CHICAGO | General Developments

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by gallo

Here's the front elevation of the Alley building (3228 N Clark) redevelopment that I mentioned last week. The developer is committing to preserving the terra cotta facade of the existing building. 24 units, 6 parking spaces (including 1 for car share). Great smaller TOD! There was literally no community opposition to this project at our meeting last night and it was fully supported by everyone who voted.


courtesy of Jonathan Splitt Architects Ltd.

I really like this and it's great there was no opposition. Chicago needs WAY more projects where preservation is on everyone's mind (there's been a few but not as many as everyone would like). I love nice, contemporary buildings a lot, but I also love GOOD old buildings too and there's no reason for some of them not being preserved in some fashion.

[gallo]

Agreed... I like how the architect carried the rhythm of the existing windows and columns upward to the new section of the building.

Originally Posted by marothisu

I really like this and it's great there was no opposition. Chicago needs WAY more projects where preservation is on everyone's mind (there's been a few but not as many as everyone would like). I love nice, contemporary buildings a lot, but I also love GOOD old buildings too and there's no reason for some of them not being preserved in some fashion.

[rlw777]

I don't have any problem with the market doing it's thing and people buying and selling properties. But I do think the way we calculate property tax needs to change. Because people ARE pushed out of their homes when their home that was assessed at $125,000 jumps to being worth $450,000 in just a few years and their property taxes triple. For most folks the extra $4,000 or so in taxes won't break the bank but especially for retired folks who are on a budget and have been living in that neighborhood for 40 years it's absolutely criminal.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I don't have any problem with the market doing it's thing and people buying and selling properties. But I do think the way we calculate property tax needs to change. Because people ARE pushed out of their homes when their home that was assessed at $125,000 jumps to being worth $450,000 in just a few years and their property taxes triple. For most folks the extra $4,000 or so in taxes won't break the bank but especially for retired folks who are on a budget and have been living in that neighborhood for 40 years it's absolutely criminal.

yea thats a good point. how do other cities handle this?

[lu9]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

OK, I dug up the original documents and the second floor was only 3000 sqft.

They could have gone a couple of ways on the site.
They had two separate legally non-conforming buildings. They could have kept them that way and built 4 stories on the adjacent lots.

However, they desperately wanted to tie the Tower and the Hollander warehouse building together. The Tower has a very difficult footprint. It was fine for rooms, but made services a problem.

In order to do that, all the parcels had to be brought into compliance.

Including the area of the vacant lot, they were already at 4.35 FAR.
The only way to bring it into conformity was to rezone the entire site to a -5 (the highest zoning you can get outside of the downtown districts).

The store fronts are just there as gravy. They didn't need the space, they needed the land area.

As it stands, assuming no other changes, they have about 5000 buildable feet left in the site. That might allow for a full second floor (with rear setbacks) but never anything more.

Originally Posted by rlw777

I don't have any problem with the market doing it's thing and people buying and selling properties. But I do think the way we calculate property tax needs to change. Because people ARE pushed out of their homes when their home that was assessed at $125,000 jumps to being worth $450,000 in just a few years and their property taxes triple. For most folks the extra $4,000 or so in taxes won't break the bank but especially for retired folks who are on a budget and have been living in that neighborhood for 40 years it's absolutely criminal.

So in this scenario, home value appreciation is a bad thing for the homeowner? Theoretically they could refinance to at least pull out required funds for taxes. I'm sure there's some creative way to do that.

Kicking renters out due to increased values (and thus increased rent) makes sense. But for the property owners... doesn't quite add up.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^Perhaps they don't begin the discussion, as you seem to, with the assumption that free-market capitalism is the highest purpose of society.

It's not the highest purpose of society. Your words, not mine.

But owning investment property in Chicago is not a labor of love. You either are making money or why the hell are you doing it?

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But owning property in Chicago is not a labor of love. You either are making money or why the hell are you doing it?

living life?

or do you happen to be under the impression that whoever finishes with the biggest bank account balance on their deathbed wins?

my parents have lived in their house for 31 years. im sure its modestly appreciated, but making some huge profit is never the reason they purchased in the first place, or stayed as long as they have.

[the urban politician]

^ The Alley project on Clark St is rad. Really loving how that intersection is starting to see some love

[Via Chicago]

i just realized you specified investment property. nevertheless, the world would be better served by communities that actually serve as such rather than something to merely be exploited.

[ardecila]

As a Pilsen resident I'm torn here... I'm fully 100% in favor of converting these old warehouses. They're sitting unused, and what's the Plan B for these buildings other than loft residential?

They're no longer desirable for industry and only borderline desirable for office. Lacuna Arts Lofts is a neat, 21st-century take on Class C office space with an artsy veneer but I don't think it's a realistic plan for every warehouse.

Plus, the loft conversions are a great way to increase the tax base and bring in wealthier residents without displacement. Most of them are now being done as parking-lite too, so we won't repeat the mistakes of North Side conversions where they increased traffic.

