Quote:
Originally Posted by Khantilever
This is also risky. Look at what happened the last time the city zoning map was re-drawn, early 2000s. Much of the city was downzoned. The risk of eliminating aldermanic privilege and re-drawing the map is that we end up with a very tightly drawn map that is also inflexible.
You look at spot zoning and see arbitrariness and corruption. But it shows something else too. It shows flexibility. I'm very nervous about the changes coming down the line, because as much as we complain the fact is no major city in the US is as easy to build in as Chicago. And I have no doubt aldermanic privilege plays a huge role in that. Not only does it give an incentive for aldermen to listen to developers, but it's also easier to lobby an alderman for a single parcel's zoning change than to lobby the Planning Department to upzone an entire neighborhood.
Rather than eliminate aldermanic privilege outright, all we need is an appeals process--as Lightfoot has proposed. That only adds more upward flexibility in zoning and can help fight corruption.
|
Personally, I think that, city-wide, we'd be better off with the average zoning being one or two steps higher than the typical lot is likely to have demand for. That way high-demand locations can easily add housing that people want, which the higher zoning also allows developers to put a targeted development in a location that might seed greater growth in an area. For example, higher zoning might allow a block of high density next to, say, the Indiana stop on the Green Line, with enough people to support a small grocery store and a couple of restaurants. It'd have to be relatively affordable housing due to the location, but the residents would have that grocery store and easy access to the Loop, so that cluster of density would pioneer stability near that station and then attract more people and, in theory, help turn the area around. After that seed of higher density, medium-density might follow as demand returns based on the benefit of a quick commute and the availability of essential basics like the grocery store. Contrast that to a station where only low-density is allowed. Yes, the same number of home in a low-density area might occupy a larger geographical part of the neighborhood more quickly, but it would possibly never reach the raw numbers needed to support the kind of basic services employed people want (the grocery store and basic restaurants), so it simply will never grow. I suspect that's part of the current problem along the south Green Line. It has excellent access to the Loop, but only a very few stations are walkable to a grocery store big enough to carry the basics, let alone more than the most basic of take-out restaurants. A developer might gamble on creating their own demand with a block of development, but they're not going to gamble on four or six blocks, plus even if they did, then all the area nearest the station that creates the easy commute attraction are occupied so it can't build more attractive homes without demolishing relatively new homes that kickstarted things. At the very least, any lot with a ten minute walk of an 'L' station should have zoning with a FAR of 4 or greater, even if it means that geographically the area gets filled in more slowly - having the same numbers in 2 blocks as 8 blocks is enormously more beneficial for both that neighborhood and the 'L' infrastructure and the City at large, and leaves more room to add housing that contains all the same amenities and walkability.
I also think it's time to up the numbers that trigger a Planned Development. For example, anything that could otherwise be built as-of-right, with 100 units or fewer should not trigger a planned development outside of downtown, or 400 inside downtown. I'm not stuck on those numbers, but they should be higher than they are. In communities the trigger number can be as low as 30 units, and as low as 90 units downtown - those just seem absurdly low to trigger a mandatory planned development. Those should not be viewed as enormous, they should be fairly normal if affordable housing is actually a goal.