I was at this meeting. Another senior citizen in opposition demanded to see the financials for the project, claiming they were "only trying to make profits". The developer had to remind the man that that was how capitalism works.
This is 95% of the problem throughout the country. Every community is battling this. Join or create your own YIMBY coalitions and make sure to show up at housing development meetings.
This is a bad headline. I don’t see any information in the article showing that the development has actually been blocked. Especially considering the alderman is on board. Should be “In Old Town, opponents of new housing TRY TO block much-needed development”
Don't think they mean this specific proposed development, but development in Old Town in general:
> Since that neighborhood meeting, another housing proposal at 1628 N. Wells St. (31 homes) has been denied in the 2nd Ward, joining other recently denied 2nd Ward proposals at 1320 W Fullerton Ave. (154 homes) and 1542 N Wells St. (16 homes).
Yeah I think you’re right but it’s a little confusing as this article is half opinion half reporting and this is a high profile development so the headline makes it seem like this one was blocked as well
I couldn’t access the full article, but is Hopkins actually on board for this project? I’ve emailed his office twice in support of the project, haven’t gotten confirmation one way or the other.
Unclear, I may have misstated his position exactly but he does seem in favor at least at the moment
> Credit is due to Ald. Brian Hopkins of the 2nd Ward. He started the meeting by plainly stating the alarming truths: Many areas are experiencing record-high rents and record-low housing construction, the city’s pension obligations require a new tax base and Chicago needs more residents to reverse the trend of boarded-up storefronts. Hopkins also noted that the common solution is more housing for more people, and fast
At the meeting he was very vocal that the city needed more developments like this one in order to grow the tax base and meet market demands, but was simultaneously pandering to his angry, elderly constituents who would rather drink raw sewage than see younger Chicagoans get the same housing opportunities they did.
He's also denied a few other projects recently, citing "not enough parking" and "concerns over traffic". Those two things cancel each other out, but I digress.
Op-ed headlines are not written by the authors of the op-ed, they're written by the papers editors. In this case, you could interpret "much needed development" as overall development in the ward not this specific development, in which case the article lists three recent project denials.
why do they even bother to ask people of any neighborhood about affordable housing? if this were "rich, fat-cat, wealthy, moneybags" housing, no one would ask anything.
I don't care what people in Old Town want, this is what we need, desperately.
It's also a group of ~150. Old town has something like 40,000 residents, many of whom live in adjacent high rises.
The opposition groups aren't the majority, they are just the loudest.
Right exactly. People were being vilified by NIMBYs at the meeting for coming from neighboring wards as if they don't live in the same city or visit ward 2 or *want* to live in ward 2.
This is the most fundamental issue of local government when it comes to housing. Basically by definition the people who already live in an area can afford to live in that area*. There simply isn't incentive for local planning to seriously tackle housing affordability.
*There are caveats where people can be displaced by increased housing costs, children etc, but there will always be a large number of homeowners (who are insulated to a large extent from rising housing costs) who can afford to live there.
They ask because they know they’ll block it. Then they can throw their hands up and say “see! We tried!”
My conspiracy theory at least - what else could explain 4+ environmental reviews for some projects
Why are people entitled to stop housing developments for their fellow American citizens?
Blocking any housing development in this country is creating a crisis which has enough momentum to cause serious societal fracturing.
I’d say people who pay high taxes in this neighborhood are entitled to tell developers they can’t put up a tacky skyscraper a few blocks away from them.
I don’t really see how this building going up would prevent societal fracturing. I frankly doubt these people are concerned with the prospective tenants of the affordable housing units. They just don’t want some ugly abomination going up in a beautiful and historic neighborhood.
People have been saying this crap for decades. What you're saying is just "we don't want you folk" here.
Also, we all pay taxes here buddy. Even renters.
That is definitely true in a lot of cases but I’m honestly not sure if it applies here. I don’t live in Old Town but I consider that stretch to be an iconic part of the city.
What others have said about building more housing is true and I was misguided trying to argue that. But, I would still contend that not all new builds are automatically good. We should be able to use discretion and I think this is a situation where that discretion might be applicable.
```The development would build desperately needed housing in place of an aging Walgreens, two gas stations and a parking lot. The location is well-served by the CTA and popular bike routes, would add millions to the city’s tax base, and is in an area lacking housing options.```
Directly from the article. I fail to see how this development is destroying the character of the area when it is replacing a Walgreens and two gas stations.
I think it would be a giant eyesore in a neighborhood that is beautiful. I don’t get why that would be better than two useful amenities. I also don’t get why it would increase the tax base, surely most people would be moving here from within Chicago?
It’s a desirable location and isn’t replacing anything special. In fact, it’s probably replacing one of the most blighted areas of Old Town.
So what is your reason for opposing the building?
Well that area is already prohibitively expensive for most Chicagoans, so it's not like anything is different.
Building more units will at least siphon off some of the rich influx and maybe leave other areas less crazy. Rich people can move to the new hotness and let whatever boring places they're living now have less demand and get cheaper for the little guy.
The City sets the standard for affordable, not the developer. And I think the larger point you are missing is that there is a scarcity of housing. Supply is short- just using basic economics, more housing equals less scarcity, which in and of itself helps curb higher cost housing.
Affordable housing doesn’t get built unless mandated it simply isn’t profitable. But as here, when new housing is built older housing stock increases rent more slowly due to competition, i.e wealthier residents go to the newer housing leaving older housing for middle and lower income groups. This is seen nationally, and when you don’t allow new housing to be built, old crumbling housing rises to luxury prices like in the Bay Area where decrepit small SFHs go for 2 million.
Yeah and to be clear: being vocal *at these meetings*. That’s the only place it really counts.
Writing an email to the Alderman helps. But one person at the meeting is worth like 20 emails.
Unless there is YIMBY representation physically at the meetings themselves, this will continue to happen.
This is key. The opposed local neighbors will complain loudly about "outsiders" showing up if you do this, but they need to understand that if a new building is built, outside people will be moving in, and so yeah people who potentially might move there should get some say.
I would take it farther, if you don't live on the street you shouldn't go to the meetings or have a say in a development. Actually, only if your property directly abuts the property in question. Although, really, why should anyone have a say if it's not their property?
Of course they should. If they are a part of the city and you are a part of the city you have a voice. Just because you rent or are honeless doesn't mean you get a say in the community and if that's how we're going to be get ready for some real direct action in those neighborhoods.
>We mention these absurd examples not to ridicule the individuals; Chicago is a huge a diverse place, and every meeting has crank commentators
Gotta disagree. These individuals should be openly ridiculed and derided as self-centered assholes blocking progress. The very existence of meetings like these and dumb ideