CHICAGO | General Developments

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by 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.

The problem as I see it is the poor usually don't know what is good for them, they need to be told what to do in most scenarios, not the other way around.

[PKDickman]

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.

In this case that is exactly what it does.
But the framework (Approx 340 units) is not what the developer wants.

Affordable housing ordinance is not the price of zoning, it is the price of more zoning than you got with the deed.

In the downtown districts, it is a little more straight forward. The minimum price for extra zoning is 80% of what it would cost to purchase enough extra land to support the increase. It's not so straight forward out in the neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by maru2501

yeah someone will have to sue soon

Someone will, but they will lose.
There is no constitutional right to a zoning change.
The reasonable expectation for a fair hearing is the best anyone can hope for.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by prelude91

The problem as I see it is the poor usually don't know what is good for them, they need to be told what to do in most scenarios, not the other way around.

i think what youre describing is the definition of exploitation.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by 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.

See, this is the problem. We don't have a direct democracy for a reason. We are not supposed to "lobby" and elect officials because they promise us a handout (whether corporate or individual welfare). We are supposed to elect officials who will make the most rational decision on any given policy based upon the input of qualified advisors and the best interest of the people.

The poor electing people who will give them handouts is no different than public sector unions electing people who will give them raises or corporations getting people elected who will give them tax loopholes. It's all the same debasement of our society and breakdown of the rule of law. The real shame in this case is that the "poor" are not even getting a benefit out of this move, they are literally screaming for something they can't get without totally changing our economic system (which will never happen). They are demanding cake, but eating it in this instant. They want affordable housing, but they are restricting supply. This is tantamount to cutting off the nose to spite the face. This benefits no one except for the alderman who is getting brownie points with an uninformed electorate by making what is essentially a symbolic decision with negative consequences for everyone.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

In this case that is exactly what it does.
But the framework (Approx 340 units) is not what the developer wants.

The size of the site creates a mandatory PD. Even if the developer cut their proposal in half, it wouldn't matter... PD kicks in above 3 acres (for detached homes) or 60 units for multifamily. No matter how you develop the site it will be above those thresholds.

Because of the mandatory PD, the alderman has the leverage to demand affordable housing even when the ARO does not explicitly require it.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

See, this is the problem. We don't have a direct democracy for a reason. We are not supposed to "lobby" and elect officials because they promise us a handout (whether corporate or individual welfare). We are supposed to elect officials who will make the most rational decision on any given policy based upon the input of qualified advisors and the best interest of the people.

The poor electing people who will give them handouts is no different than public sector unions electing people who will give them raises or corporations getting people elected who will give them tax loopholes. It's all the same debasement of our society and breakdown of the rule of law.

this is all going to get deleted anyway so im not going to go to any real effort to reply other than to say that the poorest and most vulnerable segments of our society attempting to work even a small portion of the system in their favor is really the least of my concerns, given how much the system itself has fuck*ed them over the years. more power to them.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

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.

No it's friggin not. How many times do I have to tell you that I have a problem with BOTH of those situations?

Sheesh, it's like reinventing the wheel with you every time we have this discussion. I might as well be talking to a broken turntable

[JK47]

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.

You're describing how zoning functions not it's purpose. Zoning, as a process, is intended to improve the quality of life in a community by coordinating the uses of adjacent parcels in order to avoid conflicts.

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The size of the site creates a mandatory PD. Even if the developer cut their proposal in half, it wouldn't matter... PD kicks in above 3 acres (for detached homes) or 60 units for multifamily. No matter how you develop the site it will be above those thresholds.

Because of the mandatory PD, the alderman has the leverage to demand affordable housing even when the ARO does not explicitly require it.

Certainly he has leverage, but whether he would use it is unclear in this case, because that is not what the developer asked for.

It would not be required by the ARO.

