CHICAGO | General Developments

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

You do realize that you will get no sympathy on this forum, don't you?

We despise NIMBYs like you. You are evil. You are selfish. You are horrible for the city. We hate everything you stand for. A denser city is a healthier city. We are against excess parking. We are pro-transit and walking. We feel that density improves livability and reduces car dependence. We also think the city needs more tax revenue, and opposing development will only increase everybody else's property taxes.

right





density, such a healthy utopia!

spare the sermon.

[the urban politician]

^ Oh give me a break. Like Chicago is even within a light year of turning into that any time.....like ever. Chicago needs more density, that has been amply discussed

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Oh give me a break. Like Chicago is even within a light year of turning into that any time.....like ever. Chicago needs more density, that has been amply discussed

except it dosent. we had over a million more people living here in 1950, and they all managed to fit somehow.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

except it dosent. we had over a million more people living here in 1950, and they all managed to fit somehow.

Yeah because average household size is going to return to where it was in an era before birth control and suburbs were invented.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by k1052

There is a distinct difference between people who push to kill developments for bad reasons and the people who want them, constructively, modified for the right ones. A cursory look at the comments from the people signing that petition puts this effort squarely in the former category.

That may be correct about this particular development, but my comment was more general, not specific to this. Having said that, I would not always concern myself with why people oppose something so long as the end result is good. If a design is terrible or seems wrong for an area then I am happy to see a fork stuck in the plan. Or to see a plan modified. I don't concern myself with whether it is seen as "win" for someone else. For example, if an architecturally significant building is protected only because neighbors want to protect their views, I will accept that.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah because average household size is going to return to where it was in an era before birth control and suburbs were invented.

so why the need to pile on top of ourselves?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ Oh give me a break. Like Chicago is even within a light year of turning into that any time.....like ever. Chicago needs more density, that has been amply discussed

Completely agree. I find it funny that people who see the word "density" would go to the complete extreme of what it actually means. There's many varying levels of density - the one shown in the picture is at the far end of the extreme. Nobody on here, even the people who love density like myself, would ever wish upon this reality in a million years.

Chicago right now has healthy density in many areas, but I agree it could be more in certain areas. This is what makes a city dynamic - at a healthy level. I think anybody who doesn't understand there's such things as healthy density and unhealthy density hasn't traveled enough. I don't think it should be tons more, but more, in certain areas. For example, an area like Wicker Park with 15,000 per sq mile - I'm not going to be upset if that goes up to 25,000 per sq mile. 100,000 per sq mile? God no. Not in a million years would I hope Wicker Park becomes that dense.

Downtown though? Downtown should be denser in areas - there's no reason to have pockets of downtown, the hub of a city, be at less than 15,000 per sq mile. Absolutely no reason. There is no reason that downtown Chicago should be full of parking lots, ever. Nobody is wishing for 200,000 per sq mile, but 60,000 per sq mile? 75,000 per sq mile? I'll gladly take it downtown.

The city is supposed to be a dynamic, versatile, diverse place, and one way to do that is by adding a healthy dose of density. Not an unhealthy amount - other things like businesses, parks, etc follow after that to subconsciously urge the people to make it more dynamic.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

we had over a million more people living here in 1950, and they all managed to fit somehow.

my dad grew up in the '50s in a 3 bedroom bungalow on the south side that housed 8 people. mom and dad, 3 boys, & 3 girls.

- mom & dad's bedroom

- boys bedroom.

- girls bedroom.

most middle class families don't/won't live like that anymore.

today that same bungalow would be doing well to house 4 people.

[Via Chicago]

i get all that. but the point regardless is there are far fewer people here than there once was. we're not running out of room, and we certainitly dont need to be demolishing existing infrastructure on top of it. developers need to make a buck, but its not improving our streetscapes. id rather live in a neighborhood of well done 3-4 flats than a neighborhood of poorly done 18 story highrises.

the notion that its "evil" to have such a preference is juvenile. most of the best, most livable cities in the world are not highrise centric.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

i get all that. but the point regardless is there are far fewer people here than there once was. we're not running out of room, and we certainitly dont need to be demolishing existing infrastructure on top of it. developers need to make a buck, but its not improving our streetscapes. id rather live in a neighborhood of well done 3-4 flats than a neighborhood of poorly done 18 story highrises.

