HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #38561  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 9:14 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,302
Curbed is reporting that the NIMBY Butthole Brigade and their at-service Alderman Fuckface have blocked redevelopment of the Father and Son Plaza strip mall on North Avenue. So now we get to look at the most hideous and inappropriate use of land near transit for another 30 goddamn years.

The TOD ordinance needs more teeth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38562  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 9:40 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Curbed is reporting that the NIMBY Butthole Brigade and their at-service Alderman Fuckface have blocked redevelopment of the Father and Son Plaza strip mall on North Avenue. So now we get to look at the most hideous and inappropriate use of land near transit for another 30 goddamn years.

The TOD ordinance needs more teeth.
The TOD ordinance should state that if the alderman won't support zoning changes for TOD-eligible properties that the City will give a developer $25,000 per unit to help subsidize as many legally-allowed Section 8 units on the land as can be fit within existing zoning. That way if we can't have real, market-rate TOD, the City will gain affordable housing and NIMBY groups will have to think long and hard about whether they'd rather have market-rate density, or a cluster of Section 8 units nearby. It would balance the playing field of the interests of the City versus the interests of a few selfish jackalopes blocking transit-appropriate developments. The money would come from the 10% affordable set-aside fund from developers that preferred to pay rather than build affordable units in developments that fall under that requirement.

Edit: Considering how gerrymandered his district is, it wouldn't surprise me at all if his district didn't include that property after the next redistricting anyway. It's *barely* in his district anyway. The redistricting is, what, five years away? Eight years away? A lot less than 30 anyway.
__________________
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)

Last edited by emathias; Sep 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM. Reason: extra note
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38563  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 9:48 PM
ithakas's Avatar
ithakas ithakas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 782
Question for developers/investors, etc:

With the new affordable housing mandate zoned to very specific parts of the city, isn't the city effectively filtering out these neighborhoods from some investment and encouraging more development in areas in earlier stages of gentrification?

It struck me from a quick look that none of the areas zoned are particularly at risk of more gentrification – the West Loop, Near North, Milwaukee Ave up to Logan/Avondale – specifically because they're all relatively gentrified as it is.

Seems like a crafty way to actually enable more gentrification in a broader area of the city, rather than put the brakes on it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38564  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 10:27 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
Question for developers/investors, etc:

With the new affordable housing mandate zoned to very specific parts of the city, isn't the city effectively filtering out these neighborhoods from some investment and encouraging more development in areas in earlier stages of gentrification?

It struck me from a quick look that none of the areas zoned are particularly at risk of more gentrification – the West Loop, Near North, Milwaukee Ave up to Logan/Avondale – specifically because they're all relatively gentrified as it is.

Seems like a crafty way to actually enable more gentrification in a broader area of the city, rather than put the brakes on it.
What the Aldermen don't realize is that the yuppies are going to keep coming.

So if you restrict larger developments, you are actually accelerating the loss of affordable housing because people will simply buy up shabby and cheap small buildings and convert them to higher rent units (or expensive SFH's), thus displacing more families.

If the city instead allowed large, market rate development as-of-right, then much of the luxury housing would be served by these newer buildings while the older, shabbier housing might get left alone. But this isn't happening.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38565  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 10:30 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
Question for developers/investors, etc:

With the new affordable housing mandate zoned to very specific parts of the city, isn't the city effectively filtering out these neighborhoods from some investment and encouraging more development in areas in earlier stages of gentrification?

It struck me from a quick look that none of the areas zoned are particularly at risk of more gentrification – the West Loop, Near North, Milwaukee Ave up to Logan/Avondale – specifically because they're all relatively gentrified as it is.

Seems like a crafty way to actually enable more gentrification in a broader area of the city, rather than put the brakes on it.
Oh don't worry, the alderbeasts are busy trying to fuck up the development of these areas as best they can. I just found out that Rosa (35th) is trying to downzone all of Milwaukee Ave from the square to Central Park to B1-1. There isn't a single B1-1 zone on all of Milwaukee Ave south of the Kennedy. This is quite possibly the most egregious downzoning abuse yet proposed for a commercial corridor.

Not only are the aldermen not willing to upzone these TOD areas, but Rosa is specifically trying to circumvent the process. I kid you not, his justification is to "prevent towers like we've seen further south on Milwaukee ave under TOD laws". Of course he also wants a stranglehold on every single business and smaller development along that strip so he can bring out the affordable housing brigade and make every building 40% affordable housing. Also he has the local artists and property owners (some of whom just bought in the last 6 months, what a joke. And they want to tell people who have been living here 5, 10 or 30 years that Milwaukee ave needs to be downzoned now that we are FINALLY seeing storefronts fill up) supporting it because we need a "community input driven process for all new developments" and that it will "lower their taxes".

