CHICAGO | General Developments

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Sometimes, it just takes a little time and opportunity.

10 years ago, I was the first person in the family to live within 1,000 miles of Chicago.

Last year, father and grandmother came to join me. This year, mother and youngest brother are moving up here too.

Just curious - any specific reason why your family is following you?

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Just curious - any specific reason why your family is following you?

The principal reasons are affordable housing and city amenities. The pandemic and housing appreciation made it reasonable



For my father, the pandemic completely disrupted his career (International convention sales especially in Europe and Asia) - and South Florida is a very limited place for business contacts who are not from New York or South America. United Airlines direct flights are annoyingly expensive for a middle-class professional, and connecting flights frequently go through O’Hare anyway.

(It did not help that his house has been burglarized in Florida during international trips, so living close to me is a big security benefit for the property.)

So the Florida house was sold and Chicago property purchased in full, and my grandmother followed also as she needs more assistance from family nowadays.


My Mom is in Central Florida (Ocala) and the maintenance, utility and insurance costs of the house in Florida are at a breaking point (There’s a snowballing homeowners insurance crisis — https://www.bankrate.com/insurance/h...urance-crisis/)

She wants a small apartment or condo so she doesn’t have to deal with this and just wind down before retirement. The Chicago area is the only one that has major cultural amenities (like theater), decent access to lakes and forests, and new apartments that don’t kill the bank.

My youngest brother is still a teenager so he’ll be coming too.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The principal reasons are affordable housing and city amenities. The pandemic and housing appreciation made it reasonable

A noticeable number of people I've met the past year moved from Florida, and the rest of the South, for the exact same reasons. Folks in their 20s-30s especially wanted to be somewhere with good transit

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Toasty Joe

it'd ban SFH-only zoning similar to Minneapolis

Then it will do literally nothing because the Chicago zoning code doesn't work that way. Our code uses Minimum Lot Area, not a hard unit count per parcel. RS-3 is generally single family zoning, but it has an MLA of 1500 so you can actually build a two flat on a 3125 SF lot. So no ban for RS-3 near trains then?

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

I think that a historic district is appropriate in many places. If a streetscape exists that's unique and important and basically can't be build today at any price, it should be very difficult to tear down.

But if someone owns a typical parcel in a city and wants to build a small apartment building on it, with or without parking, that should be possible without having to talk to any elected officials.

I have a hard time believing that if only $500K home values are currently supported by the market, that the market would also support hundreds of new market rate apartments there too, but maybe I'm missing some important insight.

That's my point, people are already tearing down $350k-$500k homes in our area to put up big 4 unit buildings that don't really belong in an area of SFHs that were built 60 years before the Blue Line was extended to Jefferson Park. You say "I doubt this will unleash a flood of demand for more units if they aren't already being built", but people are already doing this whenever they can. You double the density allowed on such a lot and it's going to go from a trickle to a flood.

[marothisu]

The retreat center (I think a Catholic spiritual one?) at Normal & 28th Pl is slated to be torn down. This is kind of sad that they aren't even going to try and preserve this. It was sold to "T2 Opportunity Fund I" in the fall which is T2 Construction in Bridgeport near 35th & Morgan (Chinese company).


https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8426...7i16384!8i8192

Anybody know their plans for this site? The developer has some sizable townhome developments. I wish there was something they'd plan more mixed use for stuff like this:
https://www.corcoran.com/homes-for-s...2/regionId=103
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/35...home/144506968


Speaking of which, does anyone know if these are actually finished yet?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8357...7i16384!8i8192

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

A noticeable number of people I've met the past year moved from Florida, and the rest of the South, for the exact same reasons. Folks in their 20s-30s especially wanted to be somewhere with good transit

also, hurricane insurance will more than eat any savings from lower FL taxes - I've run the numbers for myself

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

also, hurricane insurance will more than eat any savings from lower FL taxes - I've run the numbers for myself

I thought it was typically only like $50/mo extra?

