Cities Start To Question An American Ideal: A House With A Yard On Every Lot

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's because so much of the city has been (foolishly) retro-actively down-zoned.

but the good news is that chicago still has a shit-load of legacy pre-war low-rise multi-family (flats, corner apartments, courtyards buildings, etc.) in a lot of those pink areas.

i live in a 3-flat in one of those solid pink (SFH) blocks on the north side, but my neighborhood is predominately low-rise multi-family. in fact, only 13% of housing units in my area are SFH's.

the area has since been down-zoned, so if you want to tear-down/rebuild on my street, the city will only let you do SFH, but all of the existing multi-family (the VAST majority of my neighborhood) has obviously been grandfathered in.

I actually heard Chicago did this in some sort of misguided attempt to "preserve affordable housing" and then was shocked when three-flats were converted into single-family homes for millionaires instead.

[Steely Dan]

The powers that be in Chicago have had their heads up their asses regarding neighborhood housing policy for a good long while. "If we don't let them build yuppie condos, then the yuppies won't move here, right? Isn't that how things work?".

Instead, the yuppies move in anyway and fliper houses in places like Avondale are now going for $750,000 (which is really fucking expensive by Chicago neighborhood standards).

It's such a weird city because in downtown they'll let you build just about anything. "A 3,000' mega-tower with 9,000 units? It's sounds awfully ambitious, but if you can pull it off, go for it!"

Meanwhile, out in the neighborhoods, "a 5 story building with 28 units? What do you think this is, manhattan? We don't want OUR neighborhood going to yuppie hell in a yuppie handbasket".

Thank Pizza God that our great-grandfathers built a giant and pretty good city here 100 years ago. It's given us a very wide margin to coast on. Chicago got lucky, because if it had missed that window by 50 years or so, jesus christ.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It's such a weird city because in downtown they'll let you build just about anything. "A 3,000' mega-tower with 9,000 units? It's sounds awfully ambitious, but if you can pull it off, go for it!"

Meanwhile, out in the neighborhoods, "a 5 story condo building with 28 units? What do you think this is, manhattan? We don't want OUR neighborhood going to yuppie hell in a yuppie handbasket."

Doesn't a lot of this come down to the weirdly unique veto power Chicago aldemen have in their own districts? I mean, as long as you have pro-development aldermen downtown, and anti-development ones in the hoods, that's what you'll get.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I actually heard Chicago did this in some sort of misguided attempt to "preserve affordable housing" and then was shocked when three-flats were converted into single-family homes for millionaires instead.

At least at the urban neighborhood level, downzonings are almost always believed to "preserve affordability" when ususally they do the opposite (of course some folks are just cynically keeping new development or others out).

But, increasingly, suburban downzonings are probably "preserving affordability" because market preferences are mostly for multifamily and in-town living, so when you preserve 3-acre minimums in backcountry CT, you've made RE cheaper because people don't want to live like that anymore.