CHICAGO | General Developments

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

yeah, that would have been a HUGE $$$ handout to, as the twitter post mentions, wealthy homeowners in transit-rich areas

So what? We shouldn't correct this wrong then? You could just as easily argue that the current zoning is a HUGE $$$ and unjustified tax on current property owners.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

yeah, that would have been a HUGE $$$ handout to, as the twitter post mentions, wealthy homeowners in transit-rich areas

I guess we are to assume that you prefer the current status quo then?

[left of center]

Originally Posted by rivernorthlurker

https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/07...ds-to-approve/

Sweet!

The article does not mention express trains from O'Hare to Union, which I assume is a big part of the plan, since regular Metra service already exists between the two with the NCS servicing the O'Hare Transfer station. It would be great if they could get another couple hundred million to put that express station directly inside/under O'Hare, ala the blue line O'Hare stop, but I guess we can't be too greedy. This is a great first step any way you look at it.

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

So what? We shouldn't correct this wrong then? You could just as easily argue that the current zoning is a HUGE $$$ and unjustified tax on current property owners.

Exactly. This is not a handout. A handout is taxing some people and giving the money to others. It's moving money around. When you say that people are now allowed to use their property more freely, raising the value, that's creating value -- the property is more useful than it used to be.

As has been noted, the people selling their homes benefit, as do those who can now get apartments near transit. Who is hurt? The relatively wealthy people who wanted to buy SFHs near transit. But it's not even really taking anything from them, it's just forcing them to pay fairly for the fact that they're using land that could accommodate three apartments instead of their single home.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by dewbs

Exactly. This is not a handout. A handout is taxing some people and giving the money to others. It's moving money around. When you say that people are now allowed to use their property more freely, raising the value, that's creating value -- the property is more useful than it used to be.

As has been noted, the people selling their homes benefit, as do those who can now get apartments near transit. Who is hurt? The relatively wealthy people who wanted to buy SFHs near transit. But it's not even really taking anything from them, it's just forcing them to pay fairly for the fact that they're using land that could accommodate three apartments instead of their single home.

This only holds if you believe in spontaneous generation of new demand, which is rather unlikely in Chicago or most of the Midwest with our flat/stagnant population and mediocre median income growth. There are both winners and losers in your scenario, but the losers are much more diffuse and are harmed only marginally.

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

This only holds if you believe in spontaneous generation of new demand, which is rather unlikely in Chicago or most of the Midwest with our flat/stagnant population and mediocre median income growth. There are both winners and losers in your scenario, but the losers are much more diffuse and are harmed only marginally.

If there is no "spontaneous generation of new demand" then prices won't change and there's no handout to discuss.

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by left of center

Sweet!

The article does not mention express trains from O'Hare to Union, which I assume is a big part of the plan, since regular Metra service already exists between the two with the NCS servicing the O'Hare Transfer station. It would be great if they could get another couple hundred million to put that express station directly inside/under O'Hare, ala the blue line O'Hare stop, but I guess we can't be too greedy. This is a great first step any way you look at it.

There is a potential problem with an airport express service between O'Hare and Union, and it has to do with Canadian Pacific's proposed acquisition of Kansas City Southern.

Metra filed an objection to the transaction, because while CP claims approval would mean fewer CP freights through the Chicago area, it might likely mean an increase of freights on Metra's MD-W line, which an airport express service would have to access, as would Chicago-Rockford service.

Metra is requesting, at a minimum, if the deal is approved, dispatching authority be transferred from CP to Metra on both MD lines.

In a related matter, Canadian National is demanding that, as a condition of approval for the CP-KCS merger, CP be forced to divest itself of KCS' Springfield Subdivision, handing control over to CN, which would result in more CN freights between Gilman and Homewood on the former Illinois Central mainline, as well as on trackage used by Lincoln Service trains between Alton and St. Louis.

If that happens, on-time performance for both Chicago-Carbondale and Chicago-St. Louis service would likely get much worse, certainly negating any time saved by eliminating the back-up maneuver on the St. Charles Air Line.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mister Uptempo

Metra is requesting, at a minimum, if the deal is approved, dispatching authority be transferred from CP to Metra on both MD lines.

I thought Metra already has dispatching for these lines, they just have to give CP a certain number of slots per the trackage rights agreement.

Anyway, that's only one hurdle for an O'Hare Express train. For the train to actually be a meaningful improvement over the Blue Line, it needs to have 15 minute headways for most of the day (if they build a spur into the terminals, then 20 minute headways would do the trick).

