CHICAGO | General Developments

[SolarWind]

May 18, 2018

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The reason why it's so restrictive is because the city did not want "gentrification"/potential pricing out/etc to occur in these places.

perhaps but also having some speculator buy up all the lots for $1 each inside of a Delaware LLC and then do nothing with them for 20 years is likely not the best plan either... which is what would happen.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by bnk

Yeah looks like the requirements are so restrictive the city is not serious about selling the blighted lots and really developing them. Good luck finding someone within the same street to buy them. They are empty for a reason. The chances of having someone on the same block pick up the property taxes alone are zilch.

Especially those lots that are on deadends or in nearly empty spots by a forest preserve. How in the hell would one of the two or three poor souls only close enough to buy them buy them.

This whole buy a lot for a buck is clearly not serious and the city although advertising to the Trib will not sell any more lots until the restrictions are seriously reduced, a lot.


The requirements must have come from some crazy alderman. If the city was serious and let speculators take them on they could sell all of them in a month.

This thing apparently has been going on for 4 years now with no success.

Hopefully someone with a backbone and a strong will [ Rahmbone? ] will eventually let local developers in on this deal. [ Hell I would have bought a few, the smaller empty lots only go about $800 a year in taxes, the larger ones ~ $1500, that's nothing.] Than you would see some real development. By the city pretty much Only allowing section 8 people to buy them will produce at best a local garden, a car storage area and or a trashcan fire warmer spot for the gangs that sell the drugs in these hoods.

The restrictions are a serious waste and someone needs to make this clear to city hall before they push this thing again on our locally largest media player that was the Chicago Tribune.

Of course the city isnt serious. It doesn’t want a land giveaway. Think of the optics.

Evil white, Asian (and every other race known to man) gentrifiers buying up property in Englewood? Unthinkable. And if homes sell for more than $10k per year down there it’s gentrifying out all of the poor black folks. Best to keep the area miserable, 50% vacant, dirt poor, full of gangs, and yet still blame Rahm for building “all them fancy towers and hotels up there, but how about investing and doing something about the crime down here?” That persistent state of affairs keeps many criminal lowlife Aldermen perpetually re-elected.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

perhaps but also having some speculator buy up all the lots for $1 each inside of a Delaware LLC and then do nothing with them for 20 years is likely not the best plan either... which is what would happen.

You can easily do something about that.

No more than 2 lots per buyer. Also, for $1, somebody (first preference obviously goes to somebody living on the block) gets to buy a lot. If they don’t develop it within 5 years, that $1 gets refunded to them and it returns to the land trust.

We can be a lot more creative than this silly “keep the white folk out” strategy that is doomed to fail.

The other reason this strategy will fail is because the people living within these zones have the least capability to actually develop the land.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You can easily do something about that.

No more than 2 lots per buyer. Also, for $1, somebody (first preference obviously goes to somebody living on the block) gets to buy a lot. If they don’t develop it within 5 years, that $1 gets refunded to them and it returns to the land trust.

We can be a lot more creative than this silly “keep the white folk out” strategy that is doomed to fail.

The other reason this strategy will fail is because the people living within these zones have the least capability to actually develop the land.

You really have to quit harping on this "white vs. black" thing. It is getting tiring. As I wrote to you before, as someone who frequents all manner of neighborhood on the South Side, the racial animosity you constantly speak of does not exist. With most African Americans, economic forces are the driver - not race.

[the urban politician]

^ All due respect, I call it as I see it. And the racial “undertones” are hardly undertones—it’s quite blatant, actually. But I will not discuss this further in the interest of letting the discussion move on....

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ All due respect, I call it as I see it. And the racial “undertones” are hardly undertones—it’s quite blatant, actually. But I will not discuss this further in the interest of letting the discussion move on....

People have a tendency to speak in the simplest of terms... and use words that carry commonly held connotations... for instance, an African American concerned about being priced out my say, "the white folks moving in are pricing us out"... does that necessarily means he does not like white people? No. He or she may have been referencing what they saw in that instance and added a connotation to it - white.

As an African American Lawyer I have been in the homes in black and white neighborhoods throughout this city. Grew up on the South Side. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that "most" black people do not have intrinsic hatred for white people. None. Again, there are always exceptions but for the most part, white people have always been welcomed in black neighborhoods so long as the economic impact is not against someone's (real or perceived) self interest. As we talked about before, I gave you can example of a white woman who moved in down the street from me on the South Side - told you about how the whole neighborhood looked out for her. I lived it. This was not just my view looking in from my home away/far removed from the area in question. I was there.

In short, in the future I would just hope that we can stop making this a black vs. white thing - because it really isn't. Spend some time on the South Side. Get to know the people UP CLOSE. I guarantee that you will see things differently if you do that.

