HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #45261  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2019, 2:45 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop View Post
Is that why it doesn’t meet “his standards”? I didn’t read that....but I did see earlier comments more generically about what he wants to see more of in his ward. Honestly I don’t know much about him or what to expect, but I can’t help but have a sneaking suspicion that we should expect less development broadly in the 1st, which of course means an acceleration in price and rent growth (though less a not insignificant supply-induced demand effect - which a lot of market watchers completely miss), and a corresponding acceleration in the pace of gentrification.
Supply induced demand? You actually think people are moving to Logan Square because they are building TOD there? Lol...

Listen, nobody moves places because big new buildings are being built, big new buildings are built because people want to live there. All this is going to do is massively accelerate price gains. I'm already seeing $800k+ SFH sales in Avondale where there has been categorically no large scale new construction. At this rate I expect to start seeing $1mil+ sales in the next couple of years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
The understanding that I have is that he wants more family sized units.

Given that the building is of finite size, this means that the developer will need to build fewer apartments. Thus, less affordable housing.

This new Alderman is brilliant!

Anyhow, if I were the developer I would comply, and then just market it to groups of roommates.
Yeah "family sized units" i.e. things I would lose my real estate license if I said...

I'm telling you, one of these days an alderman is going to get sued on Federal Fair Housing violations...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45262  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2019, 3:59 AM
jpIllInoIs's Avatar
jpIllInoIs jpIllInoIs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 985
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Pretty absurd for a project that's 25% affordable housing and 35% "workeforce housing" whatever that means.

Oh well, more money for me...
I think workforce housing refers to City workers required to live within City boundaries. How this can be legislated is unknown to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45263  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2019, 6:24 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 11,889
Sears Tower Debasement.

June 3

at least this top corner is still clean.
Chicago | Sears Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | Sears Tower by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr
__________________
Harry C --- Chicago rep for SkyRise Cities ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45264  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2019, 9:03 PM
AlpacaObsessor AlpacaObsessor is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Lincoln Park, Chicago
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpIllInoIs View Post
I think workforce housing refers to City workers required to live within City boundaries. How this can be legislated is unknown to me.
Whereas affordable housing is generally targeted towards people making <60% of the area median income, workforce housing is targeted towards people making 80% -120% of the area median income. I think it's a way aldermen have been trying to solve the problem of giving options to the ultra poor and ultra rich while leaving out people in the middle (not that I agree with these sorts of prescriptive solutions).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45265  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2019, 9:28 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 11,889
South Bank

The East bank of the river - real-estate folk are pretty dumb.

June 3

Chicago | South Bank by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | South Bank by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

Chicago | South Bank by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr
__________________
Harry C --- Chicago rep for SkyRise Cities ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45266  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2019, 9:46 PM
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
>~< , QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Loop, Chicago
Posts: 1,208
^ The riverwalk looks really nice... it's not open for public use yet right?
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead. Trump delenda est.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45267  
Old Posted Jun 9, 2019, 10:31 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 11,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
^ The riverwalk looks really nice... it's not open for public use yet right?
Not last week when I was there.
__________________
Harry C --- Chicago rep for SkyRise Cities ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45268  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 1:27 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 11,889
Tribune Tower Rehab

__________________
Harry C --- Chicago rep for SkyRise Cities ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45269  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 2:44 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 11,889
Lakefront Bike Flyover

June 4

zzIMG_4327 by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

zzP1160601 by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

zzIMG_4338 by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

zzIMG_4323 by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr

zzIMG_4312 by Harry Carmichael, on Flickr
__________________
Harry C --- Chicago rep for SkyRise Cities ---- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45270  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 2:10 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryc View Post
June 3

at least this top corner is still clean.
Did anyone else see this awesome shot someone posted on Reddit?



https://www.reddit.com/r/chicago/com...s_ghost_tower/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45271  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 2:51 PM
gebs's Avatar
gebs gebs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: South Loop
Posts: 506
^^ Getting a Taipei 101 vibe from that shot for some reason. Love it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45272  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 3:41 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,770
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
The understanding that I have is that he wants more family sized units.

Given that the building is of finite size, this means that the developer will need to build fewer apartments. Thus, less affordable housing.

This new Alderman is brilliant!

Anyhow, if I were the developer I would comply, and then just market it to groups of roommates.
The school is existing, but the plan includes new construction in the former parking lot/schoolyard. So there is a way for the developer to add square footage and put up a bigger building if needed.

Not that said "family-sized units" would be cost-effective to build...
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45273  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 4:24 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,752
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
Yeah "family sized units" i.e. things I would lose my real estate license if I said...