To achieve 15 minute headways in each direction, they need to build A-2 flyover and probably multiple road/rail grade separations (Thatcher, Grand, Harlem) to support that many trains on top of a full Metra schedule and freights. Possibly a dedicated track pair from Franklin Park to O'Hare as well.

[Pioneer]

Originally Posted by Mister Uptempo

There is a potential problem with an airport express service between O'Hare and Union, and it has to do with Canadian Pacific's proposed acquisition of Kansas City Southern.

Metra filed an objection to the transaction, because while CP claims approval would mean fewer CP freights through the Chicago area, it might likely mean an increase of freights on Metra's MD-W line, which an airport express service would have to access, as would Chicago-Rockford service.

Metra is requesting, at a minimum, if the deal is approved, dispatching authority be transferred from CP to Metra on both MD lines.

In a related matter, Canadian National is demanding that, as a condition of approval for the CP-KCS merger, CP be forced to divest itself of KCS' Springfield Subdivision, handing control over to CN, which would result in more CN freights between Gilman and Homewood on the former Illinois Central mainline, as well as on trackage used by Lincoln Service trains between Alton and St. Louis.

If that happens, on-time performance for both Chicago-Carbondale and Chicago-St. Louis service would likely get much worse, certainly negating any time saved by eliminating the back-up maneuver on the St. Charles Air Line.

Well, they should just consider boring a tunnel or something underground. -- E. Musk

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by left of center

I guess we are to assume that you prefer the current status quo then?

Nope. I'm one of those homeowners who would be a recipient of said handout. I'm all for it. I also understand reality so I know it wont happen.

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by ardecila

What's the problem here?

-Homeowners get a reward for the years of maintenance/investment they put into their property
-neighborhoods with tight housing markets get much-needed new housing
-the people who move into those new apartments don't displace a lower-income family in a gentrifying neighborhood
-the city concentrates people near transit, leading to higher ridership and less car use

Wins all around.

No problem here. I was merely pointing out that it wont happen because the city aint in the business of giving away things for free.

[dewbs]

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

No problem here. I was merely pointing out that it wont happen because the city aint in the business of giving away things for free.

Pretty amazing that letting people do what they want with their own property is "giving away things for free."

[west-town-brad]

Originally Posted by dewbs

Pretty amazing that letting people do what they want with their own property is "giving away things for free."

I agree... but zoning is what it is.

[jboy560]

The Connected Communities Ordinance passed!

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by jboy560

The Connected Communities Ordinance passed!

Vastly excited. I don't know if it's *transformative*, but it's a BFD.

Doubling the TOD radius increases the area where TOD applies by about a factor four near places where it already applied. Adding dozens of bus routes brings TOD benefits to many more parts of the city.

I'm most excited about how easy it will be to use an administrative process to bring parking to zero at many TOD sites. Buildings with no parking are so much freer to incorporate interesting designs. Or site in unusual spots.

Parking maxima are nice, but I don't think there are TOO many cases where developers want to go overboard on parking. But being able to exchange parking for more density is a nice carrot that removes a negative (parking) and adds a positive (density).

Being able to get a city council vote without aldermanic approval on developments that include an affordable component is bound to unleash a few interesting approvals about 300 days from now. And it's great that we're not going to get (m)any new strip malls or drive throughs within 0.5 miles of transit.

I don't know how it pencils out, but I have to assume that a lot of new housing wasn't too attractive to put in TOD zones under the previous standards. With a density-bonus for adding affordable housing, I hope we see a lot of new investment in neglected areas.

It's not clear to me what the rules are on SFH zoning? I know that three flats aren't permitted as of right in SFH zoned areas, but what about two flats?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Two of my lots just went from fairly useless 2 flats on a short RT-4 lot to 3 flats with a little bonus FAR on a 2200 SF short lot. I will probably hire an architect next week and start getting plans drawn up for these lots. No sense in not developing them now that the city is going to let me.

Thanks for the "handout" of being allowed to actually build something economically viable I guess...

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

It's not clear to me what the rules are on SFH zoning? I know that three flats aren't permitted as of right in SFH zoned areas, but what about two flats?

As LVDW alluded to, if one of your proposed units is at-grade/accessible then the ordinance now allows you to build that extra unit without it factoring into your FAR or your lot area per unit count. This means 2-flats with a unit at-level with the street are allowed in all RS-3. This was to promote more accessible units in Chicago flats, since almost all of them have stairs which bar many people with disabilities from being able to rent an apartment.

