What should be build on the vacant lots in chicago (Orient: apartments, how much)

[chubs]

Midrise buildings

Public HOusing

Stores

[jwaiter]

Grocery stores.

[knitgirl]

Urban farms to help with the food desert problem.

[Vlajos]

Sell them to developers.

[P Daley]

Parks and pools

[Chicago60614]

Thousands of pet stores.

[gomexico]

Originally Posted by chubs

Midrise buildings

Public HOusing

Stores

All of the above. There's no one single, uniform use for the lots. Some are appropriate for commercial/retail, others for apartments, and some for homes. Also, some should be used for park/recreation lands.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by knitgirl

Urban farms to help with the food desert problem.

Great solution in the winter months ...

Also great to give populations already with above-average lead levels in the blood vegetables grown on urban soil likely with higher-than-average heavy metal content.

Originally Posted by P Daley

Parks and pools

Some should be, sure, but there are a lot more lots than there are needs for parks and pools.

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Sell them to developers.

I suspect most of them already belong to developers who are just sitting on them waiting for "the right time."

Personally, I'd advocate changing the tax rules to make sitting on a completely vacant lot more expensive. Then I'd upzone any properties in high-transit areas to a Transit-Oriented Development level of density and use flexibility such as comes with DX designations. Finally, I'd offer a stream-lined permitting process either based on some criteria (such as a plan that fully utilizes the zoning allowance or having a pleasantly urban streetscape) or for a fixed fee with a guaranteed timeline for permitting and inspections. For places in transit-poor areas, if they're surrounded by Single Family Homes, TIF them all as a clump with the additional money going toward either additional policing for the area, additional school funding in the area, or if neither of those are needed, additional bus transit in that area.

So, basically, increase the cost of not doing something, streamline the process of doing something, and provide positive incentive to do something by increasing how much can be built, thereby improving the profit margins for a developer. As far as "what" gets built there, I don't really care - I think the market can take care of itself.

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by emathias

Great solution in the winter months ...

Also great to give populations already with above-average lead levels in the blood vegetables grown on urban soil likely with higher-than-average heavy metal content.



Some should be, sure, but there are a lot more lots than there are needs for parks and pools.



I suspect most of them already belong to developers who are just sitting on them waiting for "the right time."

Personally, I'd advocate changing the tax rules to make sitting on a completely vacant lot more expensive. Then I'd upzone any properties in high-transit areas to a Transit-Oriented Development level of density and use flexibility such as comes with DX designations. Finally, I'd offer a stream-lined permitting process either based on some criteria (such as a plan that fully utilizes the zoning allowance or having a pleasantly urban streetscape) or for a fixed fee with a guaranteed timeline for permitting and inspections. For places in transit-poor areas, if they're surrounded by Single Family Homes, TIF them all as a clump with the additional money going toward either additional policing for the area, additional school funding in the area, or if neither of those are needed, additional bus transit in that area.

So, basically, increase the cost of not doing something, streamline the process of doing something, and provide positive incentive to do something by increasing how much can be built, thereby improving the profit margins for a developer. As far as "what" gets built there, I don't really care - I think the market can take care of itself.

Can you be my alderman?

[Vlajos]

"I suspect most of them already belong to developers who are just sitting on them waiting for "the right time."

For some reason, I was thinking the OP was referring to City owned lots.