Personally, I believe the local oversight of any project put through the PD process solely on the basis of threshholds, should be limited to how the project interacts with the surrounding community. Things like curb cuts and drainage could have the force of demands, but brick color and affordability, should never raise above the level of polite suggestions.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

In this case that is exactly what it does.
But the framework (Approx 340 units) is not what the developer wants.

Originally Posted by ardecila

The size of the site creates a mandatory PD...
Because of the mandatory PD, the alderman has the leverage to demand affordable housing even when the ARO does not explicitly require it.

The alderman only has leverage to demand, has zero leverage to actually ensure those demands are met. And here his demands are apparently for 160 fewer units total (which of themselves would help control prices) for a measly 18 more affordable units. And he won't actually get those 68 affordable units because they're not going to be built.

He could have had 500/50, and walked away wanting 340/68. Makes no sense.

[harryc]

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by prelude91

The problem as I see it is the poor usually don't know what is good for them, they need to be told what to do in most scenarios, not the other way around.

This kind of thinking is backwards. You are seriously uninformed.

[Via Chicago]

Prelude must think he is immune from financial hardship. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

All it takes is one job loss or health issue or economic downturn. Never forget that, and never think that you are somehow superior to anyone else based on your income. It is utterly meaningless, and if you think it's not you have a lot left to learn in life. Would be far more interested to hear how your contributing to society.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Prelude must think he is immune from financial hardship. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

All it takes is one job loss or health issue or economic downturn. Never forget that, and never think that you are somehow superior to anyone else based on your income. It is utterly meaningless, and if you think it's not you have a lot left to learn in life. Would be far more interested to hear how your contributing to society.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant to what I said. Perhaps I should clarify, I'm speaking specifically about affordable housing/Gentrification.

I own 4 buildings in Pilsen, so have first hand account on the stupidity I hear in the neighborhood about the neighborhood. The fact is, virtually all of the people I speak with don't have a clue about economics, and make demands that are financially unfeasible. I don't understand how they are in a position to be telling the decision makers how the neighborhood should be run.

[Via Chicago]

as feared, St Adalbert is officially closing. i hope another congregation is able to step in and make use of the space.

[Kumdogmillionaire]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

as feared, St Adalbert is officially closing. i hope another congregation is able to step in and make use of the space.

Definitely, or at least reused with the same structure. That building is too beautiful to go to waste

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire

Definitely, or at least reused with the same structure. That building is too beautiful to go to waste

I'm super sad to see this go. It was the home church for two generations of my family, now I live around the corner.

Fortunately, it's not just the church but a large parking lot and school/rectory that sits comfortably inside the TOD zone of 18th.

A fairly dense redevelopment here could save the church building, especially if the parishioners have made headway towards raising the $3M restoration cost and Solis doesn't make any bullshit affordable housing demands.

Unfortunately the Archdiocese often frowns or outright prohibits re-use for religious purposes, so a Protestant congregation can't move in.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm super sad to see this go. It was the home church for two generations of my family, now I live around the corner.

Fortunately, it's not just the church but a large parking lot and school/rectory that sits comfortably inside the TOD zone of 18th.

A fairly dense redevelopment here could save the church building, especially if the parishioners have made headway towards raising the $3M restoration cost and Solis doesn't make any bullshit affordable housing demands.

Unfortunately the Archdiocese often frowns or outright prohibits re-use for religious purposes, so a Protestant congregation can't move in.

Sadly they haven't. Apparently their GoFundMe page has only raised $1,650 over 9 months.
https://www.gofundme.com/rbhwb33u

[HowardL]

As sad as it might be to see a beautiful piece of architecture go, I can't be saddened to see religion lose its grip on this city. I would gladly trade all of the basilicas, mosques, temples and grand religious structures for architecture that actually serves some use.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by HowardL

As sad as it might be to see a beautiful piece of architecture go, I can't be saddened to see religion lose its grip on this city. I would gladly trade all of the basilicas, mosques, temples and grand religious structures for architecture that actually serves some use.

I could not disagree with you more strongly.

A city without a soul and with no place for the sublime or supernatural is not a city I want to live in.