CHICAGO | General Developments

[west-town-brad]

the whole TOD thing makes me think that govenment is not totally inept. glad to see it expanded to bus routes, but they could just drop parking minimums altogether city wide.

[Chi-Sky21]

The city should try to make money off it, if a developer uses TOD to put less parking and more units in a building they are making more money so should pay slightly for it. All money should go towards the transportation fund to fund improvements that will be needed by the added capacity. The fee should not be big enough as to discourage the use of TOD. Conversely, (this may already be on the books,no idea) but if a developer goes over a certain amount of parking ratio they should be charged also. Maybe make the parking quota fluctuate based on how far you are from public tran.....

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

The city should try to make money off it, if a developer uses TOD to put less parking and more units in a building they are making more money so should pay slightly for it. All money should go towards the transportation fund to fund improvements that will be needed by the added capacity. The fee should not be big enough as to discourage the use of TOD. Conversely, (this may already be on the books,no idea) but if a developer goes over a certain amount of parking ratio they should be charged also. Maybe make the parking quota fluctuate based on how far you are from public tran.....

If you add more fees for TOD, it undermines the whole idea. You want to make it less costly to build dense, parking-light structures, not more costly. Plus adding more unnecessary fees to development does nothing to help create affordable housing

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

the whole TOD thing makes me think that govenment is not totally inept. glad to see it expanded to bus routes, but they could just drop parking minimums altogether city wide.

In the next decade, I want to see NO parking minimums anywhere for any reason and to remove single family zoning from every single lot in the city. Minneapolis just made it legal again to build up to three units anywhere in the city. This is an absolute no-brainer. It should not be illegal to build developments that look exactly like the most desirable existing neighborhoods in the city.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

In the next decade, I want to see NO parking minimums anywhere for any reason and to remove single family zoning from every single lot in the city. Minneapolis just made it legal again to build up to three units anywhere in the city. This is an absolute no-brainer. It should not be illegal to build developments that look exactly like the most desirable existing neighborhoods in the city.

Agree. All the deconversions in my neighborhood are concerning of their impact on neighborhood businesses and transit ridership. Removing single family only zoning would offset that and even help homeowners who want to provide an accessory dwelling unit.

When I used to live over in west lakeview, my street had a really nice mix of SFRs, 2-4 flats and 6-8 unit apartment buildings.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

If you add more fees for TOD, it undermines the whole idea. You want to make it less costly to build dense, parking-light structures, not more costly. Plus adding more unnecessary fees to development does nothing to help create affordable housing

I am not saying huge fees. But the developer is getting to make more money from having to devote less space to parking. I see no issue if the city gets a little of that profit back to benefit the very infrastructure that makes the developers location even more desirable. And i am not some guy that wants to tax a ton, but the city needs more somewhat reliable sources of money for infrastructure. But you would also need it written this money could be used for nothing else. Good luck with that. The ideal money source for this would have been the parking meters but we pissed that away.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I am not saying huge fees. But the developer is getting to make more money from having to devote less space to parking. I see no issue if the city gets a little of that profit back to benefit the very infrastructure that makes the developers location even more desirable. And i am not some guy that wants to tax a ton, but the city needs more somewhat reliable sources of money for infrastructure. But you would also need it written this money could be used for nothing else. Good luck with that. The ideal money source for this would have been the parking meters but we pissed that away.

I would argue that a lot of these properties would not be developed at all if not for TOD since the parking requerments would make the development unprofitable to begin with.

For example: The 1611 W Division development could not physically accomidate a parking strucutre given the size of the lot - so it would have reminded an abandoned pizza hut. As a neighbor to this building I was very involved in the "neighborhood approval process" at the time.

[the urban politician]

My concern is that the TOD will mostly go up alongside north side bus routes.

Has the TOD done much around the Green Line in Bronzeville?

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

My concern is that the TOD will mostly go up alongside north side bus routes.

Has the TOD done much around the Green Line in Bronzeville?

I'm fine with most of the construction being on the north side for now. Pack people in where demand is greatest and hopefully it'll spread over time. Who would have foreseen people paying $1m+ to live in the West Loop in 1994?

