HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 6:01 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
I diagree. If anything, the most affordable apartments for rent are the older, un-updated buildings (unless they are immaculately restored and located in a posh area). I live in a 12 flat walkup from the 1920s. Its certainly cheaper than newer options nearby. And as mentioned, at least in this city, the older buildings are denser by default.
Yes, old buildings depreciate over time. But if you don't allow their re-development an ever growing scarcity premium wipes out this depreciation many times over. This is why NIMBYism is so profitable to homeowners and landlords. They reap huge gains with very little additional investment over time.

The result: San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 6:19 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Yes, old buildings depreciate over time. But if you don't allow their re-development an ever growing scarcity premium wipes out this depreciation many times over. This is why NIMBYism is so profitable to homeowners and landlords. They reap huge gains with very little additional investment over time.

The result: San Francisco.
Its a fine line. The dynamic in SF is completely different than the one in Chicago and I dont think its a useful comparison. SF is geographically small to begin with, and people generally like the city for what it is today. Its always been a semi-desirable place, but not to the absurd degree it is today thanks to tech salaries. Do you demolish the charm of SF to accommodate everyone who wants to live there? What if, lets just say for a thought experiment, the number of people that would want to live there is 3 million. Can the city ever support every person who wants to be in such a tiny space? Would they even still want to once it resembles a district in Hong Kong? I think thats pretty debatable.

The other issue is the general decline in quality of architecture for residential structures over the past century. They may be structurally better, but from an aesthetic standpoint, they are pretty awful. Of course this is a broad brush, but with new code regulations, parking requirements, and cheaper building materials, it basically guarantees it will be uglier and less human scaled. And the odds it will have flourishes that buildings from the 20s had, I think is now something reserved for luxury properties of today (real brick exterior, hardwood, terra cotta, built ins, etc). These things are what recently have given our cities their competitive advantage: their uniqueness to the bland, characterless tract home suburbs. We squander that at our peril.

I remember what fascinated me about old northern cities at first, and it was first and foremost their age. The Sunbelt was new and sterile. Walking among homes and trees that were still standing after 100 years, the vegetation and the architecture almost melding into one. It was, and still is a thrill. Maybe there was a faded painted advertisement on the side of a building for a newspaper that went out of business 50 years ago...it tied you to history. Every corner was a new discovery. I worry when we lose that. It cant be faked. And i see it as a competitve advantage to be cherished, again, esp when there are parts of the city that need the rebirth so much more.

Last edited by Via Chicago; Oct 6, 2016 at 6:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 6:39 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
Its a fine line. The dynamic in SF is completely different than the one in Chicago and I dont think its a useful comparison. SF is geographically small to begin with, and people generally like the city for what it is today. Its always been a semi-desirable place, but not to the absurd degree it is today thanks to tech salaries. Do you demolish the charm of SF to accommodate everyone who wants to live there? What if, lets just say for a thought experiment, the number of people that would want to live there is 3 million. Can the city ever support every person who wants to be in such a tiny space? Would they even still want to once it resembles a district in Hong Kong? I think thats pretty debatable.
Well this is why we like markets. All of those factors you listed would be reflected in the market price, which would coordinate buyers and sellers in a way that maximizes total welfare.

Quote:
The other issue is the general decline in quality of architecture for residential structures over the past century. They may be structurally better, but from an aesthetic standpoint, they are pretty awful. Of course this is a broad brush, but with new code regulations, it basically guarantees it will be uglier and less human scaled. And the odds it will have flourishes that buildings from the 20s had, I think is now something reserved for luxury properties of today (hardwood, terra cotta, built ins, etc). These things are what recently have given our cities their competitive advantage: their uniqueness to the bland, characterless suburbs. We squander that at our peril.

I remember what fascinated me about old northern cities at first, and it was first and foremost their age. The Sunbelt was new and sterile. Walking among homes and trees that were still standing after 100 years, the vegetation and the architecture almost medling into one...and in fact neighborhoods stretched for miles and miles with them..it was, and still is a thrill. Maybe there was a faded painted advertisement on the side of a building for a newspaper that went out of business 50 years ago...it tied you to history. I worry when we lose that. It cant be faked.
Meh, people always hate new architecture. People hated LA's googie's and dingbats back in the day, and now they're beloved.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 6:41 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
These buildings had demo permits issued. These are the kinds of things we are losing.







that is tip of the iceberg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 6:43 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
^ yeah, that one really stings. that shit used to define chicago, but we've lost WAY too many of those gorgeous old corner turret buildings, and other 19th century vernacular examples.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 6:43 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Theres no such thing as a free lunch. Thats the cost of widespread affordability. Personally I care much more about preserving people and not architecture, but I know my view isn't shared by everyone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 6:47 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Theres no such thing as a free lunch. Thats the cost of widespread affordability. Personally I care much more about preserving people and not architecture, but I know my view isn't shared by everyone.
that turret building is surrounded by vacant lots, warehouses, and theres a drivethrough McDonalds across the street. it is by far the most attractive building in the vicinity. there is no no way shape or form a shortage of space in that area.

the ornate single family home i posted will absolutely 100% guaranteed be replaced by...another SFH. and it will in all likelihood resemble this:



this has precisely jack shit to do with addressing affordability.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 6:55 PM
ChargerCarl ChargerCarl is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles/San Francisco
Posts: 2,408
Yes, the specific case you reference is a problem of shitty chicago zoning. But thats besides the point. Im talking about the long run.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 7:33 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Damn Via you just made me depressed
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 7:49 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl View Post
Yes, it gets built in places like Houston which allows it. Not in SF or LA where its not.

