CHICAGO | General Developments

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

That's why Broadway and Foster and Clark and Ashland need to be upzoned. Restricting a 2-Flat buyer/owner from converting to a SFH (which it already is technically) is stupid.

There is no such thing as restricting a 2 flat owner from converting to SFH. Reducing number of units is always permitted by zoning. It's going up in units that's always the problem.

And if your lot is large enough, RS-3 still permits a 2 flat, actually, although majority of lots in Chicago aren't large enough to have the FAR to make it happen, if I'm correct.

Anyhow, all this does is create more gentrification by restricting the number of available units. We need more density along the major thoroughfares and transit to counteract the losses of neighborhood 2 flats

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

There is no such thing as restricting a 2 flat owner from converting to SFH. Reducing number of units is always permitted by zoning. It's going up in units that's always the problem.

And if your lot is large enough, RS-3 still permits a 2 flat, actually, although majority of lots in Chicago aren't large enough to have the FAR to make it happen, if I'm correct.

Anyhow, all this does is create more gentrification by restricting the number of available units. We need more density along the major thoroughfares and transit to counteract the losses of neighborhood 2 flats

I understand that, but there are people here advocating restricting the ability of a 2 flat owner's right to change their home.

[PittsburghPA]

According to Curbed, Blommers is toying with the idea of selling. Looks like there is a chance we lose our chocolate aroma. I'm sure that property is extremely valuable.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/8/28/17788004/blommer-chocolate-company-sale-report

[SolarWind]

August 23, 2018

[AMWChicago]

Originally Posted by SolarWind

August 23, 2018

God I love pictures like this. Surgical cropping of urban density. Beautiful.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I understand that, but there are people here advocating restricting the ability of a 2 flat owner's right to change their home.

Restriction is bad if you want a SFH but good if you want a 3 flat. Ok then.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by k1052

Restriction is bad if you want a SFH but good if you want a 3 flat. Ok then.

Kinda putting words in his mouth.

I for one don't oppose making it easy to convert a 2 flat into a SFH. But I also prefer having the appropriate level of zoning in city neighborhoods such that 2, 3, or 6 flats can be built pretty easily in most parts of town. Unfortunately, so much of the city has been downzoned to RS-3 that this is not the case.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Kinda putting words in his mouth.

I for one don't oppose making it easy to convert a 2 flat into a SFH. But I also prefer having the appropriate level of zoning in city neighborhoods such that 2, 3, or 6 flats can be built pretty easily in most parts of town. Unfortunately, so much of the city has been downzoned to RS-3 that this is not the case.

No this is precisely the argument. I'm not in favor of downzoning hot neighborhoods in a way that will promote a reduction in units, to say nothing of adding units which is what's really needed. Instead of continuing to downzone the city should be upzoning them and allowing ADUs. If you want to preserve character then use a historic district.

I fail to see why the desire of a 2 flat owner to say build a 3 flat should be counted as less important than a conversion to SFH if one doesn't think people should be told what they can/can't do with their properties.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by k1052

No this is precisely the argument. I'm not in favor of downzoning hot neighborhoods in a way that will promote a reduction in units, to say nothing of adding units which is what's really needed. Instead of continuing to downzone the city should be upzoning them and allowing ADUs. If you want to preserve character then use a historic district.

I fail to see why the desire of a 2 flat owner to say build a 3 flat should be counted as less important than a conversion to SFH if one doesn't think people should be told what they can/can't do with their properties.

A three flat would be fine. Isn't 1-4 SFH from a lending perspective anyway? I think the issue is preserve the gorgeous nature of the neighborhood. Allow real density to be built on major artery streets in the area. As said many times, Broadway is ridiculously hideous and auto centric with strip malls and parking lots. Most 2flats in hot neighborhoods can't be used as rentals and provide a return unless you've owned them for 20+ years. What does a 2flat in Aville go for now? $800K-$1M? Pretty sure rents aren't gonna cover the cost of operating.

