CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

Pods have always charged above what the rest of Pilsen was asking as it is. so much for "supporting artists"

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

The Alderman wants to stay in office. That means balancing the needs of development versus the whining of some members of the Mexican community who won't give up on east Pilsen. The reality, this is a form of regulation of unfettered free market gentrification. It will slow down the process and grab headlines, a political win. But the Alderman can't stop people from buying and rehabbing every property in the district and raising rents. Eventually the whole area will be overrun with gentrifiers and community opposition to a big development at that site will be attenuated. If you read that article you can see that community groups in University Village really want that site developed.

Developed, yes. Developed densely, no. By the time the neighborhood gentrifies fully it will become hostile to rentals and new multifamily, so we'll end up with a large townhouse development in the New Postmodern style popular in 2025...

The positive news is that Solis is approving the plan to reuse an old factory on 21st St. 99 units but only 52 parking spaces, so it ought to put a lot more pedestrian and bike traffic on the sleepy dead end of Blue Island.

The developers are "getting away" with only 10% affordable since they are donating the factory's old parking lot for new athletic fields. As an added bonus, the developers are preserving the massive water tower on the roof.

[Ryanrule]

How vulnerable are the various nimby controlled alderman?

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by Ryanrule

How vulnerable are the various nimby controlled alderman?

Not very. They act the way the do since the Ninbys they please are the ones who keep them in office.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by ithakas

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...t-aldermans-ok

Around 2005, at the request of the community, Solis and the land use committee developed a mandate requiring a minimum of 21 percent of all new developments to be designated as affordable housing units. The rule applies to new developments of 10 or more units that seek zoning changes from the city or use city land or subsidies, Solis said.

Solis' 21 percent mandate — which only applies to Pilsen, not other parts of the 25th Ward — is double the city's mandate requiring 10 percent of new developments to be affordable housing units.

A vacant lot has 0% affordable housing. They ask for double, they get zero. Typical government overreach.
And yet another example of NIMBY-govt collusion driving up the price of housing. 500 new units would have done a lot to meet demand.

Another example of people being bad at math. 10% of 500 units is 50 affordable units. After they downsize this, probably to 200 units, 20% of 200 is 40 units.

[george]

LondonHouse's Three-Level Rooftop Bar Could Be Chicago's Coolest New Spot
This been covered already?

https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/2016...olest-new-spot

[the urban politician]

^ Math and logic are not the strong point of affordable housing whiners. That's probably why they are in their position to begin with.

Some people, faced with a lower standard of living, work hard, sacrifice, and raise their income. Others bitch to elected officials to improve their lot for them. Two different philosophies.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Some people, faced with a lower standard of living, work hard, sacrifice, and raise their income.

Thanks for the pep talk Ronald.

[maru2501]

someone should really move to texas

[the urban politician]

Let's face it, this is an absolute corruption of zoning. Zoning laws exist to create a legal framework as to who can build what, of what size and dimensions, how many units, commercial or residential, etc etc.

Zoning does not tell us how much rent we can charge. Plain and simple. For Aldermen to simply block zoning because it threatens affordability in an area just lacks any rhyme or reason.

[maru2501]

yeah someone will have to sue soon

[Skyguy_7]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Thanks for the pep talk Ronald.

Selective attention, I see. Don't let yourself ignore the detrimental philosophy of those who are ruining our country.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Math and logic are not the strong point of affordable housing whiners. That's probably why they are in their position to begin with.

Some people, faced with a lower standard of living, work hard, sacrifice, and raise their income. Others bitch to elected officials to improve their lot for them. Two different philosophies.

[Via Chicago]

if only the poor stopped being poor, our country could finally be great again. vote trump!

somehow it only a problem when the poor try to use government to advocate for them. when the rich craft policies to favor themselves, thats simply known as democracy i guess.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Let's face it, this is an absolute corruption of zoning. Zoning laws exist to create a legal framework as to who can build what, of what size and dimensions, how many units, commercial or residential, etc etc.

