to the Golden Gate Park/Altgeld Gardens neighborhood, and yet the city is going to do it anyway.
So if the City of Chicago does decide to consolidate firehouses instead of building new ones, here’s how it could be done (I guess):
E5 and T2 to E18, and A28 to E23/T5
E19, T11, and A4 to E16, and South HazMat to E80 from E16
E29 to E84/T51, and A75 from E101/T41 to E84/T51
E30 to E35/T28
E39 to E28/T8
E43 to E44/T36, and A3 to E91
E46, T17, and A9 to E81, A71 to E125 from E81, and T53 to E68 from E125
E56 to E112/T21
E69 to E124/T38
E71 to E102/T25
E74 to E104/T61
E75 to new E115, and A5 to E62/T27
E78 and A6 to E55/T44
E94 to E108/T23
E96 to E117/T14, T29 to E107, and A80 to E109/T32 from E107
E97 to E80/T62
E98 to E42/T3, and A11 to E4/T10
E99 and A67 to E38/T48
E103 to E26/T7
E120 and A72 to E121/T40
E126 and A51 to E63/T16, and T49 to E122
T24 and A29 to new E115
T59 to E88 from E15 (firehouse remains active, but with just E15 and A18)
One of the firehouses on this list (E19/T11) was constructed in 1955, but there are two nearby firehouses (E8 and E16) that are close enough to cover the district from both sides (north and south), and so it would now be possible for both Engine Co. 19 and Truck Co. 11 to move in with Engine Co. 16 (something that was not possible prior to the construction of Engine 16’s new quarters in 2012). The other 21 firehouses on the list are of pre-1935 vintage. A couple (E30 and E39) were built in the 1880’s, and couple more (E96/T29 and E98) were built in 1904-05.
By closing 22 firehouses and relocating 21 engine companies and eight truck companies (and some ambulances as well) to more modern facilities, the E110/T12 and E82/T42 firehouses (both built in 1916), E125/T53 (built in 1917), and E93 (built in 1919) would be the only active CFD fire stations left that were constructed prior to 1927, and those four could be placed at or near the top of the list for future CFD fire station construction – especially a new E93 with space for a truck company (probably T27).
Further, not counting the Air/Sea Rescue, Special Operations, and fireboat facilities, 22 of the remaining 75 firehouses (29%) would have two engine companies and one truck company in service in the same facility, 39 more (52%) would have one engine and one truck (so that 61 of the 75 firehouses – or 81% – would have a truck company assigned, and four of the 13 that don’t are airport stations), 73 of the remaining 75 firehouses (97%) would have at least one ambulance assigned (E73 and O’Hare Rescue Station #4 being the only exceptions), and seven firehouses (E16, E38, E63, E84, E109, E115, and E121) would have two ambulances each.
All of this could be done without reducing manpower, eliminating companies, or even building new fire stations (beyond Engine 115). It’s just a matter of closing old firehouses and relocating companies formerly quartered in the older firehouses to newer facilities that already exist.
But again, even with the possible benefit derived from a “group/task force” type response to fires and doubled-up engine company redundancy in busy still districts, it will increase response times to some areas of the city.
#11 by Phil Stenholm on March 2, 2019 - 5:09 AM
BILL: Regarding Truck Co. 61 being in the station on Avenue “O” without an engine company for 15 years…
Someone who lived there back then told me that Engine Co. 74 was supposed to be moved into that station when it opened in 1971, but the neighbors and business owners from the 106th Street & Ewing area made such a stink about losing their “neighborhood firehouse” that it never happened.
Something similar occurred when the new fire station at Ford City was opened about a year earlier in 1970…
Truck Co. 31 was relocated to the Ford City station from downtown on the day the firehouse opened, and Engine Co. 64 was supposed to relocate to the new station and Engine Co. 84 was supposed to move into Truck 51’s house at the same time (Truck 51’s quarters was about halfway between Engine 64’s house and Engine 84’s house), but just like with the Engine 74 situation, political pressure kept the plan from being implemented. People would just not give up their neighborhood firehouse.