Sure, but I don't think you understand what's going on in other neighborhoods or why people aren't all flocking to the south side. There is tons of room available all over the south as west sides, but it doesn't mean people want to live there.

Let's take the twin towers being constructed near the California stop for example. Even 3 years ago, the area between California and Western was mostly vacant. A lot of parking lots, vacant storefronts. Congress Theater still had concerts, but there was a lot of vacantness, or the feeling of it. I can remember even two years ago going out to places north of there like Whistler - some people out but not a ton. Today? There's actually a lot of people who do the nightlife there.

Fast forward to the last 1.5 years ago. A lot of new stuff geared towards the average millennial city dweller started to open there. Masada, The Radler, Heavy Feather, Emporium, Lost Lake, Analogue, Black Lion Tavern, Chicago Distilling Company, The General, East Room, Owen & Alchemy, etc not to mention the places that were already there like Longman & Eagle, Whistler, Boiler Room, etc.

Do you think it's an accident that all of a sudden we have 2 high rises under construction right in this area, with another 100+ unit building almost complete down the street, and other big proposals like the mega mall redevelopment? No, it's not and quite frankly IMO these things wouldn't have been a reality even 3 years ago. You could say the same exact thing about the West Loop and why over the land handful of years, more and more residential is going to the area.

The reason why they are coming up now is because the types of people that Chicago continues to attract are the millennial generation who has disposable income, they want to live in a dynamic place, and they want to meet people. The pure fact that this corridor added a bunch of hip places to either drink or at can probably explain the reason why all of a sudden everyone wants to build multi unit projects in the area.

Chicago may be losing families to the suburbs or elsewhere, but the people moving here are the ones who I just described above - they have disposable income, they want a dynamic and diverse place, and they want to meet people and have fun. So as long as areas like Bronzeville on the south side continue to not get a healthy dosing of places to eat, drink, etc at - this type of thing isn't going to happen. Don't get me wrong though, Bronzeville has been getting more of it, but it's certainly not enough to attract major development like Logan Square as a whole is seeing. Honestly, if someone opened up a handful of hip places to go in Bronzeville, all near each other, I guarantee you'd all of a sudden see an uptick in the multi unit development and people actually wanting to go there as a cool part of town, instead of the mostly single family home development going on there now. Insert any part of town into that though - Bronzeville is just an example. I could easily make East Garfield Park into the same example (but maybe more complex because of the crime rate).

The average person we're talking about here doesn't give two shits about the fact that there's open lots on the south and west sides. They want to live in places where there's shit to do and that's reasonably safe. And as long as this continues, these areas are going to continue to get denser as long as these people are moving to the city because they want to be as close to the action as they can be.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Sure, but I don't think you understand what's going on in other neighborhoods or why people aren't all flocking to the south side. There is tons of room available all over the south as west sides, but it doesn't mean people want to live there.

Let's take the twin towers being constructed near the California stop for example. Even 3 years ago, the area between California and Western was mostly vacant. A lot of parking lots, vacant storefronts. Congress Theater still had concerts, but there was a lot of vacantness, or the feeling of it. I can remember even two years ago going out to places north of there like Whistler - some people out but not a ton. Today? There's actually a lot of people who do the nightlife there.

Fast forward to the last 1.5 years ago. A lot of new stuff geared towards the average millennial city dweller started to open there. Masada, The Radler, Heavy Feather, Emporium, Lost Lake, Analogue, Black Lion Tavern, Chicago Distilling Company, The General, East Room, Owen & Alchemy, etc not to mention the places that were already there like Longman & Eagle, Whistler, Boiler Room, etc.

Do you think it's an accident that all of a sudden we have 2 high rises under construction right in this area, with another 100+ unit building almost complete down the street, and other big proposals like the mega mall redevelopment? No, it's not and quite frankly IMO these things wouldn't have been a reality even 3 years ago. You could say the same exact thing about the West Loop and why over the land handful of years, more and more residential is going to the area.

The reason why they are coming up now is because the types of people that Chicago continues to attract are the millennial generation who has disposable income, they want to live in a dynamic place, and they want to meet people. The pure fact that this corridor added a bunch of hip places to either drink or at can probably explain the reason why all of a sudden everyone wants to build multi unit projects in the area.