Fortunately, despite TUP's remarks that Pilsen is "on fire", the reality is that the gentrification here is not proceeding anywhere near as fast as other areas have in the past. If you get priced out, affordable housing exists just one stop further down the Pink Line...

[Mr Downtown]

I'm not personally objecting to gentrification or rising rents in Pilsen. In fact, I suspect that nearly all of the capital appreciation is going into the pockets of Mexican immigrants—ones who came to Chicago 20 or 30 years ago and invested a lot of sweat equity into the buildings.

But there are democratic societies who think of affordable housing as something government regulation (and even government supply and operation) can help with, rather than leaving it entirely to untrammeled capitalism. They see housing as more of a human right than a retirement plan for the building owners.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by rlw777

I don't have any problem with the market doing it's thing and people buying and selling properties. But I do think the way we calculate property tax needs to change. Because people ARE pushed out of their homes when their home that was assessed at $125,000 jumps to being worth $450,000 in just a few years and their property taxes triple. For most folks the extra $4,000 or so in taxes won't break the bank but especially for retired folks who are on a budget and have been living in that neighborhood for 40 years it's absolutely criminal.

I thought the city already had a cap on how high your property taxes can go up so that it is not such a huge jump. I also thought they had a program/cap for seniors. Still not a complete solution..just delays the inevitable.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by lu9

So in this scenario, home value appreciation is a bad thing for the homeowner? Theoretically they could refinance to at least pull out required funds for taxes. I'm sure there's some creative way to do that.

Kicking renters out due to increased values (and thus increased rent) makes sense. But for the property owners... doesn't quite add up.

Obviously home value appreciation is not a bad thing. I'm arguing that the way that we assess property taxes is a bad thing. Is it really the best thing for a community to force Grandma and Grandpa to move out of the neighborhood they lived in and contributed to their whole life? Or could we maybe just figure out a way to make property taxes more predictable for those people who live in gentrifying neighborhoods?

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I thought the city already had a cap on how high your property taxes can go up so that it is not such a huge jump. I also thought they had a program/cap for seniors. Still not a complete solution..just delays the inevitable.

There was a cap that ended a few years ago. I'm not sure about a program for seniors I will have to look.

[marothisu]

Pilsen is a good area - so I'm torn because gentrification means it will lose its character which is NOT what I want and many others don't want. On the other hand, I'm for the advancement of the community. if Pilsen doesn't want gentrifiers, then they need to make sure their community is advancing with how they want it, otherwise it becomes an easy target for gentrification. If the prices there rise, it can become less of a target usually, but if prices stay the same or even go down for property, then they aren't doing themselves any favors.

I'd much rather have some other parts of town gentrify long before Pilsen. I wish EGP could, for example.

[Via Chicago]

The difference is Pilsen is pretty safe in the scheme of things. EGP still isnt. And so much of the urban fabric of EGP has been lost. Im sure some day it will get filled in with ugly spec homes, but in the meantime it feels like a very isolated existence. Although the housing stock that has maaged to survive is undeniably beautiful.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

The difference is Pilsen is pretty safe in the scheme of things. EGP still isnt. And so much of the urban fabric of EGP has been lost. Im sure some day it will get filled in with ugly spec homes, but in the meantime it feels like a very isolated existence. Wicker Park/Logan etc never really had to overcome those hurdles.

Exactly - safety plays a big part in it. I wasn't saying EGP is going to - I said I wished it would gentrify before Pilsen because it has a lot less to lose in some parts IMO than Pilsen (no offense to EGP people here). Not all of EGP is isolated by the the way but that's another story.

Anyway, it's a long thing but Pilsen residents who don't want to see gentrification can go about it in many ways and it's not always about protesting.

[Via Chicago]

i think the foreclosure crisis pounded EGP harder than most. using street view, you really get a sense for how many seemingly stable properties became board ups from '11 to '14. its heartbreaking. the resurgence of heroin distribution in that corridor hasnt helped matters either.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

living life?

or do you happen to be under the impression that whoever finishes with the biggest bank account balance on their deathbed wins?

my parents have lived in their house for 31 years. im sure its modestly appreciated, but making some huge profit is never the reason they purchased in the first place, or stayed as long as they have.

Please note that I amended my post to say investment property.

I think you posted this prior to my making that change. I totally agree with you that most people own property as their own homes, not to make money.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Fortunately, despite TUP's remarks that Pilsen is "on fire", the reality is that the gentrification here is not proceeding anywhere near as fast as other areas have in the past. If you get priced out, affordable housing exists just one stop further down the Pink Line...

It's not "on fire" in the sense of being as far along in the gentrification wave as, say, Logan Square is. But with purchases of cheap property with the intent to rehab being a leading indicator, it's very much on fire.

There is a lot of interest in this area from smaller banks, rehabbers, flippers, etc that there wasn't even 3-4 years ago.

I agree that people can move further west along the Pink Line, and I think that is a wonderful thing. We need more revitalization and investment along our L stops.