So Flying Squad 3 was moved from Engine 116 to the new Ford City fire station instead and was assigned one of the new Ford/Ward LaFrance 1000-GPM pumpers with a 750 gallon water-tank, and Flying Squad 3 actually ran as a hybrid engine company/flying squad for several months, covering the Ford City still district as an engine company while also responding to alarms over a much larger area as a flying squad.
So that didn’t work out too well, and Truck 31 was eventually assigned Snorkel Squad 3’s former fog pressure rig and the truck ran as a two-piece company until Engine 64 was finally relocated to the station in 1973.
I know that Truck 61’s still district didn’t include a high-value property like Ford City, but I’m still a bit surprised that Truck 61 wasn’t assigned a fog pressure rig, too, at least until Engine 104 was moved there in 1986.
#12 by Phil Stenholm on March 2, 2019 - 4:32 AM
RICH: Thanks a lot for that information. So it’s all about square-footage, and that counts everything with regard to the structure, not just talking about the apparatus floor.
Makes sense.
So if Engine 115 will be the second-largest CFD fire station, then what is #1? Must be O’Hare Rescue Station 1, right? Or does the combined basement and first and second floors of Engine 42 make it #1 in square-feet?… (that is, at least until the new Engine 42 is built)…
#13 by Rich on March 1, 2019 - 9:42 PM
Phil, its square footage. doors have nothing to do with it. It’s all based on overall square footage the living quarters is 2x the size of the apparatus floor. You can’t compare it to 42, they have a basement and a 2nd floor. The only next closest thing is the firehouses on the airport property. I’ve never been in one of them. Once you figure in male/female bunk room, all private quarters for officers, classrooms, mechanical room, IT room, and whatever else they have this building will be huge.
#14 by Bill Post on March 1, 2019 - 9:44 AM
Phil Stenholm that is very interesting mega station wishful thinking that you have. On the subject of Engine 39, the Maatman reports from the 1960’s and early 70’s recommended that a new station be built for Engine 39 near 34th and Damen. To me it might make sense if they built it there and perhaps moved the Special Operations Equipment from the SOP garage near 39th and Honore Streets in the warehouse district. That area has several well located, large fire stations which include Engine 49’s current house, Engine 28’s house which is already a mega station, plus Engine 65 and Truck 52’s house which is a landmark that not only still looks good but has plenty of room. Even though they only have Engine 65, Truck 52, and Ambulance 69, they have housed several other companies over the years with plenty of room.
As far as mega stations go near Madison and Halsted, Engine 5 and Engine 14 are a mile or less away not to mention other stations which are only about a mile and a half away as well.
As far as Engine 103’s current station goes, the CFD did a study that found there were several stations within acceptable distance and travel times which includes Engines 26, 5, 14, 18, and 30. The reason they recommended moving them to the far south side is because that study found there weren’t enough companies to be used for change of quarters on the far south side, plus there were some gaps in coverage such as Truck 61 being located without an engine for about 15 years.
#15 by Bill Post on March 1, 2019 - 1:59 AM
Chris S those are very good questions. There is an interesting and very long drawn out history on the station relocations that you are asking about.
First Engine 115’s quarters is the 6th oldest active station in Chicago. It was constructed in 1907 and wasn’t opened until March 10, 1908. It just about 111 years old. That said, it should have been replaced years ago and in fact there were official calls for and recommendations for it’s replacement at least as far back as 1963/64. During the 1960s Chicago hired a fire service consultant by the name of Gerald Maatman who was the head of the Fire Sciences Department at the Illinois Institute of Technology and was a recognized expert on fire department operations as well as fire science. He headed the consulting firm called the National Loss Control Service Corporation. His first study of the Chicago Fire Department in 1963/64 made recommendations for building new stations, closing old ones, and relocating many companies from the older more congested central city areas to some of the developing outlying areas of the city where the fire coverage wasn’t as good. That really wasn’t the case with Engine 115 as far as coverage went but as their house was so old and small it was recommended for replacement along with about 40 others. A second report was done in 1968 to monitor how well the first study was complied with and to have the fire department run with less men per shift. In 1967 the Chicago reduced firefighters’ working hours and they didn’t want to hire more men. As a result, about 3/4’s of Chicago’s engines and trucks officially became four-man companies. Seven Flying Manpower Squads were created to respond on still alarms to make up for the 5th man that was eliminated from those companies. Many specialized fire companies were also eliminated as well.