I'm telling you, one of these days an alderman is going to get sued on Federal Fair Housing violations...

I'll defer to you guys because I'm not a real estate agent, but is it really a violation or discrimination for a politician to comment on housing mix? For example if an alderman says "I'm being told by people that it's hard for families to find housing, that means there needs to be more 3-4 bedroom units in the mix", is that discriminating against people who don't have kids?
Is it discrimination against families to want affordable studios and 1 bedrooms?

If we're at the point where saying "I want more 4 bedrooms built" is a fair housing violation because it restricts supply of studios, then we have a massive housing shortage and should focus on that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45274  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 5:22 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,770
^ The anti-discrimination aspects of Fair Housing apply only to real estate professionals, a politician can say what they want to say since they're not technically involved in the process of building, selling, or leasing the housing units.

Usually the enforcement of the law trends toward protection of dis-advantaged groups; for example, the law prohibits any discrimination based on familial status, but families with children are considered to be a dis-advantaged group while families or individuals without children are not. It can cut both ways, though - just as I can see a landlord in a big city apartment complex discriminating against families with kids, I could see a real estate agent in a religious part of the country discriminating against childless couples or non-traditional families, so it's important to have the law be neutral.

However, the mix of units a builder chooses to provide is not (in itself) a form of discrimination, outside of accessibility laws mandating a certain amount of accessible units. The law leaves the mix of units up to the builder and local zoning authorities to determine.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45275  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 5:39 PM
galleyfox galleyfox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
I'll defer to you guys because I'm not a real estate agent, but is it really a violation or discrimination for a politician to comment on housing mix? For example if an alderman says "I'm being told by people that it's hard for families to find housing, that means there needs to be more 3-4 bedroom units in the mix", is that discriminating against people who don't have kids?
Is it discrimination against families to want affordable studios and 1 bedrooms?

If we're at the point where saying "I want more 4 bedrooms built" is a fair housing violation because it restricts supply of studios, then we have a massive housing shortage and should focus on that.
That's the thing. If you're looking at the entire city, the affordable housing waiting list by far consists of people looking for studios and 1-Bedrooms. These are seniors, homeless, disabled of all races - people on fixed incomes who really do have nowhere else to go and have trouble finding roommates.

There's actually a quite decent supply of affordable larger apartments throughout the city. But they're not in the school districts and neighborhoods that families want most. But poor schools and violence are not a developer's responsibility to solve.

So yeah, the alderman has sorta decided ahead of time who he and a vocal group of constituents want to house, and not who the city needs to house.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45276  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 6:32 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
I'll defer to you guys because I'm not a real estate agent, but is it really a violation or discrimination for a politician to comment on housing mix? For example if an alderman says "I'm being told by people that it's hard for families to find housing, that means there needs to be more 3-4 bedroom units in the mix", is that discriminating against people who don't have kids?
Is it discrimination against families to want affordable studios and 1 bedrooms?

If we're at the point where saying "I want more 4 bedrooms built" is a fair housing violation because it restricts supply of studios, then we have a massive housing shortage and should focus on that.
But that's the thing, he isn't saying "I want 4 bedroom units", he is saying he wants "family housing". As a licensed broker I could lose my license, be fined up to $25k and possibly even serve jail time if I so much as said that, let alone went on the record with a newspaper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
^ The anti-discrimination aspects of Fair Housing apply only to real estate professionals, a politician can say what they want to say since they're not technically involved in the process of building, selling, or leasing the housing units.

Usually the enforcement of the law trends toward protection of dis-advantaged groups; for example, the law prohibits any discrimination based on familial status, but families with children are considered to be a dis-advantaged group while families or individuals without children are not. It can cut both ways, though - just as I can see a landlord in a big city apartment complex discriminating against families with kids, I could see a real estate agent in a religious part of the country discriminating against childless couples or non-traditional families, so it's important to have the law be neutral.

However, the mix of units a builder chooses to provide is not (in itself) a form of discrimination, outside of accessibility laws mandating a certain amount of accessible units. The law leaves the mix of units up to the builder and local zoning authorities to determine.
Yes, but this is where I think it will eventually be litigated. We aren't talking about developer's choice of unit mix, we are talking about government representatives saying things that would be blatantly illegal if they were landlords, developers, or licensed agents. Again, it's not illegal for a developer to say "I want to build more 3 bedroom units" just as it's not illegal for them to say "I don't want to buy in inner city neighborhoods, I am going to invest only in the suburbs". But it would be illegal for them to say "I don't want to rent to unmarried couples" or "I don't want to invest in black neighborhoods so I'm investing only in the suburbs".

