CHICAGO | General Developments

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Time to pop some popcorn and watch Logan Square Preservation and the affordable housing folks eat each other alive...

LSP and LSNA have already approved this proposal, according to Block Club. But the project will need a zoning change, the approval of an $8M TIF subsidy from the Fullerton/Milwaukee TIF, and an RDA for the city-owned land to be sold to Bickerdike.

The design is okay. Reminds me of this one in the Bronx by Grimshaw:
https://www.archdaily.com/468660/via...chitects-photo

[Hourstrooper]

Originally Posted by ardecila

LSP and LSNA have already approved this proposal, according to Block Club. But the project will need a zoning change, the approval of an $8M TIF subsidy from the Fullerton/Milwaukee TIF, and an RDA for the city-owned land to be sold to Bickerdike.

The design is okay. Reminds me of this one in the Bronx by Grimshaw:
https://www.archdaily.com/468660/via...chitects-photo

I wish it was that dense and tall!

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ardecila

LSP and LSNA have already approved this proposal, according to Block Club. But the project will need a zoning change, the approval of an $8M TIF subsidy from the Fullerton/Milwaukee TIF, and an RDA for the city-owned land to be sold to Bickerdike.

The design is okay. Reminds me of this one in the Bronx by Grimshaw:
https://www.archdaily.com/468660/via...chitects-photo

Evil TIF in action.

[aaron38]

It doesn’t look as bad from the other angle shown in the article.
Someone will just have to build something else to block off that back view.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

I'm no expert, but I thought subsidized housing was supposed to be sprinkled in lightly throughout a neighborhood instead of creating 100% subsidized buildings?

Not sure what you mean by subsidized. From the article it sounds like a tax credit project, so renters will still pay 30% of their income, it's just that rents have to be restricted to be affordable to people making a certain percentage of the area median income. 100 units at this site surrounded by a lot of high income and middle income seems fine to me. The problem is the cost of course, if that is what you mean by subsidy. A piece of land worth $4.5million given away? And $8million in TIF? And the article alludes to other public grants being needed.

Also Bickerdike has a pretty bad reputation in terms of property management. There are much better affordable housing developers out there. Figures Ramirez Rosa is working with them.

[the urban politician]

It is definitely subsidized housing, but I think if we’re going to do this, this is the way to get it done.

1. Let the taxpayers pay for affordable housing instead of forcing it on private landlords vis a vis rent control, which is a taking of property (in my opinion)
2. Sprinkle affordable housing throughout the area instead of creating one giant swath of concentrated poverty
3. Affordable housing on commercial, high density corridors is more likely to get drowned out by other urban features, thus it doesn’t stand out, dominate, and hence create pushback from market rate households. It would be more problematic in a purely residential and low density area
4. Near transit, for job access.

[HomrQT]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

Horrible design

Is this really that much cheaper than just using brick and making somehing that looks simple but nice?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Plus this has the added benefit of likely creating a gaggle of pissed off NIMBYS who will blame the presence of any and all panhandlers in the area on Rosa and then vote him out.

But I agree with TUP, if you are going to build affordable housing then do it, just don't create a contrived system that drives up the price of non subsidized housing.


This is pretty ugly though and I'm surprised LSP is behind it. Just goes to show how little they actually care about the historic integrity of the area.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Not sure what you mean by subsidized. From the article it sounds like a tax credit project, so renters will still pay 30% of their income, it's just that rents have to be restricted to be affordable to people making a certain percentage of the area median income. 100 units at this site surrounded by a lot of high income and middle income seems fine to me. The problem is the cost of course, if that is what you mean by subsidy. A piece of land worth $4.5million given away? And $8million in TIF? And the article alludes to other public grants being needed.

Also Bickerdike has a pretty bad reputation in terms of property management. There are much better affordable housing developers out there. Figures Ramirez Rosa is working with them.

Is there an affordability expiration on this? Like 30 years or so?

Does the city always surrender land outright for this type of arrangement or would it ever continue to own the underlying land with a long-term lease?

Thanks

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Stockerzzz

I'm no expert, but I thought subsidized housing was supposed to be sprinkled in lightly throughout a neighborhood instead of creating 100% subsidized buildings?

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Is there an affordability expiration on this? Like 30 years or so?