In the 1968 Maatman report Engine 115’s house was tentatively scheduled to be replaced in 1979 after all the other new stations were to be built. Here we are 40 years later.
In both the 1968 and the last Maatman report which was done in 1971, it was recommended that Truck 24 be moved in with Engine 120. Engine 120’s house turned out to be too small and with floors too weak to hold a truck. The city was reported to be interested in building a new station for both Engine 120 and Truck 24 on Vincennes somewhere between 108th and 111th streets.That idea apparently fell through and nothing was ever built.
In 1986, the CFD’s own Research and Planning Department did a study of apparatus coverage for the city and found some significant gaps south of 95th Street. The study recommended that four new stations be built on the far south side. Three in the 22nd Battalion where Engine 115 is. The four stations to be built in order of priority were
1. 13000 south/200 east (for Engine 75 and a new truck)
2. 13000 south/3100 east (for Engine 97 and a new truck)
3. 10300 south/0 west (for Engine 93 and a new truck)
4. 11500 south/732 west (for Engine 104 and Truck 24)
At the time the study was done, Truck 61’s house didn’t have an engine and it was recommended that Engine 103 move in with Truck 61. 103’s house would have been closed and Engine 104 who was with Engine 1 would be relocated to a new station at 732 W 115th Street with Truck 24. Engine 115 would have remained at it’s current location. Truck 16 would have moved to Engine 81’s quarters and Engine 63 would have been taken out of service with the manpower used to create a one of three new truck companies. Instead, Engine 100 would have remained in service as they were located only two blocks south of Engine 63’s current house. Engine 20 which was within a block of the Fleet Management garage at Concord Place would have been taken out of service. The manpower would have been used to create of one the three proposed new truck companies on the far south side.
Chris S you are correct about Engine 75 being farther from the south and east end of their district if they move in with Engine 115. The CFD study had recommended that Engine 75 be moved further south to approximately 130th Street near Indiana.
As far as Truck 24 being moved east toward Truck 27, that study found there were several demand zones southeast of Truck 24 that were inadequately covered. The ISO requires that a ladder or truck company be no further then 2.5 miles of built upon areas of it’s district to be given full ISO credit. Engine 120’s current location is well within 2.5 miles from Truck 45 and Truck 24’s current quarters is also well within 2.5 miles from Truck 40. There are also three engines within 1.5 miles of Truck 24’s quarters.
While Engine 115 has been in need of a new station for at least 40 years it would be wiser to build several two-bay houses instead of the one four-bay station which could better service the entire 22nd Battalion and not just the southwest corner. The CFD study found that new stations were also needed for Engine 75 and 93 to better cover their areas. Even a tower ladder would be more centrally located if it were with Engine 93 at 103rd and State Street as had been recommended in the study.
#16 by Chris S on February 28, 2019 - 2:31 PM
If the rendering is correct, looks like they could have added a 5th bay
#17 by Chris S on February 28, 2019 - 2:11 PM
They’re really moving T24 that far south very close to T27, leaving just a huge gap both E & T wise. Always thought they would combine E120 & T24 & isn’t this also going to increase E75 & A5 response times to the corners of their district, say where their current house is?
#18 by Marty Coyne on February 28, 2019 - 10:58 AM
I believe he’s referring to number of apparatus by size. As for the bays, these four will really run as up to eight in back to back config. E-117 has four but they only run one per bay.
#19 by MABAS 21 on February 27, 2019 - 9:10 PM
Thanks for your responses guys!