I shit you not, I had one person tell me that I shouldn't have a right to give input on this since I live a block off Milwaukee ave and they own property on Milwaukee Ave. They literally just bought that property and don't even live there. Of course they tried to sneak this change in without a community meeting to discuss it as well. We apparently only need community meetings when it's upzoning, not when it's a mass stripping of landowner's property rights. I will let you all know if they end up scheduling a meeting along these lines and please please please come and back me up on dressing down this alderclown before he destroys this section of Milwaukee Avenue for a generation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38566  
Old Posted Sep 25, 2017, 10:35 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,302
Luckily, the subway's last stop under Milwaukee is at Logan Square. So Alderman Rosa the Posa isn't really stopping TOD here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38567  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2017, 2:38 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Luckily, the subway's last stop under Milwaukee is at Logan Square. So Alderman Rosa the Posa isn't really stopping TOD here.
If it's everything North of the square then it hurts those blocks between the square and Kimball, which are great candidates for TOD since there is an entrance to the Logan Square station halfway up them, and they are a pretty vibrant section.
__________________
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
     
     
  #38568  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 12:51 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Luckily, the subway's last stop under Milwaukee is at Logan Square. So Alderman Rosa the Posa isn't really stopping TOD here.
The last stop is actually Belmont and Rosa controls everything from Kedzie to Central Park throughout this entire corridor... Much of the section of Milwaukee from Kimball to Kedzie is -3 prime TOD zoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38569  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 3:15 AM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is online now
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,470
That's how politicians earn a reputation for being bought. Far too many of them make policy contrary to market forces, because they know that creates market pressure and hence, value.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38570  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 6:33 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithakas View Post
Question for developers/investors, etc:

With the new affordable housing mandate zoned to very specific parts of the city, isn't the city effectively filtering out these neighborhoods from some investment and encouraging more development in areas in earlier stages of gentrification?

It struck me from a quick look that none of the areas zoned are particularly at risk of more gentrification – the West Loop, Near North, Milwaukee Ave up to Logan/Avondale – specifically because they're all relatively gentrified as it is.

Seems like a crafty way to actually enable more gentrification in a broader area of the city, rather than put the brakes on it.
Doubtful. The maps associated with this ordinance cover a comically large swath of the West and Northwest Side, including virtually all the desirable areas plus many adjacent areas with no hope of gentrification anytime soon. If the city's trying to spread the wealth, it's not clear where they want the wealth to go.

Seriously, these zones are enormous and cover almost every neighborhood that could conceivably attract development, and then some. The Near West zone is a joke, it contains all of East and West Garfield Park. Real danger of gentrification by Lake and Pulaski...

What this ordinance is, is a blatant pander to NW Side Latinos (e.g. Moreno) and West Side blacks (e.g. Burnett). At the same time, it's intended to be a kinder, gentler alternative to the radical plans being pushed by Maldonado, Rosa, Guzzardi etc. It's notable that Pilsen, Bridgeport, Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and other areas undergoing gentrification are not addressed at all by this new ordinance.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38571  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 7:16 AM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,612
The project (Ardhaus?) By Cedar Street on the SW corner of LaSalle and Huron has a loud alarm that kept going off after midnight tonight waking me up three times, after which I called 311, which transferred me to 911. Officers came out and I told them why I'd called and that I wanted them ticketed. They said they would. I've been surrounded by construction for 2-3 years and this is the first time I've called to complain about anything, but man I hate being woken up repeatedly after midnight by loud alarms.
__________________
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
     
     
  #38572  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 12:32 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,867
^Why do you hate new development?

If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that nothing must stand in the way of a new building.

Unless the building is "fugly." Then it's somehow the alderman's fault.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38573  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 1:46 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
^Why do you hate new development?

If I've learned anything from this forum, it's that nothing must stand in the way of a new building.

Unless the building is "fugly." Then it's somehow the alderman's fault.
I kept petitioning Reilly to zone that whole block for affordable 1/4 acre ranch-style homes. I mean, really, we need architectural diversity in River North, and there simply aren't enough ranch-style homes in this neighborhood. I grew up in a ranch-style home and how am I supposed to feel welcome in this neighborhood if it thumbs its nose my childhood memories?

I also tried to get a petition going among my neighbors for the alderman to force that 1-story building on the SW corner of Huron and Wells where a CVS is going in, to tear it down and replace it with lots for single-width mobile homes. They're so affordable that I know they're the best solution for our city's affordable housing crisis. The lot across the street from my childhood ranch home in the rural Oregon town of 560 people I grew up in had a mobile home on it so I know what I'm talking about. Plus, they're MOBILE!! How rad is that! A house ... that has WHEELS! It's the wave of the future.

I wrote a 54 page letter to Elon Musk about how he needs to add a new MH model to his line of electric vehicles because that is really the only thing wrong with mobile homes, that the have wheels but no motor. Toss a couple batteries under one, wire them to the wheels, and BAM! revolutionary new carbon-friendly transportation and housing all in one.

