HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #44381  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2019, 10:42 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
One thing I did hear that was interesting is that both Lori and Toni want to jack the ARO up to as much as 50% of new projects which will essentially kill all non-as-of-right new construction in the city. Mindnumbingly stupid policy, but very lucrative for me if it goes through!
I read Lightfoot's policy last night and had to do a double take; I'm glad I did, because it's easy to misunderstand. She's not proposing to change the percentage of affordable units in new developments. She IS proposing to decrease the amount of units that developers can buy their way out of, increasing the required on-site percentage from 25% to 50%.

So, for a 100 unit building, this would change the number of affordable on-site units from 3 to 5. Not a huge change and still far below the inclusionary zoning requirements in coastal cities. I'm sure it will kill the proforma for a few projects but all in all this is much better than Rosa and Guzzardi's favorite eat-the-rich proposals.

Also, Lightfoot wants to eliminate aldermanic prerogative for any projects that provide all of their required affordable units on site, or various subsidized housing proposals that provide more than 10% affordable housing. Basically this opens up a new route for developers to build multifamily in Lincoln Park and Wicker Park where the returns are highest, and potentially the higher returns in those neighborhoods can subsidize a greater number of affordable units on site. This is basically how Moreno was able to get more affordable housing built in his ward than any other ward in the city.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
The Blue Line is on course to becoming the most in-demand CTA line in the city at some point in the future, unless something gets done to improve Red Line access to the West Loop.
The Blue Line is maxed out right now. The power system won't allow CTA to add more trains. A fix is probably 4-6 years away, optimistically. The only thing CTA can do in the meantime is rip out the seats and cram more people in. At some point the infrastructure will put a cap on growth.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44382  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2019, 10:50 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I read Lightfoot's policy last night and had to do a double take; I'm glad I did, because it's easy to misunderstand. She's not proposing to change the percentage of affordable units in new developments. She IS proposing to decrease the amount of units that developers can buy their way out of, increasing the required on-site percentage from 25% to 50%.

So, for a 100 unit building, this would change the number of affordable on-site units from 3 to 5. Not a huge change and still far below the inclusionary zoning requirements in coastal cities. I'm sure it will kill the proforma for a few projects but all in all this is much better than Rosa and Guzzardi's favorite eat-the-rich proposals.

Also, Lightfoot wants to eliminate aldermanic prerogative for any projects that provide all of their required affordable units on site, or various subsidized housing proposals that provide more than 10% affordable housing. Basically this opens up a new route for developers to build multifamily in Lincoln Park and Wicker Park where the returns are highest, and potentially the higher returns in those neighborhoods can subsidize a greater number of affordable units on site. This is basically how Moreno was able to get more affordable housing built in his ward than any other ward in the city.
Very well summarized - I actually understood this.
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44383  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 12:42 AM
Hourstrooper's Avatar
Hourstrooper Hourstrooper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago IL
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryc View Post
Very well summarized - I actually understood this.
agreed, although this could be lukewarm for large unit resi developments because the developers would be losing some profit. But they'll be just fine as this would mimic nyc rules

Last edited by Hourstrooper; Apr 17, 2019 at 4:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44384  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 12:46 AM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
I read Lightfoot's policy last night and had to do a double take; I'm glad I did, because it's easy to misunderstand. She's not proposing to change the percentage of affordable units in new developments. She IS proposing to decrease the amount of units that developers can buy their way out of, increasing the required on-site percentage from 25% to 50%.

So, for a 100 unit building, this would change the number of affordable on-site units from 3 to 5. Not a huge change and still far below the inclusionary zoning requirements in coastal cities. I'm sure it will kill the proforma for a few projects but all in all this is much better than Rosa and Guzzardi's favorite eat-the-rich proposals.
Ah good, that makes more sense, I only heard this on WBEZ this morning. The confusion was probably because the reporter doing the piece was a bumbling idiot clearly biased towards Toni.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44385  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 1:03 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 21,375
I hate WBEZ, it's horrible. One sided reporting and they only invite guests who report one side of every issue
__________________
Supercar Adventures is my YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4W...lUKB1w8ED5bV2Q
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44386  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 3:05 AM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post

Also, Lightfoot wants to eliminate aldermanic prerogative for any projects that provide all of their required affordable units on site, or various subsidized housing proposals that provide more than 10% affordable housing. Basically this opens up a new route for developers to build multifamily in Lincoln Park and Wicker Park where the returns are highest, and potentially the higher returns in those neighborhoods can subsidize a greater number of affordable units on site. This is basically how Moreno was able to get more affordable housing built in his ward than any other ward in the city.
I can imagine this being extremely effective in downtown, where mixed-use development is very common. This seems to imply that even an office building with a small housing component (<20 units) would not have to deal with Ald. Reilly if they provide 10% of the required affordable housing (~2 units). We might end up with a building boom if developments can now just ignore the aldermen and NIMBYs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44387  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 4:31 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
I can imagine this being extremely effective in downtown, where mixed-use development is very common. This seems to imply that even an office building with a small housing component (<20 units) would not have to deal with Ald. Reilly if they provide 10% of the required affordable housing (~2 units). We might end up with a building boom if developments can now just ignore the aldermen and NIMBYs
The Affordable Housing Equity Ordinance is what Lightfoot is referring to in her platform... this is a bill that was already introduced in City Council last year by Ameya Pawar. The expedited review process would kick in for any development including 10% or more affordable units on site. The bill already has 27 sponsors (i.e. a straight majority) but it never advanced, probably because Ed Burke.

https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=

Basically this is 27 aldermen in minority or gentrifying wards who are voting to strip development review power away from a handful of other all-white aldermen with disproportionately wealthy wards: Reilly, Hopkins, Smith, Tunney, Napolitano, etc. representing the Loop, Near North, Lincoln Park, Lakeview and Edison/Norwood Park.

