Damn.

That right there justifies another 1.5 new apartment towers that nobody can build any more. Let the rents rise further!

Was there an executive order signed or something about the affordable housing stuff? As far as I can tell, the ARO hasn't been actually changed by law from what it was before Lightfoot was elected. I know she has proposed things but I didn't think any of it was signed into law yet. I mean, yeah there's 6 DSA on the city council now but they alone aren't going to change much unless they get others to agree.

Yeah, I'll admit that it's certainly hyperbole to claim that no rental buildings will go up as a result of the ARO, but I do think it will slow things down and make many new projects not pencil out. Plus, LL hasn't completely gotten rid of Aldermanic prerogative so some of the DSA Aldermen still seem to have to power to, at their own whims, block new projects in their wards.

Anyhow, we will not see the immediate affects of rents skyrocketing for another year or two, assuming we don't hit a huge recession. There are still previously entitled projects u/c to sop up some of the demand. But I definitely see a huge shortage of apartments starting around 2021, again assuming that job growth remains steady. But, ya never know....

The 78 has zoning for 10,000 units, Lincoln Yards has 6,000, another 1,500 in the River District, and Riverline/Southbank has 3,700. If the demand continues, there seems to be some cushion.

Also, many parcels downtown are zoned already for moderate to large buildings. The people who might be affected are those developers trying to build very luxury places that need a zoning change. I don't think this will be a problem on average downtown. A lot of those would probably go under as of right. I don't know what their plans for as of right are for the ARO though. It doesn't seem like downtown area need to worry too much about this, I think? It's the other areas perhaps. The very luxury 8 unit building looking to go up in Lincoln Park that needs a zoning change will be impacted.

^ Right, but only the 78 is properly planned to have a subway station.

The demand right now is for TOD. Particularly hot these days is the Blue/Pink lines, but yes the other ones are always going to be popular too.

I think this is the problem. The idea here is that we want more density outside of the core. We were beginning to see that with Rahm's TOD ordinance; but with this new wave of go-getters in the City Council, I'm feeling like we're going to go back to Chicago's tradition of mostly pushing density into the core, and seeing mostly townhomes and SFH, perhaps small as-of-right condo buildings everywhere else.

You make a good point. I think an argument could be made that building out TOD near the Green line on the near south side might be more beneficial overall to the city.

Yeah, totally agreed. I was just saying that downtown is probably mostly safe. Outside of it, I agree. Some developers might not have a problem, some will I'm sure. They're (govt) going about it the wrong way too, but we mostly know that.

Where along the Pink Line? Pilsen?

Good news from Accenture. That’s a big W.

I'm not trying to argue, but just pointing out that, like, most of the North Side is just small apartment buildings with no parking. And that's the most desirable, in-demand area to live.

Just get rid of parking requirements city wide and be done with it. And then as-of-right density to match the average density within 200' of non-TOD, non-commercial streets anywhere in the city. e.g., if you have a parcel in Lakeview surrounded by 20 unit walkups, something similar is permitted. If you have a parcel near midway surrounded by bungalos, nothing more than four units or a SFH + ADU is as-of-right. One benefit to this kind of zoning is that density would creep across the city from already dense areas.

That would make middle-income housing affordable city wide, but still wouldn't address housing for people on the bottom of the ladder. My favored idea for that would be legalizing micro-units and letting developers place them wherever there's demand. I like the sentiment behind the ARO pilots, but perhaps developers want to build affordable housing where land is cheap, because that is where it can most effectively be delivered. I would stick with the ARO concept but remove the requirement that affordable units be delivered onsite or nearby.

The developments you listed constitute about 3-4 years of current absorption downtown. The developers of those projects cannot and will not deliver their product that quickly. So yes, there's already plenty of entitled parcels, but just the demand for luxury housing downtown has already shown how quickly such sites can be mopped up in as little as 5-10 years.

I'm talking neighborhoods though, not downtown. The supply spigot on the NW has been completely turned off. It already shows, just look at Western Ave, site after entitled site is being developed. Anywhere you can build a building without dealing with a zoning change is being built. Again, that's great and all, but it comes nowhere close to mopping up demand the way building 2000+ TOD units along MKE ave did over the past 5 years.

I'm not saying there will ever be a day in our lifetimes where Chicago truly lacks the ability to find new sites for housing. That's absurd, we have far too much land. What I AM saying is that the ARO bump and a bunch of commies have basically taken zoning changes off the table for the time being. This means our market just shifted a lot closer to SF than the free market "build as much as you can sell as long as you donate to the alderman" that it has been since the days of trading posts along the Chicago river.

