CHICAGO | General Developments - Page 2215

LouisVanDerWright · #**44281** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by emathias

Re: gentrification and anti-gentrification forces

People fighting about who gets to live where, especially when all the areas we're talking about are well over 100 years old so exactly zero "original" residents still live there always amuses me.

Ethically, what is the rationale for giving extra powers to individuals who just happen to live in one spot at this moment of time over people who want to move into that spot? I mean, isn't that the same sort of racist BS that led to redlining and anti-black covenants blocking new non-white residents moving into certain areas before the Civil Rights Era?

Either we have the freedom to move where we want, or society is creating beneficial predujices against certain groups. Racism may only apply from the powerful against the disenfranchised, but discrimination is discrimination regardless of which groups are on which side. Are modern "progressives" really advocating a return to regressive controls against certain groups just because some people don't like them?

I mean yes, that's exactly what they are doing. I've already wondered aloud on here how long it will be before someone like Rosa gets hit with a fair housing lawsuit for basing planning decisions on race. He and his staffers already already on the public record saying "too many white people are moving here", how long before someone sues him for denying them a zoning change because they are white or might sell condos to white people?

The most disgusting aspect of Rosa et Al is that gentrification is generally reducing segregation in these areas compared to city wide demographics. In other words an area that was once 90% hispanic like Logan Square is now closer to 50% Hispanic, 40% White and 10% black/Asian/other. That's a hell of a lot closer to the 30% white, 30% Hispanic, 30% blacl, 10% Asian/other citywide. In what world are areas that are almost exclusively one race or ethnicity beneficial? I thought we, as a society, decided more than half a century ago that was inherently wrong?

LouisVanDerWright · #**44282** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

We don't really have freedom to move where we want, since there are handouts given to the wealthy that give them an advantage. Most areas in most cities, it is only legal to build single family homes, which are only available if you're wealthy. Single family zoning in Chicago was created explicitly with the goal of keeping poor people away. Likewise, there are direct government payments--uneeded and unasked for--to me for about $3,200 of my property taxes and about $5,000 of my mortgage interest each year. These are not available to renters, who thus end up paying more for housing. If we removed regulations that prevent developers from building affordable housing and if we stopped giving handouts to people like me, I think we'd have a situation that I would be happy with.

What handouts for the wealthy? Single family downzoning is exactly the kind of moronic restrictive (the exact opposite of a handout) policy nit wits like Rosa are advocating for. I mean he literally tried to downzone all of Milwaukee in his ward as if that's what's causing property values to rise when 78% of Avondale is zoned RS-3.

Quote:

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Our political system is filled with examples of the government helping out those who are negatively impacted by market forces. If we should do that (and to what extent) is a worthy discussion and should be the focus here.

Again, the policies being proposed will not help out those who are "negatively impacted by market forces". Additionally anyone who doesn't get forced to move out of the neighborhood gets to reap the rewards of a developing neighborhood namely less crime, better schools, and rising property values. So what about the portion of the population that is poor but benefits from rising land values? The answer I always get to that is the bullshit "poor people can't buy houses" circular logic which is a particularly hollow line of reasoning in a city where vast swaths of town have sub 100k properties all over the place. Little Village itself is mostly owned by homeowners or small time landlords. What about those families and individuals? Shouldn't the abuelitas in Pilsen walking out of title company offices with a $800k check be entitled to the fruits of their decades of maintaining crumbling old buildings?

No, nimrods like Rosa propose permanent blight as the solution to permanent blight but are so dim that they can't even figure out an effective policy for blighting neighborhoods. Instead they propose policies that are wildly out of line with their stated goals like "let's lower rents by reducing housing supply!" as if that will do anything other than force the demand (which they have no control over) into all the existing buildings in the area.

marothisu · #**44283** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 8:50 PM**

Areas like Wicker Park, Logan Square, Bucktown, etc is akin to what happened many years ago in parts of Brooklyn. A bunch of people who either make good livings or with actual money didn't want to live in Manhattan, and chose to live elsewhere - same thing in Chicago with these areas on a smaller scale. Still large enough scale though. Median income in many of these tracts has increased by over $20,000 between 2010 and 2017.

For example, the following tract in 2010 had a median household income of $39,625. In 2017, it was $70,313 which is a 77% increase in under a decade. It went from having 127 households making 6+ figures per year in 2010 to having 432 households making 6+ figures per year in 2017.

http://www.usa.com/IL031241400.html

OrdoSeclorum · #**44284** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

What handouts for the wealthy? Single family downzoning is exactly the kind of moronic restrictive (the exact opposite of a handout) policy nit wits like Rosa are advocating for. I mean he literally tried to downzone all of Milwaukee in his ward as if that's what's causing property values to rise when 78% of Avondale is zoned RS-3.
.

The mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction for homeowners are direct cash payouts to people who own homes versus renting.

I don't care for Rosa. But the point I was addressing was that people should be free to move wherever they can afford to. I agree. I'd like to do away with the market distortions that advantage home owners and make it hard to build multifamily housing.

west-town-brad · #**44285** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I remember having a stupid argument several years ago on here over whether Wicker Park and Logan Square will ever match Lincoln Park and Lakeview in terms of market prices:

One bedroom condos are pretty rare in Logan Square/Wicker Park/Bucktown and represent a predominate condo housing type in Lincoln Park Lakeview.

This would impacts these stats.

LouisVanDerWright · #**44286** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 9:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Areas like Wicker Park, Logan Square, Bucktown, etc is akin to what happened many years ago in parts of Brooklyn. A bunch of people who either make good livings or with actual money didn't want to live in Manhattan, and chose to live elsewhere - same thing in Chicago with these areas on a smaller scale. Still large enough scale though. Median income in many of these tracts has increased by over $20,000 between 2010 and 2017.

For example, the following tract in 2010 had a median household income of $39,625. In 2017, it was $70,313 which is a 77% increase in under a decade. It went from having 127 households making 6+ figures per year in 2010 to having 432 households making 6+ figures per year in 2017.

http://www.usa.com/IL031241400.html

My census tract has a house hold income of $32,000 in 2010, that's almost certainly not anywhere near what it is now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrdoSeclorum

The mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction for homeowners are direct cash payouts to people who own homes versus renting.

I don't care for Rosa. But the point I was addressing was that people should be free to move wherever they can afford to. I agree. I'd like to do away with the market distortions that advantage home owners and make it hard to build multifamily housing.

And why should homeowners have to pay taxes on mortgage interest? What I don't understand is why things like this shouldn't be deductions for homeowners when I get to write it off as a landlord.

I also don't see discouraging homeownership as a solution either. If anything the solution to the problem is for the people complaining to go out and figure out how to buy themselves if they actually want to stay put. The biggest reason why the black middle class never made the same huge household wealth gains the white middle class did after WWII is that they were largely excluded from buying in the suburbs where the vast majority of post war property value gains occurred. We should be embracing development not hating it. This is a gateway for all the people who have been left behind in the inner city to jump from the lower or middle class to a higher status in life. The best thing that could happen to reduce African American poverty in Chicago, for example, would be for places like Lawndale or Garfield Park to rapidly increase in value. There's a lot of long time property owners in those areas whose boats would be rapidly floated by a rising tide.

If there is anything I believe to be true, it's that land ownership is the most reliable route to long term wealth and financial independence. I've seen this first hand many times. What I can't support are silly homeownership scams like condos which are really just glorified apartments. But two or three flat (or I guess SFH, but that's not as effective) ownership in Chicago is a sacred tradition and something that should be opened up to as many people as possible.

Via Chicago · #**44287** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

If there is anything I believe to be true, it's that land ownership is the most reliable route to long term wealth and financial independence.

except this notion is clouded by a healthy dose of sample bias. you happened to be in the right place at the right time and were able to profit off a cataclysmic, once in a generation (or even century) collapse that negatively impacted a far far higher proportion of the population, and the neighborhoods you invested in bounced back at unprecedented levels in record time. that confluence of factors is far from the norm, nor typical.

generally speaking, housing at best keeps up with inflation (in other words, its nothing more than a forced savings account for the vast majority of people, and in fact can often turn into a money pit given the ongoing maintenance involved)

the danger is perpetuating the notion that housing is a get rich quick scheme, rather than first and foremost simply a place to live. because thats how we got into the mess the last time.