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by k1052

I fail to see why the desire of a 2 flat owner to say build a 3 flat should be counted as less important than a conversion to SFH if one doesn't think people should be told what they can/can't do with their properties.

What is zoning if not the city telling people what they can/can't do with their properties? Deconversion is the biggest drain on affordable units in the city and should be banned across the board, with the possible exception of historic properties that were originally SFH.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

What is zoning if not the city telling people what they can/can't do with their properties? Deconversion is the biggest drain on affordable units in the city and should be banned across the board, with the possible exception of historic properties that were originally SFH.

I find it hard to believe that converting 2 flats to SF is the biggest drain on affordable units.

[10023]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

What is zoning if not the city telling people what they can/can't do with their properties? Deconversion is the biggest drain on affordable units in the city and should be banned across the board, with the possible exception of historic properties that were originally SFH.

It’s hard to get permission to do that here, but it’s stupid. Sometimes all that a ban on de-conversion does is force people to move when they have kids, because the 1000 sq ft two bedroom duplex isn’t big enough. So you have two flats with a young couple or a couple single roommates in each, instead of a house for a family of 4-5. You’re not actually guaranteeing that more people live in the same space.

There has been a reduction in density in most pre-war housing, but that’s because whole families no longer sleep in a single room, and that’s not going to come back whether you ban de-conversions or not.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by 10023

It’s hard to get permission to do that here, but it’s stupid. Sometimes all that a ban on de-conversion does is force people to move when they have kids, because the 1000 sq ft two bedroom duplex isn’t big enough. So you have two flats with a young couple or a couple single roommates in each, instead of a house for a family of 4-5. You’re not actually guaranteeing that more people live in the same space.

There has been a reduction in density in most pre-war housing, but that’s because whole families no longer sleep in a single room, and that’s not going to come back whether you ban de-conversions or not.

Totally agree. It's disconcerting what's happening to the loss of units, but the benefits to the city of still allowing deconversion--though not subsidizing it by downzoning--probably outweigh the cons. We want these families to stay here.
The solution to the loss of units is up zoning commercial corridors or even up zoning these areas making it easier to add units.

[the urban politician]

Let's not kid ourselves. The majority of these deconversions of 2 flats to SFH aren't a family renting one space saying, "Gee, Ward, wouldn't it be swell if we converted the whole place into our home? Go tell Desi and Lucy downstairs that we'all be needing them to move out".

Majority of cases, the offsite landlord doesn't renew the lease, kicks out the tenants, gut rehabs, and flips it to a new owner who will then make it their home.

[marothisu]

^ Yes. Someone with some $$ usually comes in and buys the property, renovates and makes it into SFH for their own family. It's kind of surprising it happens so much and it's not your regular type of process. Curious if people do this because say a 2 flat sometimes is cheaper even with a $100K renovation ..or..?

[SolarWind]

August 29, 2018

[SolarWind]

August 29, 2018

[SpireGuy]

RIP
8.29 by Chicagooan, on Flickr

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by SpireGuy

RIP
8.29 by Chicagooan, on Flickr

I’d be surprised if a new 2-flat was built here... likely a SFR or 3 unit condo. Have the address? Unless it was one of those newish 2-unit, 4-level condo builds where each condo is $900,000+.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Let's not kid ourselves. The majority of these deconversions of 2 flats to SFH aren't a family renting one space saying, "Gee, Ward, wouldn't it be swell if we converted the whole place into our home? Go tell Desi and Lucy downstairs that we'all be needing them to move out".

Majority of cases, the offsite landlord doesn't renew the lease, kicks out the tenants, gut rehabs, and flips it to a new owner who will then make it their home.

Exactly, 10023's notion that individual families will perform a deconversion is a joke. The costs and challenges of a construction project, not to mention the need for interim housing, are prohibitive for 99% of Chicago families. "Growing in place" through deconversion is not really a solution.

Just think about it... a 3-bedroom unit is not double the value of a 1 or 2-bedroom unit, so in virtually every case it makes more financial sense for the growing family to move into a larger apartment somewhere else than to purchase two units and combine them.