CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

New York is dealing with many of the same issues:

http://ny.curbed.com/2015/5/28/99562...oned-landmarks

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/re...ture.html?_r=0

With all of the wailing and moaning around here you get this false sense that other cities are pristinely preserving all of their history while Chicago is a giant demolition machine. Sorry, it's not that simple

[Mr Downtown]

What's hilarious to me is seeing just how committed the "preservationists" on this forum are when a landmark stands in the way of a new supertall.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Friggin A, with the hyperbole.

There will be demolitions, guys. Get over it.

But at lease in the parts of town not dependent on public subsidies, a lot--a fucking lot--of properties are being renovated and seeing a new light. You guys are just fixating on bad news.

The south and west sides are a different story (at least in certain sizable chunks of those areas)

Well the south and west sides are over half the land area of this city and are home to a huge amount of the cities great residential architecture.

I've renovated 3 Grey Stones, I understand what goes into rehabbing one. I've pretty much given up on any preservation efforts for the majority of the South and West sides, there just isn't enough ROI in most areas to make it worth it.

What gets me though is when beautiful buildings that still serve a function are torn down, and usually for complete crap. Just on my block alone in Lakeview, we've lost 6 Grey Stones in the last 2 years.

To your NYC post below, very apples and oranges. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land in Chicago (Surface Lots, Drive Thrus, Gas Stations, etc) and this isn't something that really exists in NYC, or at least Manhattan and Brownstone Brooklyn.

What get's me is when a beautiful building is torn down and replaced by a cookie cutter high rise, and there a numerous surface lots in the area. I understand the economics, and you can only build on a lot you own, but it still sucks.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

What's hilarious to me is seeing just how committed the "preservationists" on this forum are when a landmark stands in the way of a new supertall.

I don't read these forums all that often, but are there really people advocating the demolition of landmarked buildings for "supertall's"?

[the urban politician]

^ He's probably whining about the highrise proposal along the South Michigan Ave streetwall. There's no hypocrisy here, Mr. D just has to stir things up

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

To your NYC post below, very apples and oranges. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land in Chicago (Surface Lots, Drive Thrus, Gas Stations, etc) and this isn't something that really exists in NYC, or at least Manhattan and Brownstone Brooklyn.

If you're just talking about Manhattan, then I'd definitely agree. You can still find vacant lots in Manhattan, but maybe not tons. My office is at Hudson Yards right now and while there's a ton of stuff going on there, there's still a lot of surface parking lots that haven't been sectioned off for construction yet around there. You'll still find vacant lots outside of that there but definitely not a lot. There's not much land left in Manhattan, but at the same time there's some awesome low rise architecture (I am more of a fan of the low rise architecture in Manhattan than its high rise architecture) and at least in midtown some of it's being torn down.

Queens and Brooklyn definitely have vacant land - no doubt about it. It's different though. It's not like on some blocks of the south side where you have a side of the street with 15 lots with only 5 houses on the block. My girlfriend's area in Queens is pretty dense (maybe between 50K and 70K per sq mile) but there's still a few gas stations, a few vacant/surface lots, and some smaller lots for businesses.


The thing that kills me though is that most people think that vacant lots aren't owned by anyone (and maybe just the city owns them) and they're up for the taking. A lot of people outside of this forum at least don't understand that vacant lots are still owned by people/businesses usually who are just as greedy as anyone else who thinks their land is worth more than it actually is. So then they don't sell it and a developer looks elsewhere. People often say that developers are greedy for tearing down buildings, but I don't always see it that way. For every building torn down in the downtown area where there's a vacant lot nearby, I see a greedy vacant lot owner who didn't want to sell to anyone.

[the urban politician]

^ I partially agree with your entire post, although I'm not sure "greed" is the reason people aren't selling lots in the more troubled areas of the city. I just don't think anyone is interested in buying them, which is likely why the city came up with that $1 per lot program.

Also, in a general sense perhaps you should not use the word "greedy" as if it's evil to want a certain price for an asset you own. It's a falsitude that developers and property owners are "greedy" because they want a certain amount of money.

Is the guy who owns the guitar shop greedy because he wants $150 for his guitar? Is the lady who is a personal trainer greedy because she charges $40 for her services? Is the artist greedy because he charges $500 for the painting he spent 3 days painstakingly creating?

Property is somebody's business. It's somebody's way of making a living. It's how they pay their bills, feed their family, send their kids to college. It's not necessarily greed.

