HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Midwest

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2281  
Old Posted May 21, 2019, 6:26 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,839
^ The only way you get rid of that is to allow zoning changes without requiring a City Council vote
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2282  
Old Posted May 21, 2019, 11:58 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 5,727
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ The only way you get rid of that is to allow zoning changes without requiring a City Council vote
Which she has already stated is her plan. She aims to create express zoning for projects that tick certain boxes. Not sure whether she will go for a reform of the entire code which is really what's needed.

At the end of the day it is correct that the city council will have to approve her proposed reforms. That's why it's important she capitalize on her mandate now and move quickly while she has the momentum.

Her executive order probably eliminates half of perogative, the rest requires legislative work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2283  
Old Posted May 22, 2019, 2:06 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,839
I’m also hoping they move on the proposal to allow more accessory apartments (basements, attics, etc).

Without acquiring any new property, I can already potentially build 3 coach houses and create a few new basement apartments within the buildings I own
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2284  
Old Posted May 22, 2019, 1:55 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Which she has already stated is her plan. She aims to create express zoning for projects that tick certain boxes. Not sure whether she will go for a reform of the entire code which is really what's needed.

At the end of the day it is correct that the city council will have to approve her proposed reforms. That's why it's important she capitalize on her mandate now and move quickly while she has the momentum.

Her executive order probably eliminates half of perogative, the rest requires legislative work.
Why not just a comprehensive zoning map re-draw based on something resembling a comprehensive plan? The issue is with approving every individual project with a zoning action when such actions should be the exception for complicated cases (large 'planned developments', possibly for weird and unqiue parcels although for those the first step should just be the variance process, etc.). The zoning map could be re-drawn with the rest of the zoning code left as is to eliminate the run of the mill approvals (graft opportunities) for random mid-block 3-flats, changes between B/C zoning for some specific business use, approvals to legalize existing dwelling units or add a couple as part of a rehab, etc.

Many (not sure if all?) states grant municipalities zoning power with at least some sort of stipulation that such zoning is applied as part of some sort of comprehensive plan. It seems to me that the main issue is aldermanic spot-zoning (whether it's pre-emptive downzoning, or willy nilly approving up-zoning to favored donors), so the solution should be focused on curtailing spot zoning.

Shit like this is absurd:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9521...thumbfov%3D100
And if you check the zoning map, that whole block is zoned B3-1 for lowest-density business use (with ground floor residential not allowed), except for the one parcel that got upzoned. So every other property owner will have permit and zoning issues if they try to do anything. Obviously this block should just be zoned RT-4 for three-flats and that's that, rather than a mix of B3-1 with one lot spot-zoned at B3-2.

Oh, and the corner hot dog stand on the other side of the street? That's zoned RS-2 for low-density single family residential!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2285  
Old Posted May 22, 2019, 2:22 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I’m also hoping they move on the proposal to allow more accessory apartments (basements, attics, etc).

Without acquiring any new property, I can already potentially build 3 coach houses and create a few new basement apartments within the buildings I own
Yeah, this should be a relatively easy political lift also. ADUs don't have a lot of opposition. We know there are a TON of illegal apartments out there that allowing ADU as of right would also bring into the legal fold. That argument seems to make sense to just about everybody.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2286  
Old Posted May 22, 2019, 6:40 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Yeah, this should be a relatively easy political lift also. ADUs don't have a lot of opposition. We know there are a TON of illegal apartments out there that allowing ADU as of right would also bring into the legal fold. That argument seems to make sense to just about everybody.
Yes and Chicago's alley system makes ADUs a lot easier spatially, there's already an easy way to access coach houses and even if the city demands on-site parking as some other cities have done, they can have parking spaces without any additional space taken up for a driveway. This means we can have ADUs even in outer neighborhoods where essential services are spread out and transit can be spotty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Shit like this is absurd:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9521...thumbfov%3D100
And if you check the zoning map, that whole block is zoned B3-1 for lowest-density business use (with ground floor residential not allowed), except for the one parcel that got upzoned. So every other property owner will have permit and zoning issues if they try to do anything. Obviously this block should just be zoned RT-4 for three-flats and that's that, rather than a mix of B3-1 with one lot spot-zoned at B3-2.

Oh, and the corner hot dog stand on the other side of the street? That's zoned RS-2 for low-density single family residential!
Yeah the zoning map is full of mismatches like this. The assumption by mid-century planners was that commercial streets should be commercial and side streets residential, but at the low residential densities of the outer neighborhoods there just wasn't enough demand for all that commercial-zoned land so developers found ways to build small 2-flats on these corridors. The idea seems to be that a commercial redevelopment (say, a Walgreens or AutoZone) should be allowed as-of-right on these corridors, but a 3-flat or any other denser residential should require community input. It's a double-standard for sure, but I'm not sure the answer is to flip the double standard the other way. Clearly there is some demand for small-scale commercial along that section of Irving Park, why erect barriers to stop it by changing the zoning to residential instead of just upzoning to B3-2?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; May 22, 2019 at 6:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2287  
Old Posted May 23, 2019, 7:53 AM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Why not just a comprehensive zoning map re-draw based on something resembling a comprehensive plan?
This is also risky. Look at what happened the last time the city zoning map was re-drawn, early 2000s. Much of the city was downzoned. The risk of eliminating aldermanic privilege and re-drawing the map is that we end up with a very tightly drawn map that is also inflexible.

You look at spot zoning and see arbitrariness and corruption. But it shows something else too. It shows flexibility. I'm very nervous about the changes coming down the line, because as much as we complain the fact is no major city in the US is as easy to build in as Chicago. And I have no doubt aldermanic privilege plays a huge role in that. Not only does it give an incentive for aldermen to listen to developers, but it's also easier to lobby an alderman for a single parcel's zoning change than to lobby the Planning Department to upzone an entire neighborhood.

Rather than eliminate aldermanic privilege outright, all we need is an appeals process--as Lightfoot has proposed. That only adds more upward flexibility in zoning and can help fight corruption.

Last edited by Khantilever; May 23, 2019 at 8:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2288  
Old Posted May 23, 2019, 5:07 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
This is also risky. Look at what happened the last time the city zoning map was re-drawn, early 2000s. Much of the city was downzoned. The risk of eliminating aldermanic privilege and re-drawing the map is that we end up with a very tightly drawn map that is also inflexible.

You look at spot zoning and see arbitrariness and corruption. But it shows something else too. It shows flexibility. I'm very nervous about the changes coming down the line, because as much as we complain the fact is no major city in the US is as easy to build in as Chicago. And I have no doubt aldermanic privilege plays a huge role in that. Not only does it give an incentive for aldermen to listen to developers, but it's also easier to lobby an alderman for a single parcel's zoning change than to lobby the Planning Department to upzone an entire neighborhood.

Rather than eliminate aldermanic privilege outright, all we need is an appeals process--as Lightfoot has proposed. That only adds more upward flexibility in zoning and can help fight corruption.
I'll admit that my position has evolved on this now that I've returned to life on the south side, meaning many train rides and drives through desolate neighborhoods with vacant lots and collapsing buildings but a whole range of infrastructure to maintain. I'm just not worried about allowing tons of density on the north side for a city whose population is at best stagnant or declining (perhaps total demand for households/housing units is steady due to demographic shifts).

Having a vibrant and fully developed mixed-use core/central area is important and benefits the entire city, but where existing infrastructure is already at capacity throughout the north and northwest side, what's the citywide benefit in allowing more housing there rather than gradually letting demand spread out to maybe, just maybe, salvage some of the numerous collapsing areas that already have great downtown access?

If our long term concern is to build anything anywhere and just let Englewood, Park Manor, Gresham, and Roseland completely rot and disintegrate into nothingness, let's at least be up front about that and get it over with since there will be a lot more schools to close and transit lines to shut down.

I also cannot emphasize enough the degree to which Chicago - the city and the region - do not have an affordable housing problem; certainly not one that is driven by supply constraints, to any degree. There are a handful of hot neighborhoods that have gotten very expensive.

Last edited by VivaLFuego; May 23, 2019 at 5:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2289  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 4:49 AM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
I'm just not worried about allowing tons of density on the north side for a city whose population is at best stagnant or declining (perhaps total demand for households/housing units is steady due to demographic shifts).

Having a vibrant and fully developed mixed-use core/central area is important and benefits the entire city, but where existing infrastructure is already at capacity throughout the north and northwest side, what's the citywide benefit in allowing more housing there rather than gradually letting demand spread out to maybe, just maybe, salvage some of the numerous collapsing areas that already have great downtown access?
If you allow for more density in the North Side, that ->
provides more workers for downtown ->
greater employment density downtown ->
increases wages downtown ->
increases demand for housing in other neighborhoods that are connected to downtown.

Also, increasing residential density in the North Side would also increase employment for South and West siders who can commute to jobs in those areas, and not just downtown.

I do agree that limiting development on the North Side will, at the margin, push more development into other areas. But there will be some loss of population and employment to the city as a result--there's no free lunch here to limiting development in some areas.

And it's not even remotely obvious to me that the net gain even to struggling neighborhoods would be positive. On the one hand, more people will be priced out of nicer neighborhoods and may be pushed into struggling ones. But on the other hand, the city has less employment, higher rents and lower population growth, and that doesn't help struggling neighborhoods either.

To put it simply, it's not a zero-sum game. And we ought to focus on helping the residents of those neighborhoods rather than instituting place-based policies that fetishize the location itself. If we price people out of nicer areas, the ensuing gentrification of struggling areas is likely to be more a result of replacement/displacement than improvement in welfare of the original residents of those areas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
I also cannot emphasize enough the degree to which Chicago - the city and the region - do not have an affordable housing problem; certainly not one that is driven by supply constraints, to any degree. There are a handful of hot neighborhoods that have gotten very expensive.
That doesn't mean housing couldn't be more affordable--especially in the places where people really want to live. And in the most desirable areas zoning is absolutely a constraint (though it's not in much of the rest of the city). I really don't think it's super relevant to a young, professional couple fresh out of grad school that housing is cheap in some areas. The question is whether it's cheap in amenity-rich neighborhoods with good access to employment centers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2290  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 5:36 AM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,907
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
This is also risky. Look at what happened the last time the city zoning map was re-drawn, early 2000s. Much of the city was downzoned. The risk of eliminating aldermanic privilege and re-drawing the map is that we end up with a very tightly drawn map that is also inflexible.

You look at spot zoning and see arbitrariness and corruption. But it shows something else too. It shows flexibility. I'm very nervous about the changes coming down the line, because as much as we complain the fact is no major city in the US is as easy to build in as Chicago. And I have no doubt aldermanic privilege plays a huge role in that. Not only does it give an incentive for aldermen to listen to developers, but it's also easier to lobby an alderman for a single parcel's zoning change than to lobby the Planning Department to upzone an entire neighborhood.

Rather than eliminate aldermanic privilege outright, all we need is an appeals process--as Lightfoot has proposed. That only adds more upward flexibility in zoning and can help fight corruption.
Personally, I think that, city-wide, we'd be better off with the average zoning being one or two steps higher than the typical lot is likely to have demand for. That way high-demand locations can easily add housing that people want, which the higher zoning also allows developers to put a targeted development in a location that might seed greater growth in an area. For example, higher zoning might allow a block of high density next to, say, the Indiana stop on the Green Line, with enough people to support a small grocery store and a couple of restaurants. It'd have to be relatively affordable housing due to the location, but the residents would have that grocery store and easy access to the Loop, so that cluster of density would pioneer stability near that station and then attract more people and, in theory, help turn the area around. After that seed of higher density, medium-density might follow as demand returns based on the benefit of a quick commute and the availability of essential basics like the grocery store. Contrast that to a station where only low-density is allowed. Yes, the same number of home in a low-density area might occupy a larger geographical part of the neighborhood more quickly, but it would possibly never reach the raw numbers needed to support the kind of basic services employed people want (the grocery store and basic restaurants), so it simply will never grow. I suspect that's part of the current problem along the south Green Line. It has excellent access to the Loop, but only a very few stations are walkable to a grocery store big enough to carry the basics, let alone more than the most basic of take-out restaurants. A developer might gamble on creating their own demand with a block of development, but they're not going to gamble on four or six blocks, plus even if they did, then all the area nearest the station that creates the easy commute attraction are occupied so it can't build more attractive homes without demolishing relatively new homes that kickstarted things. At the very least, any lot with a ten minute walk of an 'L' station should have zoning with a FAR of 4 or greater, even if it means that geographically the area gets filled in more slowly - having the same numbers in 2 blocks as 8 blocks is enormously more beneficial for both that neighborhood and the 'L' infrastructure and the City at large, and leaves more room to add housing that contains all the same amenities and walkability.

I also think it's time to up the numbers that trigger a Planned Development. For example, anything that could otherwise be built as-of-right, with 100 units or fewer should not trigger a planned development outside of downtown, or 400 inside downtown. I'm not stuck on those numbers, but they should be higher than they are. In communities the trigger number can be as low as 30 units, and as low as 90 units downtown - those just seem absurdly low to trigger a mandatory planned development. Those should not be viewed as enormous, they should be fairly normal if affordable housing is actually a goal.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
My current active camera gear: Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 zoom, Nikon 85mm f1.8G, Nikon 50mm f1.4D, Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6, Nikkor 135mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikkor 55mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikon PB-4 Bellows. Collectible gear: Nikon F4s, Nikon D1, Nikon N4004s (my very first SLR)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2291  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 2:06 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
I do agree that limiting development on the North Side will, at the margin, push more development into other areas. But there will be some loss of population and employment to the city as a result--there's no free lunch here to limiting development in some areas.

And it's not even remotely obvious to me that the net gain even to struggling neighborhoods would be positive. On the one hand, more people will be priced out of nicer neighborhoods and may be pushed into struggling ones. But on the other hand, the city has less employment, higher rents and lower population growth, and that doesn't help struggling neighborhoods either.

To put it simply, it's not a zero-sum game. And we ought to focus on helping the residents of those neighborhoods rather than instituting place-based policies that fetishize the location itself. If we price people out of nicer areas, the ensuing gentrification of struggling areas is likely to be more a result of replacement/displacement than improvement in welfare of the original residents of those areas.
^ This may make basic logical sense, but what you're missing here is how gentrification "opens the door" to neighborhoods that people previously would consider unthinkable to live in.

If early gentrifiers brought people of various ethnic backgrounds with solid paying jobs to neighborhoods that were previously 80-95% of one race (a status quo that some reactionaries want to preserve), those neighborhoods would no longer be stigmatized as "unlivable". Eventually as outside perceptions of these neighborhoods improve, more and more people would begin moving in because they would still be a bargain compared to north side neighborhoods.

All in all, I don't think that necessarily leads to a population decline, mostly because the people who we fear might be displaced are voting with their feet already--they are already leaving the city for better pastures.
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2292  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 3:11 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever View Post
If you allow for more density in the North Side, that ->
provides more workers for downtown ->
greater employment density downtown ->
increases wages downtown ->
increases demand for housing in other neighborhoods that are connected to downtown.
Working backwards in your logic: I absolutely agree that more jobs downtown is good for all neighorhoods connected to downtown, including many of the depopulating areas of the south side. This is why I think allowing office space at Lincoln Yards is a terrible idea, it's the equivalent of Sears moving to Hoffman Estates so the executives who drove it into the ground could be closer to their homes and golf courses for a few years.

I don't see how that has anything to do with allowing more 3 flats in Ravenswood or Old Irving Park or whatever - are you saying that hypothetical companies would actually say, "shoot I won't locate employees downtown because the north side is 10% more expensive than it should be, if only the city had allowed more infill 3-flats?" Remember also that the Blue, Brown, and Red Lines are all practically at the capacity of the current infrastructure - Red Purple Modernization will add a bit on the north lakefront. But otherwise accomodating far more downtown commuters in the north and northwest sides of the city would require hundreds of millions for new power, signalling, and more railcars, and yards to store those railcars, etc. Meanwhile trains are running half full from the south and west...

Quote:
Also, increasing residential density in the North Side would also increase employment for South and West siders who can commute to jobs in those areas, and not just downtown.
See above re: Lincoln Yards.
Quote:
And it's not even remotely obvious to me that the net gain even to struggling neighborhoods would be positive. On the one hand, more people will be priced out of nicer neighborhoods and may be pushed into struggling ones. But on the other hand, the city has less employment, higher rents and lower population growth, and that doesn't help struggling neighborhoods either.
I don't buy that there would be less employment. It's possible there could be slightly less total population in the city, but the regional effects are nil (i.e. there may be some number of people on the margins who, instead of living in the far northwest side, end up living in Niles or Skokie or Des Plaines etc. instead). In my previous post I stated that I support lots of dense mixed-use development in the Central Area - this is the one part of town that I think isn't "zero sum", because I do think a better and more dynamic downtown truly does unlock economic potential (agglomeration effects, tourism, etc.). I just don't see how whether or not we're allowing more 3-flats in Albany Park or Belmont Cragin will seriously impact the economic future of the city.