Steely Dan · #**44288** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 9:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

What I can't support are silly homeownership scams like condos

LOL!

we're now in our 4th condo, and have done well with the two previous ones that we've sold. yeah, my marina city condo that i bought in 2006 took a LOOOOOONG time to recover after the crash, but i'm very glad that i held onto it instead of bailing and taking a loss because it's now back, and then some.

would we like to own our own 3-flat in lincoln square as opposed to just a unit in one? yeah probably, but we don't make enough money to come anywhere close to qualifying for a $1.2M mortgage.

could we own a 3-flat in jefferson park or dunning? maybe, but i don't wanna live that far out. lincoln square already feels pretty damn close to the edge of bonafide chicago urbanism to me.

marothisu · #**44289** Posted **Mar 15, 2019, 10:17 PM**

moorhosj · #**44290** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Again, the policies being proposed will not help out those who are "negatively impacted by market forces". Additionally anyone who doesn't get forced to move out of the neighborhood gets to reap the rewards of a developing neighborhood namely less crime, better schools, and rising property values. So what about the portion of the population that is poor but benefits from rising land values? The answer I always get to that is the bullshit "poor people can't buy houses" circular logic which is a particularly hollow line of reasoning in a city where vast swaths of town have sub 100k properties all over the place. Little Village itself is mostly owned by homeowners or small time landlords. What about those families and individuals? Shouldn't the abuelitas in Pilsen walking out of title company offices with a $800k check be entitled to the fruits of their decades of maintaining crumbling old buildings?

No, nimrods like Rosa propose permanent blight as the solution to permanent blight but are so dim that they can't even figure out an effective policy for blighting neighborhoods. Instead they propose policies that are wildly out of line with their stated goals like "let's lower rents by reducing housing supply!" as if that will do anything other than force the demand (which they have no control over) into all the existing buildings in the area.

I wasn’t making that argument at all. People like Rosa are absolutely the problem and his “proposals” are not sulutions in any way. I am talking about the actual folks on the ground who do have difficulties dealing with this type of rapid shift. I think we could use a little more empathy towards those people and not let craven politicians like Rosa Jade our views. His positions are counter-factual, but to the renter in Logan Square who has lived there 20 years, raised kids in the neighborhood and is facing a 50% rent increase, it provides hope.

PittsburghPA · #**44291** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 12:46 AM**

Thanks for the link, makes much more sense knowing that the first floor is retail. I rather like it, smart design and concept. Here is a link from their website.

https://www.filoramotalsma.com/projects/#777-s-dearborn

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lurker

Retail will occupy the ground floor. Above will be the private residence of the architect. Heres something:

https://chicago-curbed-com.cdn.amppr...-dearborn-polk

harryc · #**44292** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 2:11 AM**

March 10

harryc · #**44293** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 3:19 AM**

March 11

west-town-brad · #**44294** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 2:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by marothisu

Areas like Wicker Park, Logan Square, Bucktown, etc is akin to what happened many years ago in parts of Brooklyn. A bunch of people who either make good livings or with actual money didn't want to live in Manhattan, and chose to live elsewhere - same thing in Chicago with these areas on a smaller scale. Still large enough scale though. Median income in many of these tracts has increased by over $20,000 between 2010 and 2017.

For example, the following tract in 2010 had a median household income of $39,625. In 2017, it was $70,313 which is a 77% increase in under a decade. It went from having 127 households making 6+ figures per year in 2010 to having 432 households making 6+ figures per year in 2017.

http://www.usa.com/IL031241400.html

I'd argue that the "blue line growth trend" is a direct result of the generally restrictive building environment on the north side/lincoln park/lakeview that favors density reduction. every 3 flat that gets torn down for a $4 Million single family home on Burling St. more or less means another 3 flat condo building pops up in my hood.

that's why the low income, cash rent crowd gets gentrified out of Logan Square. Because the mildly affluent (whose numbers are growing rapidly in Chicago) are getting gentrified out of Lincoln Park.

the urban politician · #**44295** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 2:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

LOL!

we're now in our 4th condo, and have done well with the two previous ones that we've sold. yeah, my marina city condo that i bought in 2006 took a LOOOOOONG time to recover after the crash, but i'm very glad that i held onto it instead of bailing and taking a loss because it's now back, and then some.

would we like to own our own 3-flat in lincoln square as opposed to just a unit in one? yeah probably, but we don't make enough money to come anywhere close to qualifying for a $1.2M mortgage.

could we own a 3-flat in jefferson park or dunning? maybe, but i don't wanna live that far out. lincoln square already feels pretty damn close to the edge of bonafide chicago urbanism to me.

Condo ownership as a scam is obviously nonsense, LVDW is not right about that—but in a few ways he has a point.

I think that smaller condos in less desirable areas haven’t fared well in Chicago.