I feel Steely's hook coming

[LouisVanDerWright]

Yeah I also don't really see the fear of gentrification in Black areas. I was just talking to two black RE agents from around 47th and Indiana and they love what's happening between Kenwood and the Gap. They also we're of the opinion that it doesn't matter if they are white, black, or Asian, people are finally bringing money to the area to fix it up. But that's the thing, there has been limited gentrification on the S and W sides while the NW and SW sides have been a hive of swarming hipsters. There is much much more animosity from Latino areas towards the process and unfortunately a lot of it is vented through not so subtlety racist language and policy proposals. The "reverse redlining" thing is really the policy people like Carlos Rosa are pushing. They genuinely believe in racial segregation for whatever reason...

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah I also don't really see the fear of gentrification in Black areas. I was just talking to two black RE agents from around 47th and Indiana and they love what's happening between Kenwood and the Gap. They also we're of the opinion that it doesn't matter if they are white, black, or Asian, people are finally bringing money to the area to fix it up. But that's the thing, there has been limited gentrification on the S and W sides while the NW and SW sides have been a hive of swarming hipsters. There is much much more animosity from Latino areas towards the process and unfortunately a lot of it is vented through not so subtlety racist language and policy proposals. The "reverse redlining" thing is really the policy people like Carlos Rosa are pushing. They genuinely believe in racial segregation for whatever reason...

Good post. I can see this for sure. I would imagine a lot has to do with our respective pasts. African Americans who have long suffered from bank relining and economic disinvestment in their communities just want better neighborhoods, better schools, lower crime, etc. and don't really care about how they get there. If whites moving in improves things (it has been my personal experience), then Blacks are all in favor of that. I would venture to say that the vast majority even hope it happens. They know that diversity is a good thing.

Latinos, I would imagine, have had a different experience here and abroad and those factors may be their primary drivers. Also keep in mind, most African Americans do not view Africa the same way that Latinos view their home countries. Most African Americans have no connection to Africa. None at all. Blacks took part in building this country and can typically only trace their ancestors back to this country. In other words, we are fully vested here. For Latinos (if they do have a more race specific agenda), a lot of them came here later (2nd gen, 3rd gen, etc) and they often have family members back in their respective home countries. Could that shape their views? Could that make them more inclined to want to carve out territory for their relatives to follow them here? I don't know... just food for thought... but it is certainly possible.

2 minority groups. Separate motivations.

.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You can easily do something about that.

No more than 2 lots per buyer. Also, for $1, somebody (first preference obviously goes to somebody living on the block) gets to buy a lot. If they don’t develop it within 5 years, that $1 gets refunded to them and it returns to the land trust.

We can be a lot more creative than this silly “keep the white folk out” strategy that is doomed to fail.

The other reason this strategy will fail is because the people living within these zones have the least capability to actually develop the land.

any white person (or black, yellow, brown, pink person) can buy a house in these areas and also get a side lot for $1 from this program.

I think the policy makes sense myself since homeowners in these areas have the most capacity to care for the neighborhood as they are already doing it. If the "real estate developers/saviors of all people" wanted to build in these areas that could have done that for the last 30 years and paid what, $100 per lot instead of $1.00?

[ardecila]

Pretty clearly, development of these lots isn't the goal. It's called the "Large Lot" program for a reason... the city expects neighbors to buy these lots and use them as an expanded backyard. In so doing, the land goes back on the tax rolls (albeit taxed at a lower, vacant-land rate) and the city does not have to deal with the flood of complaints about illegal dumping, overgrown grass, homeless encampments, etc.

Providing more housing in low-income neighborhoods isn't really a goal of this administration. Maye it shouldn't be. What we see is a ton of new inventory on the upper end of the spectrum, and the housing needs of low-income Chicagoans are largely met through filtering of yesterday's luxury or middle-class housing. Since the city population is shrinking, any new construction is a zero-sum game that results in abandonment somewhere. The only reason we haven't had a bigger problem is because of a corresponding decline in household sizes such that the same number of people occupy more units.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

May 18, 2018

I am pretty excited about this project and think it could become quite a big tourist attraction if done correctly. Since it'll be a permanent installment it could be used for all sorts of events going on in the city. It'll basically be the worlds largest TV screen. This video shows the kind of potential -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1v4W95wJnM

[harryc]

May 9

South side - old skydeck entrance.





West side - by by mailbox

[gebs]

Originally Posted by harryc

May 9
South side - old skydeck entrance.

I get a frisson of nerves seeing pictures like this. On the one hand, I'm one of those who is pretty pumped at seeing Sears get a newer, more pedestrian-friendly base (even at the cost of losing its architecturally monolithic presence). On the other hand, it's like chipping away at Notre Dame or removing stones from Giza.

[Baronvonellis]

Well Notre Dame was build over hundreds of years by many different builders and designers. It was changed and revised many times over hundreds of years. I hope that the Sears is like our Notre Dame!

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Well Notre Dame was build over hundreds of years by many different builders and designers. It was changed and revised many times over hundreds of years. I hope that the Sears is like our Notre Dame!