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I'm about as YIMBY as they come, but given the total lack of perseveration protections in this City this could spell utter disaster for these older SFH districts along the Blue Line or for some Bungalow Belt areas also transit adjacent.

What is to stop anyone from trashing these areas as it stands? Mutilated bungalows can be found all across the city, teardowns in areas with rapidly increasing demand, really...it is the same story as any neighborhood, and any building type in Chicago.

As you are well aware, and rail against vociferously, Chicago is absolutely pathetic when it comes to protecting it's architectural and urban heirlooms. Us urbanists desperately advocate for it, but it has always been an afterthought for the city.

Would I hope that a layer of protections, beyond the pathetic demo hold, be included in a proposing ''dezoning"? Absolutely, I think it is crucial. Do I think it is essential? Not particularly. Many neighborhoods have prospered while enduring these changes, and it does seem they are getting better with it over time. The urban quality of the new development often matters more than the building type imo.

Perhaps protected areas would prevent teardowns but allow for ADUs? As a resident how would you imagine the addition of contemporary "carriage houses" affecting the neighborhood?

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I thought it was typically only like $50/mo extra?

If only. My dad’s house was uninsurable even 10 years ago, despite being 1 mile inland. He had to go with the state insurer of last resort.

Everybody know that the state insurance is going bankrupt the moment a major hurricane hits Florida.

My mother’s house in Central Florida had premiums raised $2K last year, and the private insurer refused to issue a new policy unless the roof was replaced up front. This is a house that’s only worth $400K.

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by marothisu

The retreat center (I think a Catholic spiritual one?) at Normal & 28th Pl is slated to be torn down. This is kind of sad that they aren't even going to try and preserve this. It was sold to "T2 Opportunity Fund I" in the fall which is T2 Construction in Bridgeport near 35th & Morgan (Chinese company).

url]https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8426728,-87.6403973,3a,90y,19.08h,89.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s8PUh4tXD1jE11tjq2COQBw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D8PUh4tXD1jE11tjq2COQBw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D97.8785%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192[/url]
Anybody know their plans for this site?

The Darst Center used to be the convent for All Saints St. Anthony Parish and School. T2 purchased the entire parcel and will preserve every building except the convent, which will be torn down for parking.

From YIMBY, dated 21 March 2022-

The Chicago City Council has approved the adaptive reuse of the All Saints St. Anthony Church at 518 W 28th Place in Bridgeport. Located on the corner with S Wallace Street, the multi-building complex will see new life as a child and adult daycare facility led by developer T2 Opportunity Fund LLC with Vari Architects LTD serving as the designers of the new interior spaces.

-------------------SNIP-------------------------

The existing church, rectory, school buildings will be receiving structural and facade repairs, while the rear convent structure is being demolished. The church and rectory will become a new adult-daycare facility

The church will see new walls added creating a library, reception, and office in the existing front entrance area, five activity rooms and a consultation room will be added in the linear nave, the crossing and transepts will become a multi-purpose space, and the choir/altar will be an exercise space with restrooms. The rear rectory building will be transformed into offices and a kitchen, details on how the ornate interior will be altered for these renovations are currently unknown.

The existing school building will become a children’s daycare facility with some of the already partitioned spaces remaining the same, a small addition will be built with a new exit stair and expanded classroom space. The first floor will feature a reception space, and an isolation room, with 14 classrooms spread across the three floors. The convent will be demolished for a new 21-vehicle parking lot with two-new curb cuts on S Normal Avenue.

ing src - YIMBY

Losing the convent is not good, but the vast majority of the architecture is being saved and put to good use. Could have been a hell of a lot worse.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2022/03/ada...ridgeport.html

[marothisu]

^ I saw 2 demo permits though for the site, which is what is worrisome..

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Speaking of which, does anyone know if these are actually finished yet?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8357...7i16384!8i8192

The last time I noticed them, maybe 30 days ago, they looked pretty much as they do in this Google link.