Chicago may be losing families to the suburbs or elsewhere, but the people moving here are the ones who I just described above - they have disposable income, they want a dynamic and diverse place, and they want to meet people and have fun.

So as long as areas like Bronzeville on the south side continue to not get a healthy dosing of places to eat, drink, etc at - this type of thing isn't going to happen. Don't get me wrong though, Bronzeville has been getting more of it, but it's certainly not enough to attract major development like Logan Square as a whole is seeing.

The average person we're talking about here doesn't give two shits about the fact that there's open lots on the south and west sides. They want to live in places where there's shit to do and that's reasonably safe. And as long as this continues, these areas are going to continue to get denser as long as these people are moving to the city because they want to be as close to the action as they can be.

I agree the city needs higher density, but I think it could be upped everywhere. The city is built to house more people than it currently does. Lots of contributing factors for why that is the case.

I think an average of 18,000 per square mile (similar density as San Francisco) would work well here. That puts us at a city population of just over 4 million. Sounds high, but I think a modern Chicago of 4 million people wouldn't feel overcrowded. It'd just feel more urban. It'd involve us building taller further out from downtown, but this is Chicago...people are accustomed to height.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by IrishIllini

I agree the city needs higher density, but I think it could be upped everywhere. The city is built to house more people than it currently does. Lots of contributing factors for why that is the case.

I think an average of 18,000 per square mile (similar density as San Francisco) would work well here. That puts us at a city population of just over 4 million. Sounds high, but I think a modern Chicago of 4 million people wouldn't feel overcrowded. It'd just feel more urban. It'd involve us building taller further out from downtown, but this is Chicago...people are accustomed to height.

I agree it should, completely, but that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the increase of density right now, for the most part, comes where there's shit to do. West Loop, other parts of downtown, Wicker Park, and Logan Square seeing a lot of new development is not an accident - there's shit to do there. Areas like Bronzeville, Woodlawn, East Garfield Park, etc are not going to densify like this because, at least for the average millennial, there's not shit to do there right now. Some developer could probably put 10 cool bars and eateries near the greenline in EGP and I would guarantee you that the area would slowly see an uptick in density and development. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is another story.

Other parts of town that are already dense-ish but could see an uptick, like some parts of Lakeview, are held back not because of the lack of things to do, but because of the NIMBYs who are there who won't let anything happen (and no doubt in areas like Bronzeville would you see that type of thing too. I'd hate to see Bronzeville turn into another Lincoln Park on a retail/commercial level - some really beautiful buildings still there though).



Also, the north side of the city including downtown and some of the NW side actually has a higher average density than San Francisco already at a higher population for about the same physical area.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I agree it should, completely, but that wasn't my point at all. My point was that the increase of density right now, for the most part, comes where there's shit to do. West Loop, other parts of downtown, Wicker Park, and Logan Square seeing a lot of new development is not an accident - there's shit to do there. Areas like Bronzeville, Woodlawn, East Garfield Park, etc are not going to densify like this because, at least for the average millennial, there's not shit to do there right now. Some developer could probably put 10 cool bars and eateries near the greenline in EGP and I would guarantee you that the area would slowly see an uptick in density and development. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is another story.

is there not a finite number of people with these disposable incomes and levels of free time? opening another cocktail bar just seems like its going to cannibalize others. i understand it keeps happening in Logan Square but thats a special case, its the "it" neighborhood of the moment and theres never really more than a couple of those at a time. expecting the entire city to be nothing more than facsimiles of LS is unrealistic.

a healthy city caters to all walks of life, not just one subset (basically the modern day consumption based yuppie/hipster)

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by marothisu

For example, an area like Wicker Park with 15,000 per sq mile - I'm not going to be upset if that goes up to 25,000 per sq mile. 100,000 per sq mile? God no. Not in a million years would I hope Wicker Park becomes that dense.

Wicker Park is already at 25,000ppm (according to the 2014 5yr estimates)
The last time we were below 15,000 was the 1860's. We have only one tract with less than 15,000 and 50% of its land area consists of hospitals and schools. We would be at 35,000 if our Household size matched he city average.

Originally Posted by marothisu

Downtown though? Downtown should be denser in areas - there's no reason to have pockets of downtown, the hub of a city, be at less than 15,000 per sq mile. Absolutely no reason. There is no reason that downtown Chicago should be full of parking lots, ever. Nobody is wishing for 200,000 per sq mile, but 60,000 per sq mile? 75,000 per sq mile? I'll gladly take it downtown.