I get your point, I'm simply asking if it is necessarily a bad thing. The "old school" policy was great for property owners on the northside, but it also heavily contributed to some of our city's biggest problems (lack of investment in certain areas, significant segregation, high and persistent violence).

Does Milwaukee Avenue "need" more TOD units? I am all for density, so in a vacuum I would argue "yes". But in our current environment, I think there could be benefit of spreading out some of those units into places like near west side and near south side. Increased density in those areas will benefit the city more in the long run than increased density in Logan Square or Wicker Park.

I don't think our Alderpeople are actually thinking about it that way, but it could be a positive consequence of their silly policies.

I realize that we are going way off course from the main topic of this thread, but I'm not sure that constraining supply in more "desirable" north side hoods will necessarily lead to more construction in Chicago's struggling areas on the south and west sides.

I mean, history suggests that this is just not how things work in Chicago. If people can't find a home in X north side neighborhood, they will just keep going up the train/highway to the cheaper hood further along, rinse and repeat, until you're possibly way out in the burbs.

I hope I'm wrong this time....

True, however commute times are very important for dual income families, the people buying these homes (millennials) have grown up in a more diverse world and housing prices have some inevitable ceiling on the northside where people will look for other alternatives.

We have already seen the beginnings of this type of shift in South Loop and Bronzeville. People realize you can buy a $400k SFH in Bronzeville, with a shorter commute than your $700k SFH in Ravenswood Manor.

I don't disagree that it could be a "good thing" from that perspective, but in the context of the ongoing "affordability" and "gentrification" debate, it has the exact opposite effect as intended.

The issue I have constantly lately seems to be that people can't separate me the businessperson from me the person. These policies, despite being supported by mobs of jeering idiots who think it hurts businesses like mine, are actually THE best possible outcome of the last election for me. All of the aldermen on the NW were replaced by DSA goons except my alderman (Reboyras). All of the aldermen in Pilsen are also DSA goons until you get to exactly where my investments are.

But as a person who actually feels for those who are on the short end of the stick here and who are going to face even more preassure as a result of these stupid restrictive policies, I'm aghast. I just don't understand what kind of reasonable human being thinks this is working or going to work. I don't understand how it is so difficult for people to realize that demand is demand, if you try to restrict itself from manifesting in one place, it will just show up elsewhere.

What exactly does the DSA set think is going to result from their "victory"? Do they think that people are going to be like "well gosh, the new alderman is DSA, I guess I'll stop investing here" or do they think the average yuppies going to be like "uh, I guess I won't go to that bar anymore since the alderman says gentrification is bad"? I'm just having the hardest time understanding exactly what people like Rosa think they've done to slow down the development. I mean he's allowed like one 4 flat and one 6 flat to be built in his ward since he was elected delivering a grand total of 2 ARO units. Where is the affordable housing he is promising? Where is this grand deal making ability to force developers to build more affordable units? Even his Emmitt Street proposal is starting to look like it might get bogged down in city council as other aldermen realize that he's giving away the house to his political supporters.

I think new(ish) SFHs for $400k in Bronzeville are a rare find these days. Could probably find a duplex though. There's a lot of underutilized or straight up vacant land on the near north side and along the north branch. Cabrini, LY, and everything east of the Kennedy and west of the north branch between Chicago and Addison is primed and ready w/o anyone feeling like they are a "pioneer". You're at the heart of all the action...

Anybody hear about this?

https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/7/9/...ions-work-stop

Looks like HGTV got into hot water with Chicago's Dept of Buildings

This might cause the show to shut down entirely

That's too bad, I personally was put off by their obsession with deconversions ("It's like a taste of the suburbs right in the city!" were words that she really said) but if I recall it was a pretty highly rated HGTV show, and not to get into the whole "we gotta promote chicago!" discussion but showing the HGTV crowd some of the cool neighborhoods in Chicago (and no gun violence!) was a good thing.

Who said new? To be fair, it's more like $450k, which kind of proves my point in the first place (example 1 and example 2).

East of Kennedy and west of the river is pretty well covered by the Targets, Kohls and Best Buys of the world, not to mention the lack of transit access (hence all the big-box stores). LY has no transit answer that I can see and who knows when Cabrini will ever get built.