Chicago is up for another boom ? (Lincoln, Ashland: how much, new house, construction)

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer

350,000 is not middle class... half of that maybe. Stop thinking about this in terms of monthly mortgage payments. What's wrong with building plain $60,000 studio condos without all the luxury crap?

An empty shell of a studio condo in a nice Chicago neighborhood is worth way more than $60,000. The two main factors that determine the price of a condo unit are (1) gross area in square feet, and (2) location. An appraiser will look at comparable properties in the same area and make adjustments to the value based on the level of finish and condition of the unit.

If a developer can make more money selling studio apartments by meeting that demand, that's what they'll build. But there's no point in putting up a bunch of studio units if the demand isn't there.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer

Yes yes there are plenty of people who make a lot of money but census doesn't lie - majority of people make around 30-40K therefore they can't afford all this ultra luxury garbage that's getting built.

are you familiar with the concept supply and demand?

[im_a_lawyer]

Originally Posted by FAReastcoast

are you familiar with the concept supply and demand?

Yes. Where is the supply for the 30-40K crowd?

[Aleking]

Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer

Yes. Where is the supply for the 30-40K crowd?

Huntley

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

And back to the top - quit lying to people by telling them more residential development isn't going to make their neighborhood more congested. It is. Just be honest about the pros and cons. I do believe the pros often outweigh the cons, I just despise the snake oil.

You now have a generation of architects and urban planners (decision makers) who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in to the "density is good" school. On top of this, we have since the 1960s seen a major backlash in pop culture against the blandness of the suburbs. If you challenge this orthodoxy, you can expect a firm and haste rebuttal from the academic gatekeepers, unless you are at a neotraditional school like Notre Dame or Princeton. And what architect wants to be associated with those stuffy places? We are all creative genius artists, dammit!

Seriously, if you're an architecture student and pin up a project at a crit that isn't "urban enough" or that has any hint of a historical style, you will be subjected to fairly severe public embarrassment and may be run out of the program. I saw this happen more than once in graduate school. It didn't bother me at the time, as all of my projects were appropriately urban and modern.

But anyway, the point of this is that there is a generation of decision makers who are afraid to challenge the "density no matter what" orthodoxy, and of course this suits developers quite nicely, since they want to maximize their ROI on a small parcel of expensive land. Will it ever tilt the other way? You are starting to see some renegade academics defend lower-density development, but they are treated like global warming deniers. I think the density train is not going to derail any time soon.

I'm not saying I don't believe in density. It is absolutely necessary in an urban environment, and is usually the most sustainable solution for dealing with large populations. And the nefarious effects of the private automobile are hard to deny. But we all shout "NIMBY" every time a neighborhood association challenges a new high-rise development, and then try to shove the T.O.D. logic down their throats, even though they may have some legitimate concerns. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out in another 30 years.

[im_a_lawyer]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

An empty shell of a studio condo in a nice Chicago neighborhood is worth way more than $60,000. The two main factors that determine the price of a condo unit are (1) gross area in square feet, and (2) location. An appraiser will look at comparable properties in the same area and make adjustments to the value based on the level of finish and condition of the unit.

If a developer can make more money selling studio apartments by meeting that demand, that's what they'll build. But there's no point in putting up a bunch of studio units if the demand isn't there.

Nice neighborhood can be planned and built. We can create a dozen Lincoln Parks anywhere in the city.

If the city had zoning laws that favored affordability instead of letting irresponsible land hoarding developers do whatever they want then the city would be more affordable. The point is that the cost of housing in the city is not as simple as supply and demand because the city government has a lot of control over supply and demand.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer

The point is that the cost of housing in the city is not as simple as supply and demand because the city government has a lot of control over supply and demand.

No, it really doesn't. Unless zoning variances are required, they have no control over what gets built, as long as it is up to code. Zoning and buiding codes are the two mechanisms it can use under the current law.

Affordable housing set-asides could be mandated, but I don't even think most people want them in Chicago. And frankly, it would just kill the market for new construction and would drive up the price of the existing housing stock.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I think you're confusing demand on the North Side with demand on the West and South Sides.

But regardless, outside of areas where there's empty lots and hardcore urban blight, Chicago at its least dense is WAY more "urban" and dense than its suburban peers.

Just look at a standard lot in Chicago. Those bungalow belts may look low density compared to the Loop, but compare them to any suburb which is beyond our grid.

There is big difference between a nicer "bungalow belt" part of Garfield Ridge or Edison Park that has sufficiently accessible grocery stores, parks, libraries, and businesses to be attractive to people with jobs and families compared to some isolated little cluster of homes on the extreme SE side. Similarly although the raw density numbers of a nice train centric town along the BNSF or UP-W lines might be smilar to an auto-centric town not too much further away like Bloomingdale or Schaumburg the volumes of traffic in the latter make them far less hospitable to things like walking to stores or resturants, riding bicycles to park or schools or just relaxing away from the noise of traffic. I would argue these are not simply quality of life issues but have measurable effects on things as diverse as property values, educational attainment and career scuccess. While acknowledging that there is a bit of a "chicken and egg" issue I would suggest that fully understanding all the benefits of smart approaches to transit in our mostly "hub & spoke" model should be used to guide redevelopment of the part of Chicago where rethinking the patterns of single family houses close by factories and other workplaces would benefit from looking at the models that can be found in the more desirable suburbs and functional fringe parts of Chicago...

[Chi-town Native]

All good points. You all motivated me to finally order a copy of "The Politics of Place: A History of Zoning in Chicago (Illinois)"

I think the real takeaway here is density is relative.

This is also good:

Zoning

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by im_a_lawyer

Yes. Where is the supply for the 30-40K crowd?

Where it is economically feasible to sell properties to that crowd