Quote:
To put it simply, it's not a zero-sum game. And we ought to focus on helping the residents of those neighborhoods rather than instituting place-based policies that fetishize the location itself. If we price people out of nicer areas, the ensuing gentrification of struggling areas is likely to be more a result of replacement/displacement than improvement in welfare of the original residents of those areas.
Dude - I don't mean to sound condescending, but do you ride through these areas? The current market demand (rent, housing prices) in many of these areas is so low that there's minimal economic incentive to invest in any upkeep or improvement of properties. These areas are surviving on a mix of Section 8 vouchers for rentals (which are high enough to at least keep properties livable) and long-time owners who are basically stuck and have a lot sunk costs. Existing housing on existing streets with existing infrastructure is just withering away and getting demolished bit by bit due to a complete lack of demand to live in these areas. Anyone unlucky enough to own a commercial property has either let the city seize it (and now it's off the tax rolls) or has neglected and/or demolished their building to lower the carrying burden of the property tax. If they were lucky, they were able to sell it to a storefront church before it dilapidated to the point of condemnation - of course, it's still off the tax rolls now, but at least the building still exists.

A little gentrification is the best possible thing that could happen to these areas. There's no good reason Englewood can't again be a desirable location, with superlative transportation access and decent bones (though said bones are disappearing bit by bit each year). There are even still some cool old Victorians there, but again, there's a few less of them each year...

Quote:
That doesn't mean housing couldn't be more affordable--especially in the places where people really want to live. And in the most desirable areas zoning is absolutely a constraint (though it's not in much of the rest of the city).
I fail to see how it is in my interest, or the interest of any south side property owner, to make the north or northwest sides more affordable and reduce demand to live in our neighborhoods. Mind you, I lived in the north side for about 10 years and still own a condo there; I do care about the neighborhoods, and I'm broadly pro-development, but moving back south has changed my macro-level view on this.

Quote:
I really don't think it's super relevant to a young, professional couple fresh out of grad school that housing is cheap in some areas. The question is whether it's cheap in amenity-rich neighborhoods with good access to employment centers.
Sounds like that young, professional couple needs to learn the life lesson that nice things cost more than not-nice things and that perhaps they have to make some adult decisions involving trade-offs and values of what is most important to them.

If I had the choice to live in the same type of house with the same basic neighbors and same basic commute that I currently do, but on the north side, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I'm also at a point where minding my expenses is important to me and I made a trade-off decision to live south, because achieving all of the above would be like, at least 3 times more expensive in a northerly direction. (Westward was also a consideration, but I have more legacy ties southward). But all that means that I helped maintain the market and set comps for housing in my neighborhood, means I contribute to the local tax base and patronize local businesses, etc. The north side being expensive is a good thing for me.

Last edited by VivaLFuego; May 24, 2019 at 4:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2293  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 6:22 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaLFuego View Post
Working backwards in your logic: I absolutely agree that more jobs downtown is good for all neighorhoods connected to downtown, including many of the depopulating areas of the south side. This is why I think allowing office space at Lincoln Yards is a terrible idea, it's the equivalent of Sears moving to Hoffman Estates so the executives who drove it into the ground could be closer to their homes and golf courses for a few years.

I don't see how that has anything to do with allowing more 3 flats in Ravenswood or Old Irving Park or whatever - are you saying that hypothetical companies would actually say, "shoot I won't locate employees downtown because the north side is 10% more expensive than it should be, if only the city had allowed more infill 3-flats?" Remember also that the Blue, Brown, and Red Lines are all practically at the capacity of the current infrastructure - Red Purple Modernization will add a bit on the north lakefront. But otherwise accomodating far more downtown commuters in the north and northwest sides of the city would require hundreds of millions for new power, signalling, and more railcars, and yards to store those railcars, etc. Meanwhile trains are running half full from the south and west...


See above re: Lincoln Yards.

I don't buy that there would be less employment. It's possible there could be slightly less total population in the city, but the regional effects are nil (i.e. there may be some number of people on the margins who, instead of living in the far northwest side, end up living in Niles or Skokie or Des Plaines etc. instead). In my previous post I stated that I support lots of dense mixed-use development in the Central Area - this is the one part of town that I think isn't "zero sum", because I do think a better and more dynamic downtown truly does unlock economic potential (agglomeration effects, tourism, etc.). I just don't see how whether or not we're allowing more 3-flats in Albany Park or Belmont Cragin will seriously impact the economic future of the city.


