CHICAGO | General Discussions

[BrinChi]

SFHs on a standard Chicago lot is definitely urban! a 25 X 125 lot is 3,125 square feet. If just 3 people live in the house, this is nearly 27,000 people per square mile! So a neighborhood of mostly SFHs on local streets and apartments on commercial streets is plenty urban: e.g. Lakeview.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

To be fair, that intersection of Morgan and Jackson is now one of the more egregious in that West Loop area. Particularly that huge surface lot at the SE corner was one of the worst offenders even 10 years ago. It probably makes my list of top 10 parcels to develop asap. Anyone know who owns it?

Walsh owns it along with the suburban office park across Jackson and the (actually tastefully) rehabbed warehouse-turned-office across Sangamon.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Briguy

Google earth just updated chicago 3d model. For me at least.

Yep, downtown is shown at about July 2021 in the model.

[SIGSEGV]

The parking lots can get built up later, too, when there's demand. But come on, this store still has surface parking: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8671148,...S0N77YsWDYoUA24itVZbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192, despite being surrounded by highrises and literally underneath an el station.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

SFHs on a standard Chicago lot is definitely urban! a 25 X 125 lot is 3,125 square feet. If just 3 people live in the house, this is nearly 27,000 people per square mile! So a neighborhood of mostly SFHs on local streets and apartments on commercial streets is plenty urban: e.g. Lakeview.

Guess it depends on what your definition is. Urbanity is more than just population density. Also 27K ppsm isn't totally suburban but it's also not that urban either. I don't think you really get into that type of category until you're mostly at 40K+ ppsm to be honest. But urbanity is also about the actual built environment. You can have super urban places that don't have high population density but have a lot of business and are built in such a way that makes it feel way more dense than it really is.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Also 27K ppsm isn't totally suburban but it's also not that urban either.

NYC is severely clouding your perception.

27,000 ppsm is very dense by US standards, outside of NYC (the great American outlier).

In fact, outside of NYC, there are only like 50 zip codes in the entire nation (out of 42,000 zip codes nationally) that exceed a density of 20,000 ppsm, and roughly 20 of those are in Chicago.

Typical post war middle class American suburbia (think schamburg) is usually in the 2,000 - 5,000 ppsm range. 27,000 ppsm is off the freaking charts compared to that, and it's quite rare to find that kind of density, at scale, anywhere in the US outside of NYC.

[rivernorthlurker]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

NYC is severely clouding your perception.

27,000 ppsm is very dense by US standards, outside of NYC (the great American outlier).

In fact, outside of NYC, there are only like 50 zip codes in the entire nation (out of 42,000 zip codes nationally) that exceed a density of 20,000 ppsm, and roughly 20 of those are in Chicago.

Typical post war middle class American suburbia (think schamburg) is usually in the 2,000 - 5,000 ppsm range. 27,000 ppsm is off the freaking charts compared to that, and it's quite rare to find that kind of density, at scale, anywhere in the US outside of NYC.

http://zipatlas.com/us/zip-code-comparison/population-density.htm

Cursory google search shows Steely's estimates more or less accurate. SF, Seattle, LA, Boston with some single zip codes up in the 50-60 ppsm and then the other top 80 being NYC/NJ area. DC/Houston/Chicago topping out around 34 ppsm.

The data is probably a bit dated because the map shows the old district for 60610 which was split into 60610 and 60654 I believe which I think are both probably 30+ ppm now.

Very interesting data though in terms of finding places I'd be interested in living - probably nowhere outside the top 200.

Watch out for 60661 (and 60607) though. The millennials are coming

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/resident...has-highest-concentration-millennials-us
https://www.rentcafe.com/blog/apartmentl...p-codes-that-are-millennial-strongholds/

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

Cursory google search shows Steely's estimates more or less accurate. SF, Seattle, LA, Boston with some single zip codes up in the 50-60 ppsm and then the other top 80 being NYC/NJ area. DC/Houston/Chicago topping out around 34 ppsm.

keep in mind that those singular very high density zip codes in boston and seattle are very small.

the boston one only has 6,000 people. and the seattle one is a freaking fly speck - 180 people living on a single city block (that's NOT a zip code, that's statistical hiccup).

by comparison, all of chicago's zip codes on that list are real zip codes with 50K - 100K people.

any zip code under 20K people should probably discounted from this exercise (ie. too small to really count).

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

The data is probably a bit dated because the map shows the old district for 60610 which was split into 60610 and 60654 I believe which I think are both probably 30+ ppm now.

yeah, that data seems really old. it says there are only 10 chicago zip codes over 20K ppsm.

i found a map based sourced that used 2019 ACS that says there are18 such zip codes in the city (i had to hand count them).

census 2020 data might even nudge a couple more right on the bubble over the threshold.



but the broader point absolutely stands. any (regular size) zip code in the US over 20K ppsm, outside of NYC, is in the top 0.2% of zip codes for density in the nation.

to say that "27,000 ppsm isn't really urban" is using an impossibly high standard of urban density for everywhere in the US not named new york.

[pip]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The parking lots can get built up later, too, when there's demand. But come on, this store still has surface parking: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8671148,...S0N77YsWDYoUA24itVZbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192, despite being surrounded by highrises and literally underneath an el station.

Haha true! But when I moved to Chicago there wasn't really much down there in terms of established walkable residential, that's why that surface parking with retail is there. Hopefully this will change in time. Retail is about ten years behind residential. Gotta start somewhere.

