CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 2544

Vlajos · #**50861** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 4:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

Since you brought it up here, you must have some examples in mind where an existing three flat was purchased, torn down and replaced with a SFH lacking high end finishes?

What if the owner of the 3 flat is an old couple with little in savings other than the huge amount of equity in their home? We punish them because some nitwit in city government hates the market? What if the 3 flat is in such bad shape that the cost of renovation is more than new construction? What would rents need to be to justify the cost? We must have some of the stupidest elected officials in the country. Let repeat violent offenders off because it is racist not to, but restrict homeowners from selling their property because that would be racist.

Handro · #**50862** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 4:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

What if the owner of the 3 flat is an old couple with little in savings other than the huge amount of equity in their home? We punish them because some nitwit in city government hates the market? What if the 3 flat is in such bad shape that the cost of renovation is more than new construction? What would rents need to be to justify the cost? We must have some of the stupidest elected officials in the country. Let repeat violent offenders off because it is racist not to, but restrict homeowners from selling their property because that would be racist.

Who is getting punished? You assume that your theoretical old couple can't sell to a developer who will tear down their dilapidated three-flat and build a newer multi-unit development in its place? What is the purpose of building a giant SFH when developers are clearly willing to build multi-units in areas where it is allowed and economically feasible--like in expensive, transit rich neighborhoods.

Pretty weak strawman.

Vlajos · #**50863** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Handro

Who is getting punished? You assume that your theoretical old couple can't sell to a developer who will tear down their dilapidated three-flat and build a newer multi-unit development in its place? What is the purpose of building a giant SFH for a single family when developers are clearly willing to build multi-units in areas where it is allowed and economically feasible--like in expensive, transit rich neighborhoods.

Pretty weak strawman.

The homeowner is getting punished obviously. This restricts viable uses hence reducing the pool of intereseted buyers and lowering the potential sales price.

This will probably increase deconversions, which honestly I prefer, at least some of the nicer older architecture will be saved.

Chicago City government is filled with morons, but it's what people want apparently. We conitnue to elect advocates of high crime and slow growth.

BrinChi · #**50864** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 6:09 PM**

I've been wondering about the significance of the "Community Preservation Areas" on the map. Anyone knows what this means from a zoning/TOD perspective?

Map of IHAs: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...munity_Map.pdf

moorhosj1 · #**50865** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

The homeowner is getting punished obviously. This restricts viable uses hence reducing the pool of intereseted buyers and lowering the potential sales price.

By this logic, all zoning laws punish homeowners. Waste Management can't buy my house and build a garbage dump. This lowers the number of potential buyers. Is that a punishment or a tradeoff we make for a more livable city?

Randomguy34 · #**50866** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 6:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrinChi

I've been wondering about the significance of the "Community Preservation Areas" on the map. Anyone knows what this means from a zoning/TOD perspective?

Map of IHAs: https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/...munity_Map.pdf

Under the proposed ordinance it would mean:

- At-grade, ground floor units no longer counts against you for unit and density calculations. So all RS-3 zoning now allows 2-flats as-of-right and all RT-4 allows 4-flat as of right.

- Revised parking requirements so that 3-flats and 4-flats with at-grade, ground floor units only need 2 parking spots, not necessarily one-per-unit

For specifically IHA/CPA districts:

- Near transit, RS zoning districts can use RT-4 densities (i.e. 4-flats as of right)

- SFHs would be banned on lots zoned RT or RM. 2-flats would also be banned on lots zoned RM (i.e. the city wants you to build a 3-flat, or denser)

- If you're proposing a development that needs a zoning change, and include on-site ARO units, you don't "need" the local alderperon's approval and can get a yes/no vote from the Zoning Committee. It doesn't guarantee you get approved, but it's something

BrinChi · #**50867** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 6:51 PM**

Thank you! Great news. I've always thought 4-flat density makes the best neighborhoods that are lively and walkable, but still very livable. If the city sets its sights on 4-flat density outside of downtown that should make room for plenty of new housing.

OrdoSeclorum · #**50868** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 10:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

The homeowner is getting punished obviously. This restricts viable uses hence reducing the pool of intereseted buyers and lowering the potential sales price.

This will probably increase deconversions, which honestly I prefer, at least some of the nicer older architecture will be saved.

Chicago City government is filled with morons, but it's what people want apparently. We conitnue to elect advocates of high crime and slow growth.

If you're this upset imagining the 1-in-100,000 property owner who would gain value by reducingthe intensity of use for the land they own, you must have steam coming out of your ears thinking about all the hundreds or thousands of Chicagoans who own single family homes who are having their property values lowered because regulation prevents the land from ever being used to build an apartment building. That's most of the land in the city west of Ashland!