Dude - I don't mean to sound condescending, but do you ride through these areas? The current market demand (rent, housing prices) in many of these areas is so low that there's minimal economic incentive to invest in any upkeep or improvement of properties. These areas are surviving on a mix of Section 8 vouchers for rentals (which are high enough to at least keep properties livable) and long-time owners who are basically stuck and have a lot sunk costs. Existing housing on existing streets with existing infrastructure is just withering away and getting demolished bit by bit due to a complete lack of demand to live in these areas. Anyone unlucky enough to own a commercial property has either let the city seize it (and now it's off the tax rolls) or has neglected and/or demolished their building to lower the carrying burden of the property tax. If they were lucky, they were able to sell it to a storefront church before it dilapidated to the point of condemnation - of course, it's still off the tax rolls now, but at least the building still exists.

A little gentrification is the best possible thing that could happen to these areas. There's no good reason Englewood can't again be a desirable location, with superlative transportation access and decent bones (though said bones are disappearing bit by bit each year). There are even still some cool old Victorians there, but again, there's a few less of them each year...


I fail to see how it is in my interest, or the interest of any south side property owner, to make the north or northwest sides more affordable and reduce demand to live in our neighborhoods. Mind you, I lived in the north side for about 10 years and still own a condo there; I do care about the neighborhoods, and I'm broadly pro-development, but moving back south has changed my macro-level view on this.

Sounds like that young, professional couple needs to learn the life lesson that nice things cost more than not-nice things and that perhaps they have to make some adult decisions involving trade-offs and values of what is most important to them.

If I had the choice to live in the same type of house with the same basic neighbors and same basic commute that I currently do, but on the north side, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I'm also at a point where minding my expenses is important to me and I made a trade-off decision to live south, because achieving all of the above would be like, at least 3 times more expensive in a northerly direction. (Westward was also a consideration, but I have more legacy ties southward). But all that means that I helped maintain the market and set comps for housing in my neighborhood, means I contribute to the local tax base and patronize local businesses, etc. The north side being expensive is a good thing for me.
The heart of the issue is that the people of Chicago are completely split as to what they want. Also, some who aren't able to get a place in the North side opt for leaving the city altogether as opposed to being a gentrifier. Upzoning the North side has really nothing to do with attracting young professionals. The North side is flat out boring for people my age, who much prefer the West side.

Lincoln Yards is aiming to give the death blow to places like Winnetka, full of families who wouldn't enter a gentrifying neighborhood if you paid them, but who would seriously consider Lincoln Park over a suburb.

Then, you have Hispanics who are competing for apartments against young professionals, and are revolting against rising rents and being forced to relocate, especially if it's to the South side.

Then you have some South siders themselves who want guaranteed access to good schools and safe neighborhoods, as opposed for waiting for those neighborhoods to improve.

I highly suspect that Chicago is going to compromise on the issue. They're going to upzone the South side and only upzone affordable housing on the North.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2294  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 6:53 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,839
^ Upzone the south side?

The south side is probably already zoned to accommodate a million more people
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2295  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 7:40 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
^ Upzone the south side?

The south side is probably already zoned to accommodate a million more people
That would make too much sense for Chicago. Large parts of the South side are still zoned single family because how else could the alderman get their fair share.

https://blog.chicagocityscape.com/ho...i=8c793743d9a0
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2296  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 8:01 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleyfox View Post
That would make too much sense for Chicago. Large parts of the South side are still zoned single family because how else could the alderman get their fair share.

https://blog.chicagocityscape.com/ho...i=8c793743d9a0
Most of the land around the south branches of the Green land is zoned for multi-family - R5 and R4 on residential streets and -2 and -3 on commercial streets. Almost everything north of about 67th and east of the Dan Ryan is zoned for rather high density, as is much of Englewood and South Shore; the latter being the only one that is, for the most part, built out and occupied at anywhere close to the built density it's zoned for.

