[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Khantilever

If you allow for more density in the North Side, that ->
provides more workers for downtown ->
greater employment density downtown ->
increases wages downtown ->
increases demand for housing in other neighborhoods that are connected to downtown.

Working backwards in your logic: I absolutely agree that more jobs downtown is good for all neighorhoods connected to downtown, including many of the depopulating areas of the south side. This is why I think allowing office space at Lincoln Yards is a terrible idea, it's the equivalent of Sears moving to Hoffman Estates so the executives who drove it into the ground could be closer to their homes and golf courses for a few years.

I don't see how that has anything to do with allowing more 3 flats in Ravenswood or Old Irving Park or whatever - are you saying that hypothetical companies would actually say, "shoot I won't locate employees downtown because the north side is 10% more expensive than it should be, if only the city had allowed more infill 3-flats?" Remember also that the Blue, Brown, and Red Lines are all practically at the capacity of the current infrastructure - Red Purple Modernization will add a bit on the north lakefront. But otherwise accomodating far more downtown commuters in the north and northwest sides of the city would require hundreds of millions for new power, signalling, and more railcars, and yards to store those railcars, etc. Meanwhile trains are running half full from the south and west...

Also, increasing residential density in the North Side would also increase employment for South and West siders who can commute to jobs in those areas, and not just downtown.

See above re: Lincoln Yards.

And it's not even remotely obvious to me that the net gain even to struggling neighborhoods would be positive. On the one hand, more people will be priced out of nicer neighborhoods and may be pushed into struggling ones. But on the other hand, the city has less employment, higher rents and lower population growth, and that doesn't help struggling neighborhoods either.

I don't buy that there would be less employment. It's possible there could be slightly less total population in the city, but the regional effects are nil (i.e. there may be some number of people on the margins who, instead of living in the far northwest side, end up living in Niles or Skokie or Des Plaines etc. instead). In my previous post I stated that I support lots of dense mixed-use development in the Central Area - this is the one part of town that I think isn't "zero sum", because I do think a better and more dynamic downtown truly does unlock economic potential (agglomeration effects, tourism, etc.). I just don't see how whether or not we're allowing more 3-flats in Albany Park or Belmont Cragin will seriously impact the economic future of the city.

To put it simply, it's not a zero-sum game. And we ought to focus on helping the residents of those neighborhoods rather than instituting place-based policies that fetishize the location itself. If we price people out of nicer areas, the ensuing gentrification of struggling areas is likely to be more a result of replacement/displacement than improvement in welfare of the original residents of those areas.

Dude - I don't mean to sound condescending, but do you ride through these areas? The current market demand (rent, housing prices) in many of these areas is so low that there's minimal economic incentive to invest in any upkeep or improvement of properties. These areas are surviving on a mix of Section 8 vouchers for rentals (which are high enough to at least keep properties livable) and long-time owners who are basically stuck and have a lot sunk costs. Existing housing on existing streets with existing infrastructure is just withering away and getting demolished bit by bit due to a complete lack of demand to live in these areas. Anyone unlucky enough to own a commercial property has either let the city seize it (and now it's off the tax rolls) or has neglected and/or demolished their building to lower the carrying burden of the property tax. If they were lucky, they were able to sell it to a storefront church before it dilapidated to the point of condemnation - of course, it's still off the tax rolls now, but at least the building still exists.

A little gentrification is the best possible thing that could happen to these areas. There's no good reason Englewood can't again be a desirable location, with superlative transportation access and decent bones (though said bones are disappearing bit by bit each year). There are even still some cool old Victorians there, but again, there's a few less of them each year...

That doesn't mean housing couldn't be more affordable--especially in the places where people really want to live. And in the most desirable areas zoning is absolutely a constraint (though it's not in much of the rest of the city).

I fail to see how it is in my interest, or the interest of any south side property owner, to make the north or northwest sides more affordable and reduce demand to live in our neighborhoods. Mind you, I lived in the north side for about 10 years and still own a condo there; I do care about the neighborhoods, and I'm broadly pro-development, but moving back south has changed my macro-level view on this.

I really don't think it's super relevant to a young, professional couple fresh out of grad school that housing is cheap in some areas. The question is whether it's cheap in amenity-rich neighborhoods with good access to employment centers.

Sounds like that young, professional couple needs to learn the life lesson that nice things cost more than not-nice things and that perhaps they have to make some adult decisions involving trade-offs and values of what is most important to them.

If I had the choice to live in the same type of house with the same basic neighbors and same basic commute that I currently do, but on the north side, I would do it in a heartbeat. But I'm also at a point where minding my expenses is important to me and I made a trade-off decision to live south, because achieving all of the above would be like, at least 3 times more expensive in a northerly direction. (Westward was also a consideration, but I have more legacy ties southward). But all that means that I helped maintain the market and set comps for housing in my neighborhood, means I contribute to the local tax base and patronize local businesses, etc. The north side being expensive is a good thing for me.