I wholeheartedly agree, but he city's idea may be somewhat different.

The good news is that they are only 1 yr behind on their "Central Area Plan's" timetable to achieve a population of 150,000 in the central area.
The bad news is that that works out to 17,000 ppm

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Sure, but I don't think you understand what's going on in other neighborhoods or why people aren't all flocking to the south side. There is tons of room available all over the south as west sides, but it doesn't mean people want to live there.

Let's take the twin towers being constructed near the California stop for example. Even 3 years ago, the area between California and Western was mostly vacant. A lot of parking lots, vacant storefronts. Congress Theater still had concerts, but there was a lot of vacantness, or the feeling of it. I can remember even two years ago going out to places north of there like Whistler - some people out but not a ton. Today? There's actually a lot of people who do the nightlife there.

Fast forward to the last 1.5 years ago. A lot of new stuff geared towards the average millennial city dweller started to open there. Masada, The Radler, Heavy Feather, Emporium, Lost Lake, Analogue, Black Lion Tavern, Chicago Distilling Company, The General, East Room, Owen & Alchemy, etc not to mention the places that were already there like Longman & Eagle, Whistler, Boiler Room, etc.

Do you think it's an accident that all of a sudden we have 2 high rises under construction right in this area, with another 100+ unit building almost complete down the street, and other big proposals like the mega mall redevelopment? No, it's not and quite frankly IMO these things wouldn't have been a reality even 3 years ago. You could say the same exact thing about the West Loop and why over the land handful of years, more and more residential is going to the area.

The reason why they are coming up now is because the types of people that Chicago continues to attract are the millennial generation who has disposable income, they want to live in a dynamic place, and they want to meet people. The pure fact that this corridor added a bunch of hip places to either drink or at can probably explain the reason why all of a sudden everyone wants to build multi unit projects in the area.

Chicago may be losing families to the suburbs or elsewhere, but the people moving here are the ones who I just described above - they have disposable income, they want a dynamic and diverse place, and they want to meet people and have fun. So as long as areas like Bronzeville on the south side continue to not get a healthy dosing of places to eat, drink, etc at - this type of thing isn't going to happen. Don't get me wrong though, Bronzeville has been getting more of it, but it's certainly not enough to attract major development like Logan Square as a whole is seeing. Honestly, if someone opened up a handful of hip places to go in Bronzeville, all near each other, I guarantee you'd all of a sudden see an uptick in the multi unit development and people actually wanting to go there as a cool part of town, instead of the mostly single family home development going on there now. Insert any part of town into that though - Bronzeville is just an example. I could easily make East Garfield Park into the same example (but maybe more complex because of the crime rate).

The average person we're talking about here doesn't give two shits about the fact that there's open lots on the south and west sides. They want to live in places where there's shit to do and that's reasonably safe. And as long as this continues, these areas are going to continue to get denser as long as these people are moving to the city because they want to be as close to the action as they can be.

I don't think anyone would argue that some of these areas could not accommodate more people or that more people would not make for more active streets. If the demand exists, that will happen over time. But note that some of these areas became more popular because of a lack of density and affordability in other neighborhoods...when Lincoln Park was full, people moved to Lakeview, then Logan Square, then Humboldt Park, then Pilsen, etc. You can effectively make the argument that anti-density elsewhere has helped these neighborhoods to grow. Likewise you can make the argument that some of neighborhoods became popular with millennials because of the availability of more affordable, old housing stock. Much of the new housing in these areas has been targeted at higher incomes.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

is there not a finite number of people with these disposable incomes and levels of free time? opening another cocktail bar just seems like its going to cannibalize others. i understand it keeps happening in Logan Square but thats a special case, its the "it" neighborhood of the moment and theres never really more than a couple of those at a time. expecting the entire city to be nothing more than facsimiles of LS is unrealistic.

You think that Logan Square is the only place like this? No, not even close. Why do you think the downtown area continues to get like this? Lakeview, Lincoln Park, Old Town, Wicker Park, etc - all full of the same people. It has nothing to do with being the "it" neighborhood. This isn't Minneapolis or Omaha where there's only one place to be if you want a "cool" area. There are enough "it" neighborhoods in Chicago at a varying level of personalities that all of the eggs don't go into one basket. Logan Square is a very small example of how putting things to do somewhere spurred development and now will get a lot denser in that particular area because of it.