Speaking of, if you want a good read on restoration, look up Eugène Viollet-le-Duc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3...Viollet-le-Duc

What he did with Notre Dame was pretty great.

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

Well Notre Dame was build over hundreds of years by many different builders and designers. It was changed and revised many times over hundreds of years. I hope that the Sears is like our Notre Dame!

True this. Notre Dame, while still recognizable as the same structure, has been revised many times over the centuries arguably most dramatically by Violett le-Duc. There are bits and pieces of stone, glass and other materials that were removed spread all over France. The same is true of Sainte Chapelle and many other buildings that we tend to think were never altered. They were.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by XIII

Speaking of, if you want a good read on restoration, look up Eugène Viollet-le-Duc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3...Viollet-le-Duc

What he did with Notre Dame was pretty great.

Yeah that guy was awesome. He was an influence for Louis Sullivan.






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugène_Viollet-le-Duc

His later writings on the relationship between form and function in architecture had a notable influence on a new generation of architects, including Antonio Gaudi, Victor Horta, and Louis Sullivan.

...


Doctrine

Viollet-le-Duc famously defined restoration in volume eight of his Dictionnaire raisonné de l'architecture française du XI au XVI siecle of 1858:

"To restore a building is not to maintain it, repair it or remake it: it is to re-establish it in a complete state which may never have existed at any given moment." He then explained that it had to meet three conditions:

(1) The "re-establishment" had to be scientifically documented with plans and photographs and archeological records, which would guarantee exactness.

(2) The restoration had to involve not just the appearance of the monument, or the effect that it produced, but also its structure; it had to use the most efficient means to assure the long life of the building, including using more solid materials, used more wisely.

(3) the restoration had to exclude any modification contrary to obvious evidence; but the structure could be adapted to conform to more modern or rational uses and practices, which meant alterations to the original plan; and

(4) The restoration should preserve older modifications made to the building, with the exception of those which compromised its stability or its conservation, or those which gravely violated the value its historical presence.

He drew conclusions from medieval architecture that he applied to modern architecture. He noted that it was sometimes necessary to employ an iron frame in restoration to avoid the danger of fires, as long as the new structure was not heavier than the original, and kept the original balance of forces found in medieval structures. "The monuments of the middle ages were carefully calculated, and their organism is delicate. There is nothing in excess in their works, nothing useless. If you change one of the conditions of these organisms, you change all the others. Many people consider this a fault; for us, this is a quality which we too often neglect in our modern construction....Why should we build expensive walls two meters thick, if walls fifty centimeters thick [with reinforced supports], offer sufficient stability? In the structure of the middle ages, every portion of a work fulfilled a function and possessed an action."

...

[gebs]

Here is a detailed and lengthy report that I believe many SSP users would find interesting:

Study: What to Do with All the Vacant Land in Major US CBDs?
Iona Ginsac, Commercial Café

Some highlights:

"But what does growth mean for cities? It means an increase in population, more jobs, making room to accommodate an economic expansion, or even redrawing city boundaries. Eventually, it means banking on salvageable abandoned structures and developable vacant lots, and this is where market research usually comes to a screeching halt."

"There have been very few national studies of urban vacant lots, and not for lack of effort. Widespread inconsistencies in property classification and data management make it very difficult to put together a comprehensive record."

"... some of the least dense urban cores have seen the slowest development activity during the past five years, while developers have been significantly busier in the more tightly packed city downtowns."

Chicago is 3rd in CBD construction since 2013 (NY #1, Dallas #2, Houston a close #4), but 11th in available developable land.

"When asked what developments they want in their city, 72% of respondents chose housing and homeless shelters. These choices went up to 83% when respondents were asked what they think their city needs most. Many respondents also mentioned the need for not just any type of housing, but for affordable housing."

"It turns out that most Americans would rather walk. Walkability was the top choice of most beneficial transportation improvement, overall, across the 25 cities we surveyed."

"However, America’s infrastructure problem runs too deep for an easy fix. The latest report card graded by the American Society of Civil Engineers said “D+” and urban sprawl has a lot to do with it, as the asphalt network that sprawled American cities has become a burden."

Here are some depressing statistics that are sure to be catnip to many of us: "... somehow our cities have more parking than is necessary. Take Los Angeles for example—the area taken up by L.A.’s notoriously car-centric, county-wide sprawl is 14% parking. The [city's] central business district reportedly has a total of 260,000 off-street parking spaces per square mile, yet drivers end up spending 85 hours in a year looking for a place to park."

There's a lot to unpack in the article. Worth a read.

[the urban politician]

^ There is no way in hell Dallas has had more construction in its downtown than Chicago unless they are talking about very tight parameters (Loop proper), and office only, which I could certainly buy.

But if you expand to the entire downtown area, and add in condos, apartments, hotels, etc, then I imagine it's not even remotely close