Sorry, pet peeve when I keep hearing people use that term.

[marothisu]

^ Sorry, I meant in more established areas like downtown and various north/northwest side areas. I can understand someone in East Garfield Park who bought in 2007 wanting to maybe hold onto it.

[King of Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ Sorry, I meant in more established areas like downtown and various north/northwest side areas. I can understand someone in East Garfield Park who bought in 2007 wanting to maybe hold onto it.

I agree with TUP here; there are probably multiple complex factors that go into why various parking lots, empty grass fields, etc have remained as such in the dense areas of Chicago in this hot market, and overestimation of a property may just be one factor. There may also be complex legal issues, various liens that may not be able to be satisfied, multiple ownership interests who need time to work thru various offers etc etc. Sometimes there may be complex environmental issues with a parking lot that may it not financially feasible for a developer to buy a certain lot at this time etc.

Having said that, anytime I am traveling through the city and see a parking lot or an empty grass lot, I now visualize something AMAZING being built there. Like for example, I was over by Clybourn and Sheffield today, and there are numerous lots that would be PERFECT for development, and one wonders why something has not yet been built there yet. I am sure there is a map out there with every empty lot in the city, and developers look at this map like a Monopoly board, trying to figure out how to develop that lot in a way that is profitable.

I spend a lot of time browsing this board (but not posting a lot) and now I like to sketch out developments, with paper and pencil, that I myself would like to build on empty lots. Im not a developer, and have never even owned real estate in my life, but as a hobby, I like to sketch out exciting architectural projects for empty lots, that help make a neighborhood more dense and walkable. I even try to map out where future BRT stations can go, etc.

[King of Chicago]

Also, as far as helping to build out infrastructure that will enable MOST commuters to switch to walking/biking/public trans for most trips that they would take, I like this guy's invention....one of the reasons Chicagoans do not switch to biking year-round is because of the weather...this type of bike eliminates that problem...I am picturing something like this becoming the primary mode of transit (after public transit, of course):

https://youtu.be/4lKq1fGtXFM

[marothisu]

Again my point is that when I hear someone saying "oh that developer is greedy for tearing down this building and putting their stuff up" I also think about the possibility of the developer being shut down for some other parcels of land near it by other greedy parties. Let's take 8 E Huron (State & Huron) for example, which tore down a few pretty nice old buildings for a new high rise. There are a handful of vacant lots within a few blocks of there (west). What are the chances that they never tried to reach out to any of them? Maybe they didn't and maybe they did, but the point is that many people believe that vacant plots of land aren't owned by anyone and are up for the taking. They don't understand that the same type of negotiating goes into their sale as anything else.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Again my point is that when I hear someone saying "oh that developer is greedy for tearing down this building and putting their stuff up" I also think about the possibility of the developer being shut down for some other parcels of land near it by other greedy parties. Let's take 8 E Huron (State & Huron) for example, which tore down a few pretty nice old buildings for a new high rise. There are a handful of vacant lots within a few blocks of there (west). What are the chances that they never tried to reach out to any of them? Maybe they didn't and maybe they did, but the point is that many people believe that vacant plots of land aren't owned by anyone and are up for the taking. They don't understand that the same type of negotiating goes into their sale as anything else.

I've never taken a survey, but I'd be shocked if people think lot's are "up for the taking". I don't think the average person is that stupid. Even if they are, what does that have to do with anything?

Also, it isn't about a developer being greedy, if they have the legal right, they can build whatever they want on their property. As TUP stated, people view land as a business, and they'd be stupid to not have their financial interests top of mine.

I place all of the blame on the city, there needs to be much stricter regulations in place around what can and cannot be demo'd. Additionally we should be taxing owners of vacant lots at the maximum value of a developed lot, not the assessed value of a parking lot; watch how quickly those lots get developed then.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I place all of the blame on the city, there needs to be much stricter regulations in place around what can and cannot be demo'd. Additionally we should be taxing owners of vacant lots at the maximum value of a developed lot, not the assessed value of a parking lot; watch how quickly those lots get developed then.

^ I think stricter or more extensive landmarking would be one solution.