IIT is small, but hope to see some interesting student housing projects go up in Bronzeville. I think that'd be a great start.

[Suburban Shadow]

Seems like there are no TOD's going up around the Cermak station much less farther south.

There was the 6 story development that was on Curbed a year ago showing a development in the works at 31st and Indiana. I don't even know if that was a TOD or not.

[Baronvonellis]

So far this is just a TOD proposal...
I hope it passes. What are the odds that it was pass?

Yea, it's insane that it's illegal to build 2 or 3 flats in most neighborhood residential areas, but you can do it in Minneapolis. Most of Chicago was built up with 2 or 3 flats.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I am not saying huge fees. But the developer is getting to make more money from having to devote less space to parking. I see no issue if the city gets a little of that profit back to benefit the very infrastructure that makes the developers location even more desirable. And i am not some guy that wants to tax a ton, but the city needs more somewhat reliable sources of money for infrastructure. But you would also need it written this money could be used for nothing else. Good luck with that. The ideal money source for this would have been the parking meters but we pissed that away.

Why does everyone assume that profits are a thing for the government to pilfer? Hint: the government didn't do shit to "increase the profits", what they are doing is eliminating stupid and arbitrary regulations (i.e. restrictive zoning and parking mininums") and allowing the value of the land to revert back to what it would have been worth had the government not been moronic enough to restrict growth in the first place.

Developers already pay a share of their profits for public infrastructure and services, it's called taxes. We pay when we buy a property, we pay when we sell, we pay when we make income, we pay annually via property taxes, we pay fees for water, we pay fees for garbage, we pay fines constantly for each and every tiny little infraction like an overflowing trash can where some asshole came and dumped a car load of garbage behind our building, we pay $5k in fees for the privilege of spending another $10k to rip out an old lead water line, we pay if we Airbnb, we pay if we change zoning, we pay $125 for the city to give us a freaking piece of paper saying how many units a property has which is usually totally wrong anyhow....


What don't developers pay for in this city? You wonder why there's no affordable housing and whole neighborhoods are rotting at the same time? It's because the city has made doing business here so painful that there is no margin in providing affordable or mid tier housing anymore. But yeah, I'm sure more fines taxes and fees will help with that...

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I am not saying huge fees. But the developer is getting to make more money from having to devote less space to parking. I see no issue if the city gets a little of that profit back to benefit the very infrastructure that makes the developers location even more desirable. And i am not some guy that wants to tax a ton, but the city needs more somewhat reliable sources of money for infrastructure. But you would also need it written this money could be used for nothing else. Good luck with that. The ideal money source for this would have been the parking meters but we pissed that away.

This seems like a poor mechanism to fund transportation frankly. I think the transit TIF is probably a better model. I would not support more fees on development to eliminate parking. In a lot of cases code is calling to build spaces that people don't even want (or will pay for) which has an impact on what pencils out and what is ultimately affordable for renters/buyers.

[Chi-Sky21]

It's probably to finite of a source anyway since they wont always be building new units anyways. Just putting ideas out there. TIF is how they secured the funding for Red line /purple line correct? So you are probably right. Either way, they need more funds not just to be rehabbing old lines but increasing the capacity and frequency of trains and buses otherwise having all these extra people near public tran wont matter since it will be jam packed anyways.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Why does everyone assume that profits are a thing for the government to pilfer?

If the government "pilfered" profits, that would be bad. But if citizens create mutually agreed upon rules whereby profits are taxed and are used to pay for investments that produce prosperity and economic growth, that would be good.

I think it's awesome if developers use their labor, capital and knowledge to produce profits. And developers think it's awesome if our commonwealth makes public investments in infrastructure and policing and education that increase the value of their holdings and ensure the viability of their investments.