Of course I know there is really just one last problem, that there isn't enough street parking for them, so I made a Power Point and sent it to Chicago Parking Meters, LLC, illustrating how they need to accommodate housing with their meter plans, and that it should be cheap because otherwise the rent is too damn high! I think once they see that, they'll realize the important role they play in eliminating homelessness in this city by accommodating all of the new Tesla MH models that Elon and I are going to build a factory in Pullman to manufacture. I'm so excited to get this going just as soon as Elon responds with his final tweaks to the business plan I sent him. I know he's busy, but I expect he'll get back to my by tomorrow so if any of you need a job we'll be hiring on Friday to staff up!
__________________
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)

Last edited by emathias; Sep 27, 2017 at 1:48 PM. Reason: Sorry, lack of sleep made me a little silly ...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38574  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 2:02 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,532
They aren't called mobile homes anymore, they are called "tiny houses".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38575  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 3:06 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 15,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
Doubtful. The maps associated with this ordinance cover a comically large swath of the West and Northwest Side, including virtually all the desirable areas plus many adjacent areas with no hope of gentrification anytime soon. If the city's trying to spread the wealth, it's not clear where they want the wealth to go.

Seriously, these zones are enormous and cover almost every neighborhood that could conceivably attract development, and then some. The Near West zone is a joke, it contains all of East and West Garfield Park. Real danger of gentrification by Lake and Pulaski...

What this ordinance is, is a blatant pander to NW Side Latinos (e.g. Moreno) and West Side blacks (e.g. Burnett). At the same time, it's intended to be a kinder, gentler alternative to the radical plans being pushed by Maldonado, Rosa, Guzzardi etc. It's notable that Pilsen, Bridgeport, Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and other areas undergoing gentrification are not addressed at all by this new ordinance.
The only thing comical is how these efforts to curb gentrification will fail.

You don't need upzonings to gentrify. You don't need to build a single highrise.

Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lincoln Park, Lakeview--all gentrified largely without any highrise development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38576  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 3:42 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 266
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
The only thing comical is how these efforts to curb gentrification will fail.

You don't need upzonings to gentrify. You don't need to build a single highrise.

Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lincoln Park, Lakeview--all gentrified largely without any highrise development.
Exactly. People confuse the symptom (high rise development) with the cause (increased demand for housing in that area). The hipster coffee shop isn't changing the neighborhood as much as following a neighborhood that's changing. (Of course the coffeeshop also encourages gentrification, but that's a second-order effect) Blocking development only intensifies these pressures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38577  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 6:59 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,867
Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias View Post
I kept petitioning Reilly to zone that whole block for affordable 1/4 acre ranch-style homes.
Of course, under Chicago's cumulative zoning ordinance, that block is already zoned for ranch houses. It's anything resembling a city that often needs an upzoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38578  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 7:15 PM
west-town-brad west-town-brad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
The only thing comical is how these efforts to curb gentrification will fail.

You don't need upzonings to gentrify. You don't need to build a single highrise.

Wicker Park, Bucktown, Lincoln Park, Lakeview--all gentrified largely without any highrise development.
what's comical is that the two alderman that take the most campaign contributions from developers/builders are the ones that are writing and pushing this ordinance... seriously you can lookup all donations online... for the 1st ward, something like 95% of his total donations from the past 5 years have been builders and developers. you think he is going to do anything to stop his gravy train?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38579  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2017, 9:11 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by west-town-brad View Post
what's comical is that the two alderman that take the most campaign contributions from developers/builders are the ones that are writing and pushing this ordinance... seriously you can lookup all donations online... for the 1st ward, something like 95% of his total donations from the past 5 years have been builders and developers. you think he is going to do anything to stop his gravy train?
Yes, exactly. This is most certainly an attempt to co-opt the 606 anti-gentrification plan pushed by Maldonado et al, and a way for Moreno to represent to his low-income constituents, and Burnett to represent to his, that they are "doing something" about gentrification.

Notably, as a sweetener to developers, the new ordinance increases the allowable income for on-site affordable units to 100% of AMI (was previously 80%). Developers wouldn't be able to avoid building the affordable units anymore, but they will be able to charge higher rents (or higher sales prices in the case of condos) and still call them "affordable". Ald. Rosa is likely correct when he says that developers will comply with this new ordinance by building 1BRs and studios, and renting them to educated Millennials who qualify on income.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38580  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2017, 12:21 AM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,824
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the new ordinance only applies to sites that are upzoned. Meaning that all the demolition of balloon frame houses/2-3 flat buildings with modern 3 flat condos will continue unabated. So what was the point of wasting anyone's time with this legislation, other than to convince Chicagoans that their government is indeed "working" for them?

Its a shame because that will make higher density TOD harder to achieve, and that sort of shortsightedness will harm the city for the lifetime of those new buildings, which can be generations.
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 3:14 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.