What has fared well is:

1. Larger condos in good locations
2. Smaller condos in really hot locations that are seeing a lot of rental growth. See my condo in the Loop as an example. Of all of my apartments in Chicago, this one has seen the greatest rental growth as the area around there just goes crazy with jobs. Your Marina City condo will definitely be hitting the same strides.

the urban politician · #**44296** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 2:27 PM**

I’m not sure where you’re looking, but you can easily still buy a 3 flat on the north side near transit for well under $1.2 million.

I mean, you just must not be trying that hard. Hell, there is a 4 flat with a huge duplex in River North—2.5 blocks from One Chicago Square— right now that is on sale for $1.5 MM, and the owners are willing to sell it for $1.4 MM. I still think that’s high for an investment property, but if I were going to be a live in owner I’d take it in a heartbeat.

The criminal CRLTO doesn’t even apply to owner occupants in 4 or fewer unit buildings, so that’s an added bonus.

If I lived in the city I would definitely opt to own and live in a small multi unit. It just makes too much sense.

marothisu · #**44297** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 3:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by west-town-brad

I'd argue that the "blue line growth trend" is a direct result of the generally restrictive building environment on the north side/lincoln park/lakeview that favors density reduction. every 3 flat that gets torn down for a $4 Million single family home on Burling St. more or less means another 3 flat condo building pops up in my hood.

that's why the low income, cash rent crowd gets gentrified out of Logan Square. Because the mildly affluent (whose numbers are growing rapidly in Chicago) are getting gentrified out of Lincoln Park.

I'm sure that explains part of it, but I doubt it explains most of it. You can look at my new construction map (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...169999999&z=10) for reference which goes back to mid August 2013. There have been 55 SFHs permitted between North, Clybourn, Armitage, and Wells in that time period. There were also 65 units in new multi unit buildings permitted in the same geographical area and time period.

Contrast that with West Town now. Between North, California, Hubbard, and the interstate there have been 329 new multi unit buildings permitted for a grand total of 1743 new units in multi-unit buildings (not counting the "Tower of Pizza Hut" by the way). Over 1000 of these units were in mostly 3 and 4 unit buildings (but some 8 unit-ers and a few ~30) south of Division Street. That means for every new SFH in Lincoln Park south of Armitage, there have been over 31 new units permitted in multi unit buildings south of North Avenue. If you're going the "for every 3 unit building torn down for a new SFH there, those people move to West Town" route, then every single SFH in Lincoln Park would have had to tear down 10+ 3-unit buildings each which is not even close to the case.

This isn't even counting what's north of North Avenue or what's in Logan Square. That number is going to double easily once we include Bucktown, Logan Square, etc. I'm sure it explains a little bit, but no - not buying it at all. The more likely explanation is that they went further north to areas like Lakeview, Roscoe Village, etc but no matter where they went, it's not even close to a 1-to-1 replacement.

SamInTheLoop · #**44298** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 6:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

I remember having a stupid argument several years ago on here over whether Wicker Park and Logan Square will ever match Lincoln Park and Lakeview in terms of market prices:

Obviously the overall market prices in Logan and Wicker haven't yet surpassed what you will pay for a McMansion on Burling, but the trajectory of the market in the NW side makes parity or near parity with their Eastern analogues an inevitability IMO. There is no functional difference between living at Fullerton and Ashland and Living at Fullerton and Western. In fact, the only difference is Logan is more convenient to the freeway.

It's only a matter of time before the NW side is indistinguishable from the North side in terms of market prices, school districts, and rents. I was actually just talking to friends last night about how it's strange, the North side seems to have evaporated from all of our lives. We all lived there when we first moved here, but there's basically nothing of interest for my social circle over there anymore aside from the occasional Cubs game or trip to the beach (even then we much prefer the South Side beaches). All of the dining, nightlife, and social functions we are interested in are along the Milwaukee Corridor or in the West Loop or even Pilsen. I can't remember the last time I went out in Lincoln Park or Lakeview. Maybe a friend's rehearsal dinner at Cafe Babareba two years ago?

From that article: “....buyers are getting more space per square foot.”

Someone finally pulled that off. Good for them.

lakeshoredrive · #**44299** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 7:08 PM**

Was looking at the skyline yesterday from my school's building and it's really interesting to see how the skyline takes shape with several peak, but an immediate drop after 311 S. Wacker... and then kinda make a small peak with NEMA. Do you guys think there will be one or two supertall in the South Loop one day? I think that would kinda balance the skyline.

SIGSEGV · #**44300** Posted **Mar 16, 2019, 7:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

From that article: “....buyers are getting more space per square foot.”

Someone finally pulled that off. Good for them.

It's pretty easy... just higher ceilings?