Zoning laws exist also to regulate development and ensure the comprehensive development of the city. For better or worse is subjective. Zoning also plays a role in economic segregation, although I'm not entirely sure it's reasonable to argue that's the primary purpose of zoning.

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Zoning does not tell us how much rent we can charge. Plain and simple. For Aldermen to simply block zoning because it threatens affordability in an area just lacks any rhyme or reason.

The Alderman is against the project because the current residents of Pilsen are against the project. The writing is on the wall for them. The young, mostly white, professionals are coming and they don't want to be displaced. I understand their fears, but unfortunately, when you don't own your home, you are subjected to displacement through the gentrification process.

Chicago is a huge city with tons of land for new housing. I know it's not the "politically safe" answer, but it's the fairest one. If someone is willing to pay a higher rent to live in the housing you currently occupy, it is totally reasonable for the landlord to raise rent. I understand moving sucks and not everyone has the means to move, but neighborhoods change.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by bcp

People seem to forget that private charity exists and we don't need the govt forcing their ideas of charity (and control) onto us.

yes, and those evil government schools, and government fire departments, and government libraries, and government roads, and government trains, and government parks, and government police, and government dams, and...

so sick of all this government control over my life! if we just rely on the benevolence of the ultra wealthy to trickle down their scraps im sure it will all work out in the end.

[Jibba]

The increased affordable unit requirement only applies to 10+ unit developments seeking a zoning change; it doesn't bind developers that are building as of right. An extra 10% affordable units isn't the most burdensome quid pro quo for developers looking to maximize their own profits.

That being said, I don't consider 500 units to be too many units at that site, and the zoning should already be there for such an amount, but that's unfortunately not the case.

Edit: And 500 units on a 7.85-acre site is not very dense: it almost meets the MLA of RM-4.5.

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

Chicago is a huge city with tons of land for new housing.

This is the key fact when debating gentrification in Chicago. The fact is, for every Pilsen or Logan Square, this city has a few neighborhoods on the South or West Side whose properties' market values have plummeted in the last ten years. The people who live in these homes, much like people all over the country, have most of their wealth locked up in their property.

Would you rather have to cash out of a neighborhood and move on, or be stuck living in a neighborhood with little opportunity because your mortgage is underwater? Hopefully anyone who is displaced can infuse these troubled areas with more investment and population.

Also, I feel the gentrification debate has been framed primarily by coastal journalists in cities without this problem. The gentrification protestors often aren't the poor, they're the first wave gentrifiers incredulous at signs of the second wave gentrifiers. The guy leading the 'anti-gentrification' protests in Logan Square is a professor at Loyola who moved back here from New York a few years ago.

-Sent from my $1300 3 bedroom apartment in Logan Square

[J_M_Tungsten]

Not sure much about the history, but wasn't Pilsen a mainly German neighborhood at one point? When did it shift demographics and why?

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ithakas

This is the key fact when debating gentrification in Chicago. The fact is, for every Pilsen or Logan Square, this city has a few neighborhoods on the South or West Side whose properties' market values have plummeted in the last ten years. The people who live in these homes, much like people all over the country, have most of their wealth locked up in their property.

Would you rather have to cash out of a neighborhood and move on, or be stuck living in a neighborhood with little opportunity because your mortgage is underwater? Hopefully anyone who is displaced can infuse these troubled areas with more investment and population.

Also, I feel the gentrification debate has been framed primarily by coastal journalists in cities without this problem. The gentrification protestors often aren't the poor, they're the first wave gentrifiers incredulous at signs of the second wave gentrifiers. The guy leading the 'anti-gentrification' protests in Logan Square is a professor at Loyola who moved back here from New York a few years ago.

-Sent from my $1300 3 bedroom apartment in Logan Square

Not surprising really.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Mods might want to get this board back on topic, getting a little political in here