Quote:
Originally Posted by emathias
Wow, I knew the new code reduced the guaranteed right to density of the previous code, but I didn't realize it limited it by that degree. That's really, really disappointing, especially since the adjustments I've seen for being near an "L" station really aren't very generous. Were I the zoning czar, I think I'd be pushing for R6+ for anything mentioned in the Central Area Plan, and anything within 1/2 mile walk of an "L" or Metra station (in my mind, that would basically look like a diamond-shaped zone around each of them). If I was feeling cocky, I might also include any area with bus service above a certain level per resident. That would cover almost everywhere that's currently dense and almost anywhere else that density could be reasonably accommodated. Places that are currently best served by rail transit need density. I suspect at least some of those areas still have density-enabling zoning, but from what you've said it sounds like fewer do than should.
|
A few notes:
1. The Central Area is mostly zoned "D" for downtown zoning, which is moderately more generous than the neighborhood zoning but still has pretty low FARs (the highest as-of-right is 16, but most of the area is zoned for FAR of 3.0, 5.0, or 7.0)
2. Some of the 'bombed out' areas, namely East Garfield Park and parts of Bronzeville and Washington Park, are zoned for pretty good density (R5), but of course no one wants to live there so for now it's moot; however, eventually these could be pretty great dense neighborhoods.
3. The R3 classification needs to be re-written to allow 2-flats as of right, regardless. As it is now, 2-flats are only allowed in R3 in the cases where basically the entire street is already 2-flats. They created an "R3.5" to "solve" this problem, but almost nowhere is zoned R3.5 so it's moot.
4. The B/C zoning classifications need to be re-written so more of the classifications (e.g. in addition to B2, include C1 and B1) allow ground-floor residential as-of-right. By all means, still require it to conform to commercial standards (e.g. 13' ceilings) so it can be converted later if necessary. But in most neighborhoods there is way, way, WAY too much commercial zoning relative to the population density allowed by the residential zoning, leaving us with our hundreds of miles of desolate commercial streets in otherwise intact neighborhoods. If there is a demand for commercial space, the property owner will gladly do so because the income from commercial space is far greater than that of a residential unit; planners need not worry about residential units preventing a retail district. See Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver for how, by concentrating a limited amount of commercial zoning at certain intersections, even a bungalow-belt neighborhood of SFHs can have a lively ped-friendly retail district.
5. The shakedown procedures have got to end or be substantially re-worked. The most egregious is:
a. the "affordable housing" requirement, which of course only accomplishes making housing less affordable like rent control in NYC. Now, any upzoning requires either provision of "affordable" units, or a "contribution" to the affordable housing fund. Of course, this just increases the cost of development and thus, the cost of housing for anyone not lucky enough to be part of the "affordable housing" program. Of course, an upzoning for more density would otherwise improve the housing affordability issue, whereas the people who actually
are exacerbating the affordability issue by tearing down vintage 3-flats to build luxury single-family home as in Bucktown and Lincoln Park can do so as of right with no contribution to the affordable housing fund. The city has got this exactly backwards, but that's because planners, people in gov't "housing departments", and "community activists" have a propensity to be communists with approximately zero concept of economics, market pricing, and development finance. Just pass a law to solve any problem!
b. The Planned Development process. I'd ideally get rid of it completely since it's basically turned into a shakedown that majorly increases the cost of development, with those costs not born by the people responsible for creating them (e.g. "the neighbors", aldermen, etc.). They're also pretty bad in being used to obliterate the historical Chicago urban form. See Central Station, all of those gated townhome communities in Lakeview and Lincoln Park, Dearborn Park, etc. Alleys? 25' lots? Street grid? Pssh, who needs 'em. The PD process's usefulness for things like placing a tower in the best part of a lot to alleviate light/air/wind concerns, planning accessory open space, finding the best parking access locations etc is overshadowed by the extortion that they are used for in practice.
6. Like you say, we need a "Transit-oriented Development" overlay for areas surrounding transit stations. In my ideal world, these would make private surface parking lots illegal (existing ones would stay as non-conforming, and public lots would be ok if they are available to transit users). For example that big Cole Taylor Bank parking lot right next to the Western-O'hare Blue Line stop really grates at my soul. Also, drive-thrus disallowed (like the drive-thru auto title loan place....also right at Western-O'hare Blue Line). Off-street parking requirements would be .5, instead of the measely ".75 within
600 ft of a rail station entrance" that we have now. And , higher housing density as well, as of right (Absolute minimum within 1/4 mile of transit stations should be R4, and commercial zoning should have absolute minimum allowable FAR of 3.0).
Voila,
Prev
Linear Mode