Edit: ardecila gave some detail last week

Originally Posted by ardecila

This is actually intended to generate more handicap-accessible apartments. The developer basically gets a bonus unit if they put it at-grade (without stairs to access). The parking is also a handicap thing - a standard Chicago lot is only 3 parking spaces wide, so if you provide a handicap parking space with an aisle then you can only fit two parking spots total.

We'll probably see a lot fewer duplex-downs as a result. Architecturally I'm not the biggest fan of putting apartments at grade, but with our narrow-ass lots, it's really the only way to get accessible apartments on a single residential lot.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by dewbs

If there is no "spontaneous generation of new demand" then prices won't change and there's no handout to discuss.

It will relocate demand from other neighborhoods and concentrate it in an ever tighter geographic area as more people can afford to live in what we'd call desirable locations.

One could argue that this is a socially optimal outcome, but it does yet again further adverse selection of investment and risk-taking out of the edge and marginal areas. Again, there are winners and losers, and losers include property owners in marginal areas that might otherwise see spillover investment with development restrictions in the in-demand areas. Unlike the coastal markets, such restrictions would not result in regionally high housing costs because there would be no regional impediment to meeting any demand. But it would better utilize the enormous investment in existing infrastructure rather that continuing a strategy of simultaneously letting much of it decay in underutilization Detroit-style while incurring new debt to expand new infrastructure in today's hot spots.

I get I'm shouting into the wind here, since I'm pretty sure most forumers live the vast majority of their lives in the 30% of the city and region that are thriving, and not the massive remainder that is somewhere between stagnation and decline, but I'm putting these points out there for any intuitive lurkers who will recognize the issue with ongoing focused development in an economically stagnant region.

[OrdoSeclorum]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

It will relocate demand from other neighborhoods and concentrate it in an ever tighter geographic area as more people can afford to live in what we'd call desirable locations.

One could argue that this is a socially optimal outcome, but it does yet again further adverse selection of investment and risk-taking out of the edge and marginal areas. Again, there are winners and losers, and losers include property owners in marginal areas that might otherwise see spillover investment with development restrictions in the in-demand areas. Unlike the coastal markets, such restrictions would not result in regionally high housing costs because there would be no regional impediment to meeting any demand. But it would better utilize the enormous investment in existing infrastructure rather that continuing a strategy of simultaneously letting much of it decay in underutilization Detroit-style while incurring new debt to expand new infrastructure in today's hot spots.

I get I'm shouting into the wind here, since I'm pretty sure most forumers live the vast majority of their lives in the 30% of the city and region that are thriving, and not the massive remainder that is somewhere between stagnation and decline, but I'm putting these points out there for any intuitive lurkers who will recognize the issue with ongoing focused development in an economically stagnant region.

If the thriving parts of Chicago thrive even harder, the quality of life will improve and more people will want to live here and that will spill over to nearby neighborhoods as has been happening already for decades.

When I moved here for grad school in in '97, I moved to Lincoln Park. Then I went Lakeview > Wicker Park > Ukrainian Village > Bridgeport. In '97 Wicker Park was certainly affordable, but lacked the amenities that I wanted. Later, Lakeview was less affordable but Wicker Park had gained amenities. Then the same pattern for UK Village and Bridgeport. This will continue apace.

We should simply build the best city that we can and the rest will take care of itself. Making things worse on purpose in the hopes that some of good stuff will spread out to neglected neighborhoods is a fools game. No one sane would ever say, "Think how much better Paris would be if we capped the population and forced it to spread out over three times the area, like Buffalo has done over the last 60 years."

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

If the thriving parts of Chicago thrive even harder, the quality of life will improve and more people will want to live here and that will spill over to nearby neighborhoods as has been happening already for decades.

When I moved here for grad school in in '97, I moved to Lincoln Park. Then I went Lakeview > Wicker Park > Ukrainian Village > Bridgeport. In '97 Wicker Park was certainly affordable, but lacked the amenities that I wanted. Later, Lakeview was less affordable but Wicker Park had gained amenities. Then the same pattern for UK Village and Bridgeport. This will continue apace.

We should simply build the best city that we can and the rest will take care of itself. Making things worse on purpose in the hopes that some of good stuff will spread out to neglected neighborhoods is a fools game. No one sane would ever say, "Think how much better Paris would be if we capped the population and forced it to spread out over three times the area, like Buffalo has done over the last 60 years."

How would a lack of by-right upzoning be making any existing desirable areas worse? I get that development is needed to grow the pie, but undesirable or otherwise declining (formerly desirable) areas will never get investment and become better if a relatively fixed number of people and dollars continue concentrating in the same areas.