A lot of people here talk about taxing owners of vacant lots at the maximum value, but I just don't see that achieving the intended results. Here are the issues with that:

a) It could actually reduce the value of land (people will pay less for land because it is taxed so high)

b) It may actually encourage more downzonings (If I have to pay the tax rate of "improved land" for my lot, I might as well try to get the lowest zoning possible)

c) You may see more foreclosures and, all in all, people may have a harder time obtaining the necessary financing to purchase vacant land being that the cost of ownership is that much higher

d) Similar to b) above, instead of going through the painstaking effort of upzoning my land to create a larger development, I'm under financial pressure to pay very high taxes so I will quickly throw up whatever is appropriate for my zoning. This is a problem, because a lot of the development we are seeing is after developers have gone through zoning changes, zoning variances, or to take advantage of TOD zoning. That can take several months or even years. I may be less compelled to do that if, while holding onto my land, I'm burning through so much more money from higher taxes.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I've never taken a survey, but I'd be shocked if people think lot's are "up for the taking". I don't think the average person is that stupid. Even if they are, what does that have to do with anything?

I've seen it a number of times implied in groups like Forgotten Chicago.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I've seen it a number of times implied in groups like Forgotten Chicago.

Perhaps I have too much faith in humanity

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think stricter or more extensive landmarking would be one solution.

A lot of people here talk about taxing owners of vacant lots at the maximum value, but I just don't see that achieving the intended results. Here are the issues with that:

a) It could actually reduce the value of land (people will pay less for land because it is taxed so high)

b) It may actually encourage more downzonings (If I have to pay the tax rate of "improved land" for my lot, I might as well try to get the lowest zoning possible)

c) You may see more foreclosures and, all in all, people may have a harder time obtaining the necessary financing to purchase vacant land being that the cost of ownership is that much higher

d) Similar to b) above, instead of going through the painstaking effort of upzoning my land to create a larger development, I'm under financial pressure to pay very high taxes so I will quickly throw up whatever is appropriate for my zoning. This is a problem, because a lot of the development we are seeing is after developers have gone through zoning changes, zoning variances, or to take advantage of TOD zoning. That can take several months or even years. I may be less compelled to do that if, while holding onto my land, I'm burning through so much more money from higher taxes.

Totally agree, I envision more parameters around any increase in taxation. I don't know the full solution, but something should be done.

[Mr Downtown]

Georgists believe in taxing the land on its inherent characteristics, not on its improvements. And a system with some Georgist principles is often credited (PDF report from Lincoln Institute) with keeping Pittsburgh's urban fabric more intact than other cities, where small marginally tenanted buildings were demolished to lower the taxes. Alas, Pittsburgh scuttled its unique system a decade ago, for other reasons.

I think Georgists' views of what contributes to property values is hopelessly 19th century, but that's a discussion for another day—and may not matter much to the underlying basic principle.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think stricter or more extensive landmarking would be one solution.

A lot of people here talk about taxing owners of vacant lots at the maximum value, but I just don't see that achieving the intended results. Here are the issues with that:

a) It could actually reduce the value of land (people will pay less for land because it is taxed so high)

b) It may actually encourage more downzonings (If I have to pay the tax rate of "improved land" for my lot, I might as well try to get the lowest zoning possible)

c) You may see more foreclosures and, all in all, people may have a harder time obtaining the necessary financing to purchase vacant land being that the cost of ownership is that much higher

d) Similar to b) above, instead of going through the painstaking effort of upzoning my land to create a larger development, I'm under financial pressure to pay very high taxes so I will quickly throw up whatever is appropriate for my zoning. This is a problem, because a lot of the development we are seeing is after developers have gone through zoning changes, zoning variances, or to take advantage of TOD zoning. That can take several months or even years. I may be less compelled to do that if, while holding onto my land, I'm burning through so much more money from higher taxes.

But the idea of taxing vacant land at the same rate as similar parcels with improvements isn't about raising the price of vacant land, it's about tanking the price of vacant land. If you make vacant land virtually worthless, then people will be much more hesitant to destroy improvements that make the land pay.

If you have a vintage two flat and its "more trouble than it's worth" to maintain, then there is a significant incentive just to raze the thing if your taxes go down. If your taxes stay the same, more people are going to try to retain such buildings as the land becomes literally worthless the second they tear it down. The goal is to make improved land inherently more desirable than vacant land.

[spyguy]

927 W Irving Park - 28 units, 14 parking spaces

[harryc]

Originally Posted by spyguy

927 W Irving Park - 28 units, 14 parking spaces

How hard would it be to re-use the terracotta ? looks like the few existing accents could be pasted on fairly easily.