[thegoatman]

Question for everybody, since we're talking about infill, what has been everybody's favorite infill project lately?

I really love this one in Wrigleyville. Took over a one story structure, tall and spacious, tons of retail, low parking, good design, and I love how they put the original ACE hardware store that was bulldozed and put it at the base, that is something that should happen with every strip mall or one story building that gets razed for a new mixed use development.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2021/09/wrigleyville-lofts-wraps-up-in-lake-view.html

https://www.google.com/maps/place/949+W+...eaf302c38a!8m2!3d41.9534842!4d-87.653997

Also excited for the new Howard Brown Health Clinic in Lakeview. Yimby just did an article on it today and I swooped by and they're definitely starting work on it now and its starting to rise.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2022/02/initial...t-3501-n-halsted-street-in-boystown.html

[the urban politician]

^ There are many to choose from, but for me I detested the Mother and Father or whatever the fuck it was called strip mall that occupied this site, until it god redeveloped into this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9110542,...7o7jVpxR2hiGajOiPwMZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[the urban politician]

When you are talking about private investment, we have to remember that the early entrants into a market are the risk takers. They dip their "toes" into the water so to speak.

If it can be demonstrated that turning a strip mall into a multiunit building can be profitable, then more developers will want in on that action, at least in the right locations.

Look at Treasure Island in East Lakeview as another one that is happening. As developers gain experience with this, they may scour the city for more strip malls, particularly struggling ones in the era of COVID and online retail, and see opportunities.

This really is not too different from previous years where investors (like myself) bought residential buildings for cheap and rehabbed them. Same concept, but different product and strategy.

[BrinChi]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but the broader point absolutely stands. any (regular size) zip code in the US over 20K ppsm, outside of NYC, is in the top 0.2% of zip codes for density in the nation.

to say that "27,000 ppsm isn't really urban" is using an impossibly high standard of urban density for everywhere in the US not named new york.

This is the point I was trying to make. Thank you Steely! Not that density in and of itself equals a great urban neighborhood, but we all know that to sustain a retail and pedestrian environment that we equate with great urban neighborhoods, this requires a certain level of density. And SFHs on Chicago-sized lots definitely meets that criteria so our common goal should be to fill in all of the empty lots and parking lots first before we need to give a damn about up-zoning.

[the urban politician]

^ Yep, wider sidewalks at that intersection would really improve that area

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

The parking lots can get built up later, too, when there's demand. But come on, this store still has surface parking: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8671148,...S0N77YsWDYoUA24itVZbw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192, despite being surrounded by highrises and literally underneath an el station.

It’s terrible. There’s no reason for that lot to exist. Fast forward to now and this jewel would’ve been built like the one at Clark snd Division.

[BrinChi]

^ Ah, damn. Walsh could probably continue to sit on it for awhile then. As long as they have enough building contracts to keep busy. And they might be playing the long game when they can sell that lot plus their headquarters for hundreds of millions.

[Jibba]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ There are many to choose from, but for me I detested the Mother and Father or whatever the fuck it was called strip mall that occupied this site, until it god redeveloped into this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9110542,...7o7jVpxR2hiGajOiPwMZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

North Avenue between Halsted and Sedgwick. Good grief. Talk about an absolute chasm in the urban fabric. I can feel my body bracing itself when I approach and cross North Avenue anywhere on that segment. North is an emergency evacuation route, too, IIRC, so little chance of traffic-calming happening there unless in the form of walling-in developments to only make the street seem less like a salt flat.

That building that took out the Father and Son adds mass but not much else -- it's not a beacon of life from the pedestrian perspective, IMO. I'm glad it's there, but it's near the bare minimum improvement for me.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

Oh yeah thats a good one too. Great infill.

Ashland and Division needs road diets asap. Awful looking wide roads that kill the urbanity of the street. Wish that Ashland BRT project happened, but you now, car brain go insane when you talk about reducing car lanes.

We have these mini highways in our city and then wonder why we have so many pedestrian deaths and car crashes. Reducing speed limit city wide & making these roads tigher will reduce speeding 100%. Speeding is not "oh the speed limit is 25 lemme slow down" its a mental thing. When I drive on lets say a road like this, i tend to go faster. On the other hand, a real tight street like residential neighborhoods I'm definitely driving slower.

Given that Ashland is one of the only relatively wide N-S arteries in the city (Western of course is another, not sure of any others quite frankly), there's no way it should get a road diet. I can certainly see BRT along Ashland or Western, but actually removing a traffic lane along either would result in even more gridlock than already occurs. Chicago has very, very narrow streets on average, especially for its major thoroughfares. Keep in mind that buses already are stuck in terrible traffic much of the time along with their car brethren, so without BRT in place transit will move slower as well as private vehicles.

Look, Chicago is a city with already narrow major roads on average, at least in much of the city. Additional transit service is greatly needed, but a road diet along Ashland isn't a big priority, at least IMO.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Handro]

Originally Posted by BrinChi

^ Ah, damn. Walsh could probably continue to sit on it for awhile then. As long as they have enough building contracts to keep busy. And they might be playing the long game when they can sell that lot plus their headquarters for hundreds of millions.

Yes, that seems likely. Apparently the offices there are pretty crowded and they are constantly shifting personnel to find room for new staff.

[BruceP]

Look, Chicago is a city with already narrow major roads on average, at least in much of the city. Additional transit service is greatly needed, but a road diet along Ashland isn't a big priority, at least IMO.

Aaron (Glowrock)[/QUOTE]

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head.