You are correct, however, that the law really only applies to landlords, brokers, bankers, etc. Where it becomes a sticky issue is that guess who is the biggest landlord in Chicago? The CHA which is a municipal corporation and very much subject to fair housing laws. The only reason aldermen have gotten away with saying these things so far is that the Mayor appoints the CHA board and the city council doesn't have direct control.

Which brings me to the argument I've posted here before: aldermen might not be able to be prosecuted individually under the fair housing act, BUT they might find themselves in Trumpesque hot water from a policy perspective at some point. What I mean by that is courts do not just consider the letter of the law and whether your proposal technically violates it, they consider context and intent. When Trump's "Muslim Ban" was manifested in the form a "ban that just happens to be all Muslim countries plus North Korea", the courts immediately struck it down because they considered the context and intent. They took the things Trump said and considered the law he proposed in the context of multiple quotes about how bad Muslims are and how he was going to ban them.

My question is how long until someone sues the city over a proposed zoning change (which is an ordinance, i.e. a law just like the muslim ban) because the Alderman sponsoring it has had multiple staffers state that the goal is to "stop too many white people from moving in" or to "provide more housing for families"? Just as Trump can't go around saying he's going to ban Muslims and expect the courts not to eventually attack his policy proposals with his words, alderman shouldn't expect to be able to parade around saying things that blatantly violate fair housing laws and expect not to eventually get the city, CHA, or their buddies who are affordable housing developers sued in the same manner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45277  
Old Posted Jun 10, 2019, 7:55 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,752
I guess I just don't understand how "family housing" is a euphemism for anything negative. It means big units, right? A 4-bedroom can be rented by a straight family, a gay family, a single mother with 3 kids, or 4 friends. Discrimination would be on the sales/rental end, not in construction.
If someone can point to an alderman telling a developer not to rent to "those people", then fire away with the lawsuits.

I mean, "traffic and congestion" are much more real euphemisms when an alderman says they're going to chop 10 floors and 200 units off a development. That's where supply of studios and single bedrooms is actually restricted. If it's discrimination to say "family housing", it should equally be discrimination for an alderman to say "This development is too tall, too dense and out of context with the neighborhood"

The only thing creating a zero-sum game between single-occupant housing and family housing is the city restricting zoning and chopping down developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45278  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2019, 2:47 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,039
^ The law isn't about "negative euphemisms" it's about what things you can discriminate based on in housing. One of those protected classes is quite literally "familial status". That means you can't refuse to rent to people with kids. That means you can't refuse to rent to unmarried people. That means you can't refuse to rent to single people. So where does an elected official get off saying "we need more families to move here" which is quite literally saying "we need to discriminate against single people"....

If they were saying "we need a more diverse unit mix" or "our neighborhood lacks larger rental units" that would be one thing, but they aren't. They are saying we need more families and less single people in our neighborhood which is quite literally illegal if you are in any way involved with the sale or rental of real estate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45279  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2019, 10:55 AM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,752
The only way “more families” equals “fewer single people” is if the supply of housing is restricted. Otherwise developers will build enough units for everyone who wants to live in a neighborhood. We want these neighborhoods to grow, and grow for everyone. It should not be zero-sum.
I don’t see any issue with an alderman saying he wants more families. That’s natural, kids are natural. The problem is saying “I want ONLY families, and cut that 300 unit building down to 80 units, and make it all 3 bedrooms”.

Last edited by aaron38; Jun 11, 2019 at 1:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45280  
Old Posted Jun 11, 2019, 1:29 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
The only way “more families” equals “fewer single people” is if the supply of housing is restricted. Otherwise developers will build enough units for everyone who wants to live in a neighborhood.
I don’t see any issue with an alderman saying he wants more families. That’s natural, kids are natural. The issue is saying “I want more families, and cut that 300 unit building down to 80 units, and make it all 3 bedrooms”.
I think you're right and there isn't anything wrong with saying that you value families. However, it has been a strategy for decades to wink as one says "We want more three bedroom condos and apartments." What is plainly meant is "We want to make it more challenging for lower income folks to afford this neighborhood by only supplying housing that comes in large sizes."

It was said when they banned courtyard buildings. It was said when they banned 4+1's. It's said every time a building is proposed that contains a significant number of studios. It's said whenever a suburb imposes a large minimum lot size. Saying "we want family housing" is sometimes like saying, "I favor state's rights" instead of openly supporting some unpalatable initiative that a state may have proposed. It's a commonly understood to be coded language.
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 > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:31 AM.

     

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