Here is how Houston does it: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...c-do-the-same/
Those are not middle class housing in those examples. $350-$400 thousand is your minimum entry fee for a lot of those townhouses. Upper maybe. Not SF or NY expensive but beyond the reach of ordinary middle class families. Plus, the property taxes on a $350k house is probably around $15k per year. They are just good infill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 7:49 PM
prelude91 prelude91 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
These buildings had demo permits issued. These are the kinds of things we are losing.
.
At least tell me you are a fan of the hundreds of these peppering the north side



My neighborhood lost 7 or 8 greystones in the last 2 years for these gems!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 7:53 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by prelude91 View Post
At least tell me you are a fan of the hundreds of these peppering the north side



My neighborhood lost 7 or 8 greystones in the last 2 years for these gems!
i dont think these are awful. as infill, theyre perfectly serviceable and might even develop some charm years from now if we're lucky. but yes, theres a difference between that filling a vacant lot or a run down single story building, and that replacing a greystone that im sure any number of people would be happy to restore. and it would not be difficult to find tenants still eager to live in one.

i went down the rabbit hole the other night, and just flipped through the teardown registry for the city. what a dark and sobering experience that was! looking on streetview at how much things have changed in just a couple years. but i found one particular frame 2-3 flat, somewhere in Roscoe Village i think. and i went and googled it and found a single review on some apartment rating website from whoever happened to be living there a year ago. and this person was so over the moon and gushing about the unit...the old school charm, the generous natural light, the backyard with a small garden, how cool it was that there was an original trap door in the kitchen floor...those sorts of things. and its affordability and how incredibly lucky they felt to have found it. they sounded truly proud of the apartment. and now its coming down for a McMansion, and a little bit of me died.

this notion that all young people want to live in sterile boxes is a falsehold. it is what we are being pushed into.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 7:57 PM
prelude91 prelude91 is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Via Chicago View Post
i dont think these are awful. as infill, theyre perfectly serviceable and might even develop some charm years from now if we're lucky. but yes, theres a difference between that filling a vacant lot or a run down single story building, and that replacing a greystone that im sure any number of people would be happy to restore. and it would not be difficult to find tenants still eager to live in one.
I don't disagree, but there are not that many vacant 25x125 lots in prime northside lots, not saying these 3 flats don't have a place, and that everything old is worthy of saving, but I'll be damned if we lose a ton of beautiful old buildings with new construction, and the result is a net loss for the neighborhood.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 8:04 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,485
Chicago has more affordable housing than it possibly needs. We need more gentrification. There are large swaths of the city where existing SFHs have virtually no value. You can literally buy homes for $25,000.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 8:36 PM
HowardL's Avatar
HowardL HowardL is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: East Lakeview, Chicago
Posts: 1,180
I'm a fan of gentrification, especially in close-in neighborhoods.

I do worry more about increasing rents in middle ring, working class stable neighborhoods. Chicago needs stability. Anything that destabilizes the at-risk neighborhoods is never good for the city, I think.

If it's a neighborhood like some in Chicago where immigrants have stabilized a declining neighbor and are now reaping the benefits of having risen from being renters to being home owners to now being investment property owners in that same neighborhood, then gentrification rocks.

If the issue is "non-native neighborhooders" moving in to capitalize on property values, then I'm torn. I do worry about working class, stable households getting displaced. But I get it too. I work in financial services. I get the economics. On a personal level, there are winners and losers. We just need to decide as a City how do we value the gains over the losses.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 8:42 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 19,748
When gentrification comes with higher densities, it's generally good. Some people have to move, but it's good for more people and the region overall.

But tearing down multifamily for single family, which is a bizarre concept in my West Coast mind, would generally be a negative unless it's a reaction to wholesale population loss.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 8:46 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
When gentrification comes with higher densities, it's generally good. Some people have to move, but it's good for more people and the region overall.

But tearing down multifamily for single family, which is a bizarre concept in my West Coast mind, would generally be a negative unless it's a reaction to wholesale population loss.
It happens in parts of Chicago where millionaire households are replacing renters.

I'm surprised that this wouldn't be happening on the west coast, particularly San Francisco
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 9:05 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
But tearing down multifamily for single family, which is a bizarre concept in my West Coast mind, would generally be a negative unless it's a reaction to wholesale population loss.
it's a reaction to big-time wealth coming back to the city in neighborhoods like lincoln park. it's gentrification on steroids.

millioniares want the core city neighborhood location of the older more modest multifamily building(s), but not the physical structures themselves. they want fabulous new mansions for ostentatious wealth display.

and they have the money to bank roll it. i'm talking about ridiculous shit like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9171...7i13312!8i6656

that plot of land used to be like 5 separate 3-flats that probably housed a total of 30 people. now it's all a giant SFH that houses maybe 4 or 5 people. big time density decrease.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Oct 6, 2016 at 9:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 9:21 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,119
social justice and market forces are diametrically opposed. finding a way to increase your household income is the only way to keep up in a modern society.
__________________
Portland!! Where young people formerly went to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Oct 6, 2016, 9:34 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
it's a reaction to big-time wealth coming back to the city in neighborhoods like lincoln park. it's gentrification on steroids.

millioniares want the core city neighborhood location of the older more modest multifamily building(s), but not the physical structures themselves. they want fabulous new mansions for ostentatious wealth display.

and they have the money to bank roll it. i'm talking about ridiculous shit like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9171...7i13312!8i6656

that plot of land used to be like 5 separate 3-flats that probably housed a total of 30 people. now it's all a giant SFH that houses maybe 4 or 5 people. big time density decrease.
the bigger question is why are these zoning variances allowed in the first place

allowing 5 combined lots for a "single family home" (using the term generously here) near transit, should be just a discouraged as much as we are trying to encourage denser development near those very same stops.

that burling street corridor is just a complete abortion.
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 > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:06 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.