#20 by John on February 27, 2019 - 8:20 PM
Rescue 1 currently is like this….
East 3 bays…Ambo, Tower Ladder, Hazmat 5-1-2
West 3 bays….Engine, Command Van, Fan Truck, ARFF Commander
New 3 bays…. 3 crash rigs
#21 by Mike L on February 27, 2019 - 7:28 PM
They will run similar to E59 & E70 on the north side. Each will essentially run in their “old” still. Tower 24 sounds like it’s a sure thing but word on the street from a higher up is that TL34 may become a conventional truck again so TL24 will have the whole south side. Like anything else, though, nothing is a done deal until it actually happens.
And Rescue 1 at ORD has 9 bays now so it’s the largest firehouse. Actually, it’s 2 separate firehouses with a shared kitchen. The new portion holds 3 of the 4 crash trucks while 1 crash truck, the ambo and 5-7-3 have the east bays and E12, TL63 and 5-1-2 have the west bays. Not sure if 2-7-3 has moved back in yet. Minimum of 25 peeps a day at that house.
#22 by Michael m on February 27, 2019 - 5:13 PM
I am guessing this is where the new south side tower ladder will be stationed at?
Why are they putting two engines at one station?
#23 by Phil Stenholm on February 27, 2019 - 4:28 PM
MABAS21: Just in terms of the entire size of the facility I believe only O’Hare Rescue Station 1 is larger. If they are referring to which CFD station has more than four bays, that would be O’Hare Rescue Station 1 and Engine 42 (both with six bays), although Engine 42 is scheduled to be replaced with a new smaller house sometime in the near future.
Otherwise, the new Engine 115 would be one of only eight CFD firehouses with four bays (Engine 28, Engine 44, Engine 80, Engine 108, Engine 117, Engine 127, and O’Hare Rescue Station 2 are the others) and the new Engine 115 is probably the second-largest of the four-bay firehouses in terms of the overall total size of the facility (O’Hare Rescue 2 looks bigger to me).
So I’m not sure what exactly was meant when the new Engine 115 was described as the “second-largest fire station in the city.” Probably refers to Engine 42 and its six bays being the largest and they aren’t even considering the O’Hare firehouses.
#24 by Daniel Hynd on February 27, 2019 - 4:07 PM
Last I heard, the largest station is 42, although this one seems bigger.
#25 by FF51 on February 27, 2019 - 4:06 PM
MABAS 21, I believe the first largest is the E42, T3, A42, A93, SQ1, 271 & DDC1 house at 55 W. Illinois
#26 by MABAS 21 on February 27, 2019 - 3:32 PM
Which house is the other largest station for CFD?
#27 by Phil Stenholm on February 27, 2019 - 2:21 PM
I wonder if the City of Chicago will be building a new CFD mega-station like the new E115 in each of the districts?
Like perhaps:
E5/E103/AT2/521/A28/515/D1 HQ at/near Madison & Halsted in District 1;
E56/E78/TL21/A6/BC5/D2 HQ at/near Belmont & Ashland in District 2;
E39/E65/TL52/A88/BC15/D5 HQ at/near Western & Archer in District 5.
#28 by bill on February 27, 2019 - 2:12 PM
Engine 115 & 75
Truck 24
Ambulance 5, 24, 80
225
& district chief car
A hole lot of rigs.
#29 by Marty Coyne on February 27, 2019 - 2:06 PM
Crabby, there will not be a police substation or spares stored there. They may have an unmanned rig there, but it’s no more likely than any other house. If there are all those rigs there, there will not even be room for anything else.
#30 by Rj on February 27, 2019 - 1:01 PM
The artist got the rig colors right but biffed on the mid-mount tower parked in the back ?
#31 by CrabbyMilton on February 27, 2019 - 11:48 AM
It is quite large but I’m sure it may include other side functions like perhaps a police substation and storing of reserve/spare apparatus.
Economy of scale is the key.
#32 by harry on February 27, 2019 - 9:46 AM
looks like it will be a nice station