CHICAGO | Highrise Projects & Construction, v7

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by harryc

It is the disconnect between what you value - and what the market values. Many of these people put a very high value on the view - the idea that others would pay more to live in a denser area with "no" view is hard to wrap ones head around.

But this is not necessarily the case - at all. Views certainly impact market pricing for units - sometimes significantly (not arguing against the existence of such pricing disconnects more broadly).

Stating this has no bearing on my view that impeding views from neighboring properties on its own should not factor into zoning decisions.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Illinois is unique in not requiring a comprehensive plan, yet authorizing cities to do zoning. That means we're always playing tennis without a net in Chicago. The alderperson—or the mayor's office—can always point to the existing zoning if they don't want something. Or they can just change the zoning if they do want it.

Rather than being some quirky local artifact of an earlier age that was just never changed due to legislative inertia or some other such explanation, I suspect that this is by design. Public corruption is the fuel that land use decisions run on in Chicago and Illinois.

[The Pimp]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Totaly... if you ignore the two earlier meetings the article mentions.

Sorry lame excuses. Disrupting air flow??? Stupid.

[chicubs111]

How can anyone ..especially alderman take these people serious with complaints like airflow (you got to be kidding) and the every popular "i wont see the sun anymore"... Does anyone every tell them there building once blocked someone else's airflow and sunlight?

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Rather than being some quirky local artifact of an earlier age that was just never changed due to legislative inertia or some other such explanation, I suspect that this is by design. Public corruption is the fuel that land use decisions run on in Chicago and Illinois.

I agree. This is my oversimplified model:

Development and land use decisions need to account for two kinds of impacts:

• The direct benefits of the new development (new residents, more businesses, paying higher taxes)
• The spillover effects on the surrounding area (more traffic, blocked views, changes to "neighborhood character"

To oversimplify, developers only care about their profits, which are correlated with the first bucket (more residents and businesses = higher rents and profits). Neighbors only care about their own comfort, which is correlated with the second bucket.

In Chicago the way we resolve the tradeoffs between the two kinds of impacts is by letting the groups that care about each impact "bid" against each other. And the alderman acts as the weighing mechanism. Neighbors "pay" by changing the amount of support they give in the next election (the more they hate the development, the less they will support him). Developers pay in a more literal sense, through anything from wink-wink campaign contributions to straight up bribes. The more they stand to make on the development, the higher their willingness to pay. The alderman finds the personally optimal amount of development (most $ for least headache from voters), and that's what he decides to allow.

Now there are lots and lots of things that are corrupt and bad about this system. But it does result in some amount of balancing between developer and neighbor interests which, while not optimal, at least avoids the worst NIMBY-dominated traps we see in places like SF.

Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by harryc

It is the disconnect between what you value - and what the market values. Many of these people put a very high value on the view - the idea that others would pay more to live in a denser area with "no" view is hard to wrap ones head around.

they may say they put a value on the view, but if you have ever seen an independent real estate appraisal form for a bank during underwriting, there is no check box for views

[Mr Downtown]

It's not just the views. Folks will say with a straight face that having new $700/sq ft condos built across the street is bound to reduce the value of their $300/sq ft built-in-1972 units. People who actually earn a living as financial professionals will claim it's just a simple matter of supply and demand.

After all, every new restaurant that opened on West Randolph caused those already there to lower their prices, right?

[the urban politician]

^ What keeps rents or prices down isn't the fact that there is a nice building across the street.

It's the fact that there is a parking lot across the street.

Investment and wealth tends to attract investment and wealth.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

It's not just the views. Folks will say with a straight face that having new $700/sq ft condos built across the street is bound to reduce the value of their $300/sq ft built-in-1972 units. People who actually earn a living as financial professionals will claim it's just a simple matter of supply and demand.

After all, every new restaurant that opened on West Randolph caused those already there to lower their prices, right?

funny thing about NIMBYs is they never seem to think the same thing about single family houses

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way.

Mind if I steal this line from you, Barrelfish? I promise to give you credit!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[k1052]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

Now there are lots and lots of things that are corrupt and bad about this system. But it does result in some amount of balancing between developer and neighbor interests which, while not optimal, at least avoids the worst NIMBY-dominated traps we see in places like SF.

Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way.

Basically this. I mean NYC is about to outlaw new hotel construction just because and even modest upzoning plans are assaulted by army of loud angry NIMBYs who have the time to shout down everyone at community board meetings.

Whatever my quibbles with Chicago's process it's much better than most of what's going on elsewhere.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by k1052

Basically this. I mean NYC is about to outlaw new hotel construction just because and even modest upzoning plans are assaulted by army of loud angry NIMBYs who have the time to shout down everyone at community board meetings.

Whatever my quibbles with Chicago's process it's much better than most of what's going on elsewhere.

The difference between Chicago and NY/SF NIMBYs is that Chicago still has loads of underutilized lots all over the city core that the Chicago brand of NIMBY exists to protect. Fighting to preserve a surface lot downtown is pathetic.

[Barrelfish]

Originally Posted by glowrock

Mind if I steal this line from you, Barrelfish? I promise to give you credit!

Aaron (Glowrock)

Hahaha go ahead!

[r18tdi]

Fifield has withdrawn 125 W. Maple from today's Plan Commission, according to this.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Handro

The difference between Chicago and NY/SF NIMBYs is that Chicago still has loads of underutilized lots all over the city core that the Chicago brand of NIMBY exists to protect. Fighting to preserve a surface lot downtown is pathetic.

I've personally witnessed almost every surface lot downtown get built upon, just in the last 2 decades. Regardless of what the NIMBYs scream at community meetings, the scoreboard is telling a very different story.

[BVictor1]

Plan Commission approves a 34-story, 433-unit development at 1215 W. Fulton Market with 80 parking spaces. The developer of the $160 million #WestLoop project will provide 87 affordable units on site and pay $4 million into the #ChicagoNOF system.







Plan Commission approves a new 11-story #WestLoop office project at 917 W. Fulton Market that will also rehabilitate an existing six-story landmark building with retail and office uses. The developer of the $250 million project will pay $4.6 million into the #ChicagoNOF system.

[archguy]

Just a interesting discussion from the Plan Commission today,

Butler Adams, who often attends community meetings in the West Loop, commented at the beginning of the meeting about the West Loop design guidelines and how they restrict design.

later at the end of the 917 W Fulton presentation, Commissioner Searle said she thought the comment was very relevant and that the West Loop guidelines should be revisited. she said that specifically 917 W Fulton's design got worse over the time it was revised through community and city review. "guidelines could make things watered down" - Commissioner Searle

Commissioner Cox said that if they take all the buildings that have been completed under the guidelines and get a scan of whether they have created a climate of innovation or climate that makes sure nothing bad happens. he suspects that they have made sure nothing bad happens but have not been a tool for innovation. seeing Fulton Market not just as the real estate juggernaut it is, but possibly a space for true innovation, they would be happy to revisit the guidelines possibly with the Committee on Design. "we hear you loud and clear, commissioner Searle's point is extremely well taken" - Commissioner Cox

Burnett jumps in to remind that guidelines were created through community process, says we would/should have to go back to community to revisit guidelines

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Barrelfish

I agree. This is my oversimplified model:

Development and land use decisions need to account for two kinds of impacts:

• The direct benefits of the new development (new residents, more businesses, paying higher taxes)
• The spillover effects on the surrounding area (more traffic, blocked views, changes to "neighborhood character"

To oversimplify, developers only care about their profits, which are correlated with the first bucket (more residents and businesses = higher rents and profits). Neighbors only care about their own comfort, which is correlated with the second bucket.

In Chicago the way we resolve the tradeoffs between the two kinds of impacts is by letting the groups that care about each impact "bid" against each other. And the alderman acts as the weighing mechanism. Neighbors "pay" by changing the amount of support they give in the next election (the more they hate the development, the less they will support him). Developers pay in a more literal sense, through anything from wink-wink campaign contributions to straight up bribes. The more they stand to make on the development, the higher their willingness to pay. The alderman finds the personally optimal amount of development (most $ for least headache from voters), and that's what he decides to allow.

Now there are lots and lots of things that are corrupt and bad about this system. But it does result in some amount of balancing between developer and neighbor interests which, while not optimal, at least avoids the worst NIMBY-dominated traps we see in places like SF.

Deeply corrupt but still semi-functional - it's the Chicago way.

This is an interesting framework. However, I would never (and I'm not stating you clearly do) subscribe to a view that we need to or should accept a certain level of corruption to remain semi-functional. I don't buy that that's a necessary trade-off that we must face.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by archguy

Just a interesting discussion from the Plan Commission today,

Butler Adams, who often attends community meetings in the West Loop, commented at the beginning of the meeting about the West Loop design guidelines and how they restrict design.

later at the end of the 917 W Fulton presentation, Commissioner Searle said she thought the comment was very relevant and that the West Loop guidelines should be revisited. she said that specifically 917 W Fulton's design got worse over the time it was revised through community and city review. "guidelines could make things watered down" - Commissioner Searle

Commissioner Cox said that if they take all the buildings that have been completed under the guidelines and get a scan of whether they have created a climate of innovation or climate that makes sure nothing bad happens. he suspects that they have made sure nothing bad happens but have not been a tool for innovation. seeing Fulton Market not just as the real estate juggernaut it is, but possibly a space for true innovation, they would be happy to revisit the guidelines possibly with the Committee on Design. "we hear you loud and clear, commissioner Searle's point is extremely well taken" - Commissioner Cox

Burnett jumps in to remind that guidelines were created through community process, says we would/should have to go back to community to revisit guidelines

Wow - I've rarely been so heartened by a report back from Plan Commission - at least until the point where Burnett jumped in. We have clearly been getting garbage in Fulton Market, and I'd venture in no small part because of these poorly constructed guidelines. I mean look at 1215 W Fulton - wtf is that? The tower on its own is fine I think. And I even somewhat dig the institutional look of the base - again on its own. Together this composition is nothing short of a dog's breakfast. An absolute mess.

Fulton Market is clearly an area due to its rent and pricing trends that would have been highly supportive of developers spending fairly big on innovative design over the last several years. What could have been. Better late than never for a major course correct. Hopefully Burnett doesn't play obstructionist here with progress. I know many on these pages are a fan because he's pro-development (didn't somebody recently refer to him as 'Build it Burnett'?). I'm less so (but at the same time I admit that it's good to counterbalance some of the quite anti-development aldermen on the council.


PS: Big h/t to Mr Butler Adams - it sounds like you were clearly the catalyst for this exchange.

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by r18tdi

Fifield has withdrawn 125 W. Maple from today's Plan Commission, according to this.

Good lord. Profile in courage, this alderman.