The current boom or mini-boom or whatever you want to call it is because more and more people with this type of disposable income who are willing to spend money at places are moving to the city. Do you honestly think that for every new $2000/month tower that goes up in the city, or condo building, that the people going in there are scraping for money and aren't willing to spend things, on average, at surrounding restaurants, shops, and bars? All of these buildings have income checks, meaning that you can't even rent in there if the cost of the rent is over 30 or 33% of your gross monthly income. They just won't rent to you period. So why would someone choose to pay $2200/month downtown when they could just easily go to a suburb and get 3-4X the space? Because there's a lot to do and the area is dynamic, or appears that way - and definitely so compared to the same suburb. Not that it covers most people, but the average person renting a $2200/month place on their own downtown isn't worrying about whether they can afford a night out or two a week.

Go spend a lot of time in Manhattan - there are a lot more people with disposable income in this country than you can imagine, and Chicago is getting more and more of it which is what is fueling a lot of the new, not so cheap to buy/rent development we are seeing.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

I don't think anyone would argue that some of these areas could not accommodate more people or that more people would not make for more active streets. If the demand exists, that will happen over time. But note that some of these areas became more popular because of a lack of density and affordability in other neighborhoods...when Lincoln Park was full, people moved to Lakeview, then Logan Square, then Humboldt Park, then Pilsen, etc. You can effectively make the argument that anti-density elsewhere has helped these neighborhoods to grow. Likewise you can make the argument that some of neighborhoods became popular with millennials because of the availability of more affordable, old housing stock. Much of the new housing in these areas has been targeted at higher incomes.

Sure, but at the same time, all of the areas that people moved to had things to do in them, again. It's not like Lakeview or Pilsen was some black hole before people wanted to live there.

And just so we're clear - I am all for the development in many areas. I actually enjoy seeing a new eatery or a new building going to an area like Avondale than I do when the same thing happens in Lakeview. I'm just saying what one way is to spur more dense development in areas. The TOD ordinance is gong to help but there needs to be more. Some areas are more complicated than others (like putting 10 hip restaurants/bars in EGP - not going to happen all of a sudden without something else gradually happening).

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by PKDickman

I wholeheartedly agree, but he city's idea may be somewhat different.

The good news is that they are only 1 yr behind on their "Central Area Plan's" timetable to achieve a population of 150,000 in the central area.
The bad news is that that works out to 17,000 ppm

Am curious....do you know what is the long-term expectation for central area population?

[PKDickman]

Originally Posted by VKChaz

Am curious....do you know what is the long-term expectation for central area population?

Don't know if they have a long term expectation.
That 150,000 number was from '03 and was a gee whiz number for the next 20 yrs.
And that's for Chgo Ave to the Stevenson, Lake Mich to the river/Halsted

I can tell you what it is zoned for.

Figure an average zoning of DX-7
That's around 120,000 DUs per mile. Figure all 1 bdrm. avg occupancy of 1.25.
151,000 ppm times approx 9 sq miles.
1,080,000 people.

But there is a lot of dedicated non-residential land use down there.
Parks, museums, Civic buildings etc, have to suck up at least half of the gross sq miles

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

is there not a finite number of people with these disposable incomes and levels of free time?

That's the thing, there is no finite number. The fact that there isn't a finite number is why cities exist. When more successful people and businesses concentrate in one place, more opportunities to become successful are created. The more densely concentrated these businesses and individuals are, the more intense this agglomeration effect becomes. The more opportunities, the more people come looking for them and in turn start the cycle anew and generate even more opportunities themselves. That's why humans concentrate in cities to begin with.

So when a bunch of ritzy businesses like Scofflaw open up, you get aspiring mixologists flocking to work there. They all open more mixology bars like the whistler or Lost Lake and in turn the next crop of opportunities is generated. The owners of Scofflaw have done quite well for themselves and so have their subsequent offspring. Why? Because the initial risk taken and burst of creativity generated something new which is of value.

Point is, the more successful we are at creating desirable environments like Logan Square, the more rapidly we will see other parts of the city go down the same road.