Does the city always surrender land outright for this type of arrangement or would it ever continue to own the underlying land with a long-term lease?

Thanks

There is usually an affordability restriction on title and the terms can easily be for 30 years, sometimes longer. I have no idea what the specifics are here. Some deals have long term ground leases but they are usually for neglible cost like a $1 per year for 99 years.

[Hourstrooper]

Bailey said that while downtown development “may change course a little bit” under the new administration, he is confident growth will continue. If development moves out to the neighborhoods, Related Midwest would be ready to take part.
“We are not only focused on large projects like The 78 and market-rate developments, but we are extremely focused on affordable housing,” Bailey said. “I think that this administration can lead us to a renaissance of affordable housing development that we would like to be an enormous part of.”

https://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...403-story.html


A New Second Resi boom is about to commence under lightfoot. Lets just hope we don't get anything that's like the housing projects of old......

[emathias]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Nice little infill project replacing the 1 story currency exchange building at Chicago and LaSalle


36 co-living apartments, retail, no parking

Originally Posted by marothisu

^ Huge improvement over what's there. What's the timeline to completion for it?

I don't know the timeline for the project overall, but the currency exchange at the corner of LaSalle and Chicago Ave is now shuttered.

[jc5680]

Originally Posted by Hourstrooper

A New Second Resi boom is about to commence under lightfoot. Lets just hope we don't get anything that's like the housing projects of old......

[marothisu]

Not sure if anyone saw this, but Sterling Bay is planning a mixed use development on the 5 acre vacant parcel of land at 67th and Wentworth in Englewood. I've been near the area for Open House Chicago for the Yale House and a church near that. That immediate area wasn't actually bad at all - for a few blocks at least the homes seemed kind of kept up and the neighborhood was quiet.

Anyway, anybody have any idea of what's coming? They might announce in the next few weeks but someone here might know better..

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

There is usually an affordability restriction on title and the terms can easily be for 30 years, sometimes longer. I have no idea what the specifics are here. Some deals have long term ground leases but they are usually for neglible cost like a $1 per year for 99 years.

Sure, I don't know anything about the terms in this case or how these deals are normally structured. But it struck me this was a valuable piece of land. Cannot entirely explain why, but intuitively I thought the city might maintain ownership of the land for the duration of time the building is affordable housing. Then if it was ever sold by the non-profit developer to an entity that would convert to market rate housing, the city would collect on the land. Sounds like these are fairly complicated deals regardless.

[orulz]

Nevermind

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Sure, I don't know anything about the terms in this case or how these deals are normally structured. But it struck me this was a valuable piece of land in an area with rising values. Cannot entirely explain why, but intuitively I thought the city might hold the land for the duration of time the building is affordable housing. Then if it was ever sold by the non-profit developer to an entity that would convert to market rate housing, the city would collect on the land. Sounds like these are fairly complicated deals regardless.

The land still must be sold, it's not given away and it's not kept by a city entity unless it's CHA. For example, for another 100% affordable project nearby (Pennycuff Apartments) the land was purchased for $3 Million. Given that you have to buy the valuable land and the income is capped due to it being an affordable project, that gives us poor designs. Good design is not free and this is what gets squeezed.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

The land still must be sold, it's not given away and it's not kept by a city entity unless it's CHA. For example, for another 100% affordable project nearby (Pennycuff Apartments) the land was purchased for $3 Million. Given that you have to buy the valuable land and the income is capped due to it being an affordable project, that gives us poor designs. Good design is not free and this is what gets squeezed.

Another huge driver in costs can be if federal funds are used (very likely the case here), Davis Bacon wages are required, which are outrageously high and of course make the project more expensive to build and crowds out quality design.

[Baronvonellis]

Meh, it looks fine to me, like other modern midrise buildings it will blend in. It's not 19th century Victorian ornate, but even luxury housing doesn't match real quality traditional architecture these days.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

The land still must be sold, it's not given away and it's not kept by a city entity unless it's CHA. For example, for another 100% affordable project nearby (Pennycuff Apartments) the land was purchased for $3 Million. Given that you have to buy the valuable land and the income is capped due to it being an affordable project, that gives us poor designs. Good design is not free and this is what gets squeezed.

In this case, the Block Club article states the land will be sold for $1.