Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
But with only a few exceptions, a lot of large proposals out in the neighborhoods that have passed zoning hurdles sit on the drawing boards. Is this the case with other tier 1 American cities, or is Chicago's local lending climate stuck in an outmoded mentality?
|
This is almost entirely a result of the cost of parking minimums and the cost of elevators. Because of the shape of the standard Chicago lot and block and the parking minimums, there are certain quirks to the economics of building size here.
First of all the shape of the Chicago lot determines that it is physically impossible to build anything more than 3 units + Retail in the city of Chicago on a single lot. The only time you see larger buildings is one 35'+ lots. There are similar quirks that result in the prevalence of 6 flat buildings on two lots. Certain styles, like the six flat, persist while others like the side entrance 6 flat or the venerable two flat have been all but wiped out as a result of the parking minimums and certain other traits of the zoning code.
Another limiting factor is the need for elevators and cost of parking. Chicago has relatively low land values for a city of this size and it is thereby more difficult to make a building work when you are spreading the costs of elevators and parking ramps over 4-10 floors instead of 11+ floors. Ramps also tend to burn up an inordinate amount of ground floor space which, when combined with the long narrow lots perpendicularly arranged on long narrow blocks, means you can't build moderately dense buildings on too small of an assemblage (one or two lots) or you can't fit a garage to meet the parking requirements.
Once you get a big assemblage with high land values, you are fine because you can build high enough to sufficiently dilute the expense of adding elevators and a parking ramp.