Vlajos · #**50869** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

If you're this upset imagining the 1-in-100,000 property owner who would gain value by reducingthe intensity of use for the land they own, you must have steam coming out of your ears thinking about all the hundreds or thousands of Chicagoans who own single family homes who are having their property values lowered because regulation prevents the land from ever being used to build an apartment building. That's most of the land in the city west of Ashland!

Yes, that's ridiculous. Basically every standard lot should allow for 1-3 unit buildings. I would understand exceptions for historic districts, but a 3 flat is a single family home essentially.

Jibba · #**50870** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 11:55 PM**

3217 N Clark

https://chicagoyimby.com/2022/03/fou...view-east.html

913-15 W School

https://www.44thward.org/development.../3264-n-clark/

ardecila · #**50871** Posted **Jul 12, 2022, 11:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Under the proposed ordinance it would mean:

- At-grade, ground floor units no longer counts against you for unit and density calculations. So all RS-3 zoning now allows 2-flats as-of-right and all RT-4 allows 4-flat as of right.

- Revised parking requirements so that 3-flats and 4-flats with at-grade, ground floor units only need 2 parking spots, not necessarily one-per-unit

This is actually intended to generate more handicap-accessible apartments. The developer basically gets a bonus unit if they put it at-grade (without stairs to access). The parking is also a handicap thing - a standard Chicago lot is only 3 parking spaces wide, so if you provide a handicap parking space with an aisle then you can only fit two parking spots total.

We'll probably see a lot fewer duplex-downs as a result. Architecturally I'm not the biggest fan of putting apartments at grade, but with our narrow-ass lots, it's really the only way to get accessible apartments on a single residential lot.

Quote:

- SFHs would be banned on lots zoned RT or RM. 2-flats would also be banned on lots zoned RM (i.e. the city wants you to build a 3-flat, or denser)

Expect we'll see a lot of "code hack" buildings that are 3-flats in name only, with one huge multi-level unit and two basement lock-offs (or a coach house, where allowed).

Even this is an improvement over a traditional SFH, because undoubtedly some homeowners will use the lockoff for an adult relative, an au pair, Airbnb, or just rent it on the open market. Those are people who would have taken up another apartment somewhere else.

rivernorthlurker · #**50872** Posted **Jul 13, 2022, 12:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy

Landmarks backs review of Century and Consumer Buildings

If Google ends up taking over the Thompson Center and the government offices currently there need to move elsewhere, could they move into these buildings?

Even the B1M is throwing their hat in the ring!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmiDUw-MPWA

This should draw a few hundred thousand eyeballs.

The video mentions one proposal to convert the buildings into document archives buildings and bricking up the windows on the federal building side.

It also mentions that tearing them down might hurt Chicago's chance of becoming a UNESCO heritage site for its collection of early skyscrapers which would draw additional tourism. Though the 2 are not not listed on the application, it would be seen as detrimental to the application nonetheless.

https://preservationchicago.org/2017...heritage-site/
https://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/6235/

left of center · #**50873** Posted **Jul 13, 2022, 3:02 PM**

Wow, I didn't realize we were gunning for a UNESCO listing. I can totally see how demolishing these buildings would hurt our chances at getting nominated. Yet another reason not to give in to the fed's moronic plans.

galleyfox · #**50874** Posted **Jul 13, 2022, 3:03 PM**

Deleted

Rizzo · #**50875** Posted **Jul 14, 2022, 3:05 PM**

Can’t believe how long 3217 Clark had been vacant. It appears nearly 60 years. Must have been making a lot of money on parking to not sell or redevelop

west-town-brad · #**50876** Posted **Jul 14, 2022, 4:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Yes, that's ridiculous. Basically every standard lot should allow for 1-3 unit buildings. I would understand exceptions for historic districts, but a 3 flat is a single family home essentially.

To add to the insanity that is zoning...

One side of my street in Bucktown is zoned RT4 and the other side is zoned RS3. Both sides are identical in makeup and have the same lot sizes. The RS3 side (where my house is) is actually closer to the L station and has the lower zoning.

It appears the saleable house that you can build in RT4 given the tiny lots of Bucktown is about the same as RS3. Lots are mostly 24feetx100feet. To get a 3 flat you need and extra half lot or so, and the only new 3 flats around here are on those larger sized lots which means they were old tiny warehouses or churches or apartment buildings. You don't see a lot of apartment buildings getting torn down though given the rental demand.

marothisu · #**50877** Posted **Jul 14, 2022, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizzo

Can’t believe how long 3217 Clark had been vacant. It appears nearly 60 years. Must have been making a lot of money on parking to not sell or redevelop

It really is insane. I'm wondering about taxes too - probably haven't been paying a lot.

Anyone have a pic of what's being built here? I should really go there sometime to see. Totally forgot about this project

Briguy · #**50878** Posted **Jul 14, 2022, 10:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

It really is insane. I'm wondering about taxes too - probably haven't been paying a lot.

Anyone have a pic of what's being built here? I should really go there sometime to see. Totally forgot about this project

It's so fugly don't even bother