At first I thought this was another unrealistic platform goal for Lightfoot, but with 27 aldermen already on board there might be a way to push it through despite resistance from some powerful aldermen and richy-rich NIMBYs.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44388  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 12:06 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
The Blue Line is maxed out right now. The power system won't allow CTA to add more trains. A fix is probably 4-6 years away, optimistically. The only thing CTA can do in the meantime is rip out the seats and cram more people in. At some point the infrastructure will put a cap on growth.
The 2600 series cars on the line should have been reconfigured to longitudinal seating by now. Even with coming new cars and a traction power upgrade it will still be too long before there is new capacity and developers are still building in the meantime.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44389  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 2:00 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
an office building with a small housing component (<20 units) would not have to deal with Ald. Reilly if they provide 10% of the required affordable housing (~2 units)
What's an example of such a project, with both office and housing, that wouldn't trigger the PD threshold?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44390  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 4:11 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
What's an example of such a project, with both office and housing, that wouldn't trigger the PD threshold?
I was reading the ordinance and it looks like it also applies to "residential or mixed use Planned Developments". So a developer would still meet with the alderman, but they wouldn't have their project delayed or blocked by them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44391  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 4:55 PM
Handro Handro is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,270
Seems like a win-win-win.

Developers get to build, activists get more affordable housing, and NIMBYs lose their out-sized power.

A potential building boom plus the beginning of the end of wealth segregation?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44392  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 5:31 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomguy34 View Post
I was reading the ordinance and it looks like it also applies to "residential or mixed use Planned Developments". So a developer would still meet with the alderman, but they wouldn't have their project delayed or blocked by them.
This ordinance doesn't eliminate aldermanic privilege, because aldermanic privilege is not on the books. It's an informal agreement among city council members to honor each alderman's dictatorial control over their own fiefdoms. So the aldermen can still block projects.

The stroke of brilliance of this legislation is that it finds a way around that through the zoning board of appeals. Basically, City Council may reject a development because the alderman of the relevant ward says so. Then, the developer appeals, and the Zoning Board of Appeals approves the project if it's reasonable.

It's a really incredible piece of legislation that I think has the potential to transform the city for the better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44393  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 5:41 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 7,443
^^^ Exactly, technically the key to eliminating perogative is to empower city agencies to actually do what they are in theory there to do. In other words Zoning theoretically exists to determine whether a project complies with existing zoning or whether a zoning change is reasonable (i.e. if you apply for zoning change, they actually already review the change and will say "oh this makes sense because it's an existing commercial building that's been zoned RT-4, but is right next to B3-2 zoning, of course that's reasonable to change to B3-2). The issue is that technically city council then has to vote on everything.

By disjointing city council's absolute control of the final say and empowering Zoning to make reasonable decisions without city council, you eliminate the ability of aldermen to abuse perogative by holding up what would otherwise be eminently reasonable projects. For big changes that are above and beyond what Zoning thinks is reasonable, then yeah of course we should have a public debate and let the aldermen or city council have input, but when you are asking to get a six flat that's been there for 120 years and is for some reason zoned M1-2 rezoned to B2-2 or something, the alderman shouldn't be able to say jack shit. That's a no brainer that should be no more than a rubber stamp for a bureaucrat.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44394  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 6:09 PM
AMWChicago's Avatar
AMWChicago AMWChicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 202
I know this may not be the right place for this, but I wanted to share...

Mies' Birthday Event at Crown Hall shows some interesting proposals of his. Two of them which are at Vista's current site.








__________________
Please Skyscraper Gods, let Tribune East happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44395  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 6:26 PM
maru2501's Avatar
maru2501 maru2501 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: chicago
Posts: 1,668
gee, I love that green thing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44396  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 7:17 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Sears Tower - debaseing

March 23

no further changes here - yet


March 27



__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44397  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 8:43 PM
rgarri4's Avatar
rgarri4 rgarri4 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMWChicago View Post
I know this may not be the right place for this, but I wanted to share...

Mies' Birthday Event at Crown Hall shows some interesting proposals of his. Two of them which are at Vista's current site.








This is awesome! Would love to know more info on the green one.
__________________
Renderings, Animations, VR
Youtube
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44398  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 9:10 PM
Zerton's Avatar
Zerton Zerton is offline
Ω
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,551
I believe those were student proposals from a skyscraper studio. I remember seeing them years ago.
__________________
If all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed, if all records told the same tale, then the lie passed into history and became truth. -Orwell
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44399  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 9:38 PM
PittsburghPA PittsburghPA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: West Loop Gate, Chicago
Posts: 933
That looks like a similar Central Park (Nordstrom) Tower in NYC. Looks to be about the same height maybe a tad shorter too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44400  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2019, 10:42 PM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
3751 N Broadway

March 23





__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:36 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.