[GarfieldMcTavish]

Speaking of which, does anyone know if these are actually finished yet?
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8357...7i16384!8i8192[/QUOTE]

Moving along at a snail's pace, there's windows in there now. Still just two buildings. Excavation seems to have started on the other building sites from limited street view biking/walking while in the vicinity. Renderings I first saw there was a total of 6 or 7 structures proposed. Although it seems slightly suburbanized, can only complain so much considering it replaced a junkyard. At least it will establish more density. If successful though, could really push more development along Archer. McKinley Park could experience a decent amount of growth over next decade or so.

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ I saw 2 demo permits though for the site, which is what is worrisome..

I found one for 2834 S. Normal to "WRECK AND REMOVE A 2 1/2 STORY MASONRY BUILDING"(the convent). What address is listed for the second one?

ETA - Perhaps the second demo permit you mentioned is for taking down the small 1-story structures on the north end of the school to make way for an addition. Those structures look like they may not be original to the school, listed as 512 W 28th Pl. img src - YIMBY

[thegoatman]

been a slow day this past week...

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by untitledreality

Perhaps protected areas would prevent teardowns but allow for ADUs? As a resident how would you imagine the addition of contemporary "carriage houses" affecting the neighborhood?

ADUs would be fine, but it's already allowed. I just don't think these areas need anything more than 2 flats and would absolutely expect that a neighborhood like Mayfair that's on the freaking nation historic register would have some kind of protection in Chicago, but it does not. Hell all of the Albany Park community area is pretty historic. There's some areas with crappy frame shacks, but most of the neighborhood is either large scale arts and crafts homes or already built up as dense multifamily (mainly long commerical streets and near the brown line).

Given how sprawling our city is, I think there needs to be some level of protection for transit adjacent single family home districts. Places like Portage and Jefferson Park, Mayfair, Old Irving, or even North Park offer upper middle class "Yipsters" a semi affordable way to stay in the city and still expand into more space for growing families. It's a rare amenity for a top tier city. We should be providing massive upzonings further into the core, but let's also not trash these areas.

[r18tdi]

June Plan Commission agenda is out and it's pretty boring: https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...n_Hearing.html

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Given how sprawling our city is, I think there needs to be some level of protection for transit adjacent single family home districts. Places like Portage and Jefferson Park, Mayfair, Old Irving, or even North Park offer upper middle class "Yipsters" a semi affordable way to stay in the city and still expand into more space for growing families. It's a rare amenity for a top tier city. We should be providing massive upzonings further into the core, but let's also not trash these areas.

We should preserve value when it's especially difficult to price. If Ernest Hemmingway invented a new curse word in a Logan Square building, that building has value to the city that almost no individual owner is going to pay to preserve, since the benefits are distributed, not concentrated to the owner.

Old Irving park is charming and I see some reason to protect some its character with a preservation district. But if someone wants to live in a single family home in the city, they should simply pay for the true cost of that home and not ask their neighbors to effectively subsidized their lifestyle by banning other uses and artificially devaluing the resale price of the land through restrictive regulations.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by thegoatman

been a slow day this past week...

It's been slow the past month across the country, haven't seen much new proposals in other city threads (Jersey City is always the exception). Really feels like we're at the end of a boom, for now.

[moorhosj1]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

We should preserve value when it's especially difficult to price. If Ernest Hemmingway invented a new curse word in a Logan Square building, that building has value to the city that almost no individual owner is going to pay to preserve, since the benefits are distributed, not concentrated to the owner.

Old Irving park is charming and I see some reason to protect some its character with a preservation district. But if someone wants to live in a single family home in the city, they should simply pay for the true cost of that home and not ask their neighbors to effectively subsidized their lifestyle by banning other uses and artificially devaluing the resale price of the land through restrictive regulations.

Old Irving certainly has some charm that's worth preserving. It's part of the reason that my family lives here. I do like the diversity (economic, career, age, etc) that different housing options bring. We have a decent amount of old courtyard buildings in the neighborhood. Current zoning leaves us with this type of development replacing the old wide-lot SFH's. Asking $1.6 million:


I'd much rather see something like this, which is directly across the street. New zoning would make something like this possible, again: