CHICAGO | General Developments

[maru2501]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Assholes. All of them.

They all should go to jail

not sure about that but they should be held to account for sending Chi on a path toward SF-type conditions, albeit less intense in the near term

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

In other zoning change news, 11th ward alderman, Patrick Thompson, is following Leslie Hairston's lead and is downzoning Halsted Street, from 35th St to 38th St, to RS-3 zoning.

Jesus it's like this behavior is spreading. I'm used to a few of these dogs here and there, but this is practically wholesale. Where is Rahm with all of this? The current zoning system clearly needs to go...

[Rizzo]

I find it risky to mess with historical zoning on grand scale when the city is facing general population loss EXCEPT in areas where density is permitted. America faces a future where a current generation will be challenged to afford a single family home AND if it is attainable, they choose the suburbs.

Develoment suppression should be limited to historic preservation based on citywide surveys documenting the more complex assemblages of architectural artifacts and execution in buildings throughout the decades. Everything in between is replaceable with higher density where justified:
Near rail stations
At Major intersections
Along geographical boundaries
Within or on the periphery of job centers.

To ease concerns, perhaps density is graduated where the existing conditions are low density. But an abrupt swing in the opposite direction will spell a troubled future for the health of these neighborhoods

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

In other zoning change news, 11th ward alderman, Patrick Thompson, is following Leslie Hairston's lead and is downzoning Halsted Street, from 35th St to 38th St, to RS-3 zoning.

Hariston is reassessing. The downzoning along 71st hasn't happened.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

Yes, indeed. The North Building is facing Warren Blvd, while the South Building is facing Madison Ave. I honestly didn't expect to see this lot developed during this construction boom, so I am fine with what is being proposed.

The applicant is Heartland Alliance, so I'm guessing this will be some kind of supportive housing.

I appreciate the decision to put the taller building on Warren, it's a better drop off zone for cabs/Ubers and it helps frame the park.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Jesus it's like this behavior is spreading. I'm used to a few of these dogs here and there, but this is practically wholesale. Where is Rahm with all of this? The current zoning system clearly needs to go...

This is the type of overreach needed to present a serious legal challenge, just about every building in that stretch does not conform to RS-3, further most are commercial buildings which cannot be used as intended in the future despite the historical legacy. The stretch even includes Schaller's, the oldest operating tavern in the city until it was just closed.

What we need are enough successful challenges in court to declare these broad and random downzonings as unjustified 'takings' and maybe, just maybe we could see an end to aldermanic prerogative in zoning issues. Hell, we already have alderman serving jail time for getting too involved in such decisions.

[Rizzo]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

This is the type of overreach needed to present a serious legal challenge, just about every building in that stretch does not conform to RS-3, further most are commercial buildings which cannot be used as intended in the future despite the historical legacy. The stretch even includes Schaller's, the oldest operating tavern in the city until it was just closed.

What we need are enough successful challenges in court to declare these broad and random downzonings as unjustified 'takings' and maybe, just maybe we could see an end to aldermanic prerogative in zoning issues. Hell, we already have alderman serving jail time for getting too involved in such decisions.

Isn't this just a form of exclusionary zoning, which is terrible, but legal?

Also, I get that it makes many properties legal non-conforming but I'm not certain that this reduces the property's value (except in great loss that it cannot be rebuilt). But enough to sue? I doubt it...otherwise it would seem a legal road well traveled in this town.

[harryc]

May 3


May 13


May 15

note the old limestone block foundation wall at the back of the lot.

[urbanpln]

Originally Posted by Hayward

I find it risky to mess with historical zoning on grand scale when the city is facing general population loss EXCEPT in areas where density is permitted. America faces a future where a current generation will be challenged to afford a single family home AND if it is attainable, they choose the suburbs.

Develoment suppression should be limited to historic preservation based on citywide surveys documenting the more complex assemblages of architectural artifacts and execution in buildings throughout the decades. Everything in between is replaceable with higher density where justified:
Near rail stations
At Major intersections
Along geographical boundaries
Within or on the periphery of job centers.

To ease concerns, perhaps density is graduated where the existing conditions are low density. But an abrupt swing in the opposite direction will spell a troubled future for the health of these neighborhoods

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

What we need are enough successful challenges in court to declare these broad and random downzonings as unjustified 'takings' and maybe, just maybe we could see an end to aldermanic prerogative in zoning issues. Hell, we already have alderman serving jail time for getting too involved in such decisions.

Won't happen. Court precedent is clear that a reduction in the potential value of a property isn't an unjustified taking. For that to be the case the economic value of the property would have to be essentially destroyed (as was the case when a property was down-zoned to, if I remember right, a nature preserve in order to block sale for development).

[Mr Downtown]

Exactly. And on the miles and miles of old streetcar commercial strips in Chicago (like this stretch of Halsted), downzoning so that ground-floor retail is no longer required makes the property more valuable rather than less.

[sox102]

Originally Posted by Ned.B

From Curbed: A proposed new facade and total renovation of 311 W. Monroe.



http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2...est-monroe.php

Architect is Goettsch Partners.


Previous design by JGMA (not sure if this was ever a real project or just a conceptual imaging/marketing assignment):

The re-skin of 311 West Monroe officially cancelled.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly. And on the miles and miles of old streetcar commercial strips in Chicago (like this stretch of Halsted), downzoning so that ground-floor retail is no longer required makes the property more valuable rather than less.

I'm fine with changing it so that retail is no longer required. Let the market decide. But they are changing it so that retail is no longer allowed, without groveling to and/or outright bribing the alderman. There is a world of difference there.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly. And on the miles and miles of old streetcar commercial strips in Chicago (like this stretch of Halsted), downzoning so that ground-floor retail is no longer required makes the property more valuable rather than less.

Try owning investment property for once, and you will realize that downzoning your building to RS-3 ain't doing you a favor. Ever.

I believe to opt out of ground level commercial you would just need a variance or such, not a complete rezoning.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Try owning investment property for once, and you will realize that downzoning your building to RS-3 ain't doing you a favor. Ever.

I believe to opt out of ground level commercial you would just need a variance or such, not a complete rezoning.

Yeah downzoning a mixed use multi unit commercial corridor to RS 3 more or less destroys the value of the improvements on all parcels in that stretch. Good luck getting anything done without "coming to the alderman on your knees".

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Yeah downzoning a mixed use multi unit commercial corridor to RS 3 more or less destroys the value of the improvements on all parcels in that stretch. Good luck getting anything done without "coming to the alderman on your knees".

Yep, and this doesn't even go into buildings within any corridor subject to a downzoing which are specifically designed around commercial use. Not exactly easy to convert those. If you own bar, renewing liquor licenses is going to require more than a simple variance.

The city has had downzoings challenged before and lost in court. Ever wonder why a sliver park exists in the 6100 Block of Sharidan? Well, there was a high-rise proposed for the site, but the alderman (whom I believe was Mary Ann Smith) was you know, looking out for the concerns of the neighboring constituents and downzoned it to RS1. Developer took the city to court and won. In the end, the city bought the property and made it a park.

[Chicago Shawn]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly. And on the miles and miles of old streetcar commercial strips in Chicago (like this stretch of Halsted), downzoning so that ground-floor retail is no longer required makes the property more valuable rather than less.

We can easily do that without a major downzoning into residential. Use B2, which specifically allows ground floor residential or retail.

[harryc]

May 13






The old facade - nothing special - but very authentic.









Context (across the street)

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Exactly. And on the miles and miles of old streetcar commercial strips in Chicago (like this stretch of Halsted), downzoning so that ground-floor retail is no longer required makes the property more valuable rather than less.

There are several ways under the zoning code to provide developers with this flexibility. Hairston (and Thompson) chose to completely lock out all new business.

Halsted through Bridgeport/Canaryville is blighted, but it's not like there's no demand. The neighborhood is just full of crotchety old NIMBYs who somehow prefer weed-strewn vacant lots to actual buildings.

[montasauraus]

Unfortunately, from what I have heard from stories before my time, the down-zoning of commercial streets in Chicago neighborhoods is not a new thing.

As an architect who lives and works out of Pilsen, I do work for many longtime Mexican business and building owners across the southwest side. From some of them, I have heard of cases (35th St in McKinley Park for example) where they feel this was done in a effort to stop Latino businesses from opening as the neighborhood demographics shifted. The Aldermen who did these shenanigans are gone, but these commercial corridors remain relatively vacant, especially compared to other vibrant streets in these neighborhoods where zoning was unaffected or subsequently restored.

Hopefully, the Aldermen who propose down-zoning today have better intentions, but I think that these measures, if enacted, would fail similarly and lead to slow attrition of the businesses in these corridors. But then again, if they really do want to turn them into single family districts, maybe that's the point.

Here's another example from the reader from 1998.