But it's absurd to believe that all profit is earned or inherently positive. If I buy a lot in a neighborhood and do nothing with it but wait for the value to go up and then sell it, I'm extracting value from the community. That profit is unearned and the value only exists because of the enterprise of nearby residents and the strength of the community from which I am detracting. Likewise, if there is a vibrant, coherent, fine-grained streetwall and McDonald's buys a row of buildings to tear down and erect a drive through, I've no doubt it would be profitable. But not everything profitable is good, in this case profits would be extracted from the unpriced value created by the fabric of community. Only organizations like goverments can prevent market failures of these sorts. And taxing what is undesirable and investing in what markets find difficult to provide is Milton Friedman's idea, not mine.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Why does everyone assume that profits are a thing for the government to pilfer? Hint: the government didn't do shit to "increase the profits", what they are doing is eliminating stupid and arbitrary regulations (i.e. restrictive zoning and parking mininums") and allowing the value of the land to revert back to what it would have been worth had the government not been moronic enough to restrict growth in the first place.

Developers already pay a share of their profits for public infrastructure and services, it's called taxes. We pay when we buy a property, we pay when we sell, we pay when we make income, we pay annually via property taxes, we pay fees for water, we pay fees for garbage, we pay fines constantly for each and every tiny little infraction like an overflowing trash can where some asshole came and dumped a car load of garbage behind our building, we pay $5k in fees for the privilege of spending another $10k to rip out an old lead water line, we pay if we Airbnb, we pay if we change zoning, we pay $125 for the city to give us a freaking piece of paper saying how many units a property has which is usually totally wrong anyhow....


What don't developers pay for in this city? You wonder why there's no affordable housing and whole neighborhoods are rotting at the same time? It's because the city has made doing business here so painful that there is no margin in providing affordable or mid tier housing anymore. But yeah, I'm sure more fines taxes and fees will help with that...

^ suburban

[Mikemak27]

“But it's absurd to believe that all profit is earned or inherently positive. If I buy a lot in a neighborhood and do nothing with it but wait for the value to go up and then sell it, I'm extracting value from the community. That profit is unearned and the value only exists because of the enterprise of nearby residents and the strength of the community from which I am detracting.”

If you were to actually do that, you’d pay some realtor and lawyer’s salary, you’d pay the city and county a transaction fee, you’d pay for the cost of the lot, and you’d pay annual property taxes, along with any fines you might incur with not taking care of your empty lot. No, your not extracting value from the community. Your putting a lot of risk on a Hail Mary that your lot goes up so much in value in Such a short time to pay for all of the costs listed above, that it would likely be a dumb investment decision. Buy an S&P 500 equity index instead and save yourself the hassle.

[LouisVanDerWright]

It's funny he mentions land speculation as if people actually do that and make money. Land speculation is literally the riskiest investment in real estate because land basically has no value during real estate down cycles. If you can't rent it out and can't justify building anything there, it's real value as an investment is negative because you are still paying taxes and maintaining it.

The real way to make money in real estate is to change the highest and best use of land or increase the economies of agglomeration so significantly in some area that you can capture that growth as profit. Or preferably do both. That's what Sterling Bay does, they completely transformed the concept of highest and best use for old industrial hulk's in the West loop, but they also altered the highest and best use by changing zoning to allow it.

In neither case is the Developer getting a free ride, they are doing the work to improve the area and increase the potential of a community.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

So far this is just a TOD proposal...
I hope it passes. What are the odds that it was pass?

Yea, it's insane that it's illegal to build 2 or 3 flats in most neighborhood residential areas, but you can do it in Minneapolis. Most of Chicago was built up with 2 or 3 flats.

I would hope this becomes a trend. A few cities are starting this, where there is simply no such thing as SFH zoning. Chicago would be well served to adopt that, and it would be a fantastic way to add density without having to fight off NIMBYs

In addition, the city seems to seriously be considering allowing Coach House dwelling units again. If that passes, I have at least 5 properties where I would explore constructing a new one from scratch, if possible.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I would hope this becomes a trend. A few cities are starting this, where there is simply no such thing as SFH zoning. Chicago would be well served to adopt that, and it would be a fantastic way to add density without having to fight off NIMBYs

In addition, the city seems to seriously be considering allowing Coach House dwelling units again. If that passes, I have at least 5 properties where I would explore constructing a new one from scratch, if possible.

ADUs should be legal as of right citywide. I mean in a city filled with garden units (legal or otherwise) and thousands of coach houses there is simply no good reason to prohibit them.