The issue in these areas is not zoning, it's scant demand, other than some very slow but steady investment in Bronzeville generally north of 51st and east of King Drive. Even if the developable potential under existing zoning on the south side doesn't technically allow for a million more people, it at least allows for several hundred thousand, and the infrastructure also already exists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2297  
Old Posted May 24, 2019, 8:17 PM
VivaLFuego's Avatar
VivaLFuego VivaLFuego is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleyfox View Post
Lincoln Yards is aiming to give the death blow to places like Winnetka, full of families who wouldn't enter a gentrifying neighborhood if you paid them, but who would seriously consider Lincoln Park over a suburb.
I'm not sure I follow this logic - why couldn't a family in the market for Winnetka not move to Lincoln Park now, if they wanted?
Quote:
Then, you have Hispanics who are competing for apartments against young professionals, and are revolting against rising rents and being forced to relocate, especially if it's to the South side.
This seems like a bit of a a narrowly-focused over-simplification considering there are over 800,000 latinos in the city, no? Pilsen and Logan Square account for what, like 50,000 of that?
Quote:
Then you have some South siders themselves who want guaranteed access to good schools and safe neighborhoods, as opposed for waiting for those neighborhoods to improve.
Yes, these neighborhoods will definitely improve if we encourage their continued depopulation and abandonment while also continuing to sink money into underutilized infrastructure and public services in them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2298  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 3:43 PM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,052
https://chicago.suntimes.com/politic...is-legislature

Chicago casino, gambling expansion now tied to legalizing sports betting
The long-discussed proposal would allow a land-based casino in Chicago and riverboat casinos in several locations, including 00Rockford, Lake County and Danville.


By John O'Connor | Associated Press May 27, 2019, 12:44pm CDT




SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A massive expansion of casino gambling in Illinois — a decade-long but futile legislative pursuit — was back with a boost Monday as a Democratic lawmaker took steps to make it part of a popular plan to legalize sports betting.

Rep. Robert Rita’s measure would allow construction of six additional casinos and added gambling seats at existing sites. The Blue Island Democrat said tacking it onto the sports wagering measure would neutralize the web of criticism that has hamstrung the expansion plan.

Rep. Mike Zalewski, a Riverside Democrat, has been pursuing legalized sports wagering since last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling opened the door for Illinois and other states by ending a Nevada monopoly.
”Sports betting is a component that everybody is looking for,” Rita said after the Executive Committee OK’d technical action allowing Rita to proceed. “The existing casinos are looking for the sports betting. ... It’s the common denominator that could bring it all together.”

Advocates say the time is ripe, too. They say the $350 million annual tax revenue from an expansion plan is necessary as additional financing for Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker’s $41.5 billion state construction plan , which Pritzker wants approved by Friday, the scheduled adjournment of the General Assembly’s spring session.

...
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2299  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 5:36 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by galleyfox View Post
Lincoln Yards is aiming to give the death blow to places like Winnetka, full of families who wouldn't enter a gentrifying neighborhood if you paid them, but who would seriously consider Lincoln Park over a suburb.


Only on SSP does somebody make an argument this ridiculous and most forumers nod along without any pushback... Have you been to Winnetka recently? It isn't knocking on death's door I can tell you that. Furthermore Lincoln Yards would sit on the exact same rail line as Winnetka so I can hardly see how it would make things worse for them. For the life of me I'll never understand why SSPers seem to fetishize the idea of the city growing exponentially and the suburbs turning into a new ghetto. It isn't going to happen and why would we want that anyway?

If anything Lincoln Yards (should it happen as planned) would cement the North and Northwest sides of the city (including the suburbs) as THE favored quarter for the foreseeable future as this secondary business district would be challenging to reach from the West or the South. Which, btw, is exactly why I'm not a big fan of the project altogether.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2300  
Old Posted May 28, 2019, 5:40 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 16,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckman821 View Post
For the life of me I'll never understand why SSPers seem to fetishize the idea of the city growing exponentially and the suburbs turning into a new ghetto. It isn't going to happen and why would we want that anyway?
^ It's bizarre, but I've gotten used to it

Quote:
If anything Lincoln Yards (should it happen as planned) would cement the North and Northwest sides of the city (including the suburbs) as THE favored quarter for the foreseeable future as this secondary business district would be challenging to reach from the West or the South. Which, btw, is exactly why I'm not a big fan of the project altogether.
^ Yup, which is why I'm much more in favor of "The 78"
__________________
I drink, therefore I am
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Midwest
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:08 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.