This is affordable housing in bold or any type?
Quote:
|
^ Yes. The normal requirement is 10% affordable, but Related is using TIF money for infrastructure so their requirement goes up to 20%. 1/4 of the requirement (5%) needs to be built on-site, and 1/4(another 5%) will be "bought out" with fees paid back to the city.
Sounds like they negotiated with Ald. Solis to get the remaining 10% of affordable housing built off-site in the Pilsen/Little Village pilot area... but that pilot area actually stretches up through University Village to Harrison Street and includes much of the Roosevelt Square development, where Related Midwest was gonna build affordable housing anyway under their agreement with the CHA. It also includes Related's highrise at 1035 W Van Buren. The boundaries are kinda funky there, so I can't tell if Related's empty Roosevelt Square land actually falls in the pilot area. If not, then they have to go searching for large sites elsewhere in the Pilsen/LV pilot area. Or potentially they could take existing market-rate units in Roosevelt Square and 1035 W Van Buren and put a covenant on them restricting the rents to affordable levels. Either way, seems like a shrewd deal cut between Related and Ald. Solis.... the boundaries of the pilot area are most definitely gerrymandered to help Related in some way. Also, very disappointing that the Plan Commission presentation included no mention of a new Red Line stop. I understand why Related doesn't want to be on the hook for building a subway station, but without their influence I doubt it will get built at all. |
Let's remember that politics is about perceptions, not facts.
Truth is, there really is no reason why the affordable housing needs to be planted in masse in Pilsen and LV. They are already affordable. UV and sites closer to downtown, where rents are already high, make more sense if you are going to do this kind of stuff |
Not to mention the whole "affordable" thing is silly. The whole southside is very "affordable". I'm curious if "affordable" housing is ever built like this in Naperville, Vernon Hills, Lake Forest ect or is this only a Chicago thing. Seems like people would want to be able to live in the burbs as well.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
In an ideal world we’d have so much new construction that “market rate” would be affordable to most Chicagoans, but under the system we have now, it’s important to avoid concentrating too much low-income housing in one area where it can strain public services and in some cases create social breakdown like we saw in the old CHA projects. |
|
So the first stage would be along Lower Well's? Will there be any way to access by foot from Roosevelt?
|
Quote:
|
^ I don't think it's Related cheaping out, I think it's everybody kowtowing to the NIMBYs. I'm not sure the station is dead, but definitely seems like it's been backburnered. The gentle residents of Dearborn Park II don't want a Red Line stop right next to their prize park, I've heard they have already started complaining to the alderman.
https://frinkiac.com/video/S07E23/MM...UffJf5neI=.gif src |
Quote:
The nice thing is, as the South Loop gets more crowded those Dearborn Park city-haters' voices will gradually get drowned out by other people's' needs. I foresee a time in the future when their obstructionism becomes so intolerable that those asshats get gerrymandered into another ward. |
When do we get to ram some roads through DP1 and DP2?
|
Quote:
|
So even by their projections, they don't expect to be doing anything other than infrastructure work until summer 2021... oof this thing might not see any buildings built until 2030 if the market crashes in the next few years. :(
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Tend to agree with TUP that large-scale master-developer type developments wind up being bad urban form even if they are profitable and safe for the developers.
But this seems like a somewhat better option as its generally forced to integrate into the street grid. Where I disagree with TUP is the idea that this is a binary project like a high rise where itll happen or not happen. It "happening" will likely involve 20+ years of development with multiple design revisions and multiple other developers coming in or partnering on specific towers. If they really are aiming to do more than just a bunch of apartments, it will be slower, but once they've established some of the amenities and infrastructure along with a few starter towers, they should be able to extract quite a bit of a value from other developers and spread their risk. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The buildings in this development look really small though, unless they're placeholders. The larger the buildings the more risky/time consuming I'd imagine. |
Quote:
I’m willing to bet that even without a subway stop, this district will have a huge car-free population. Having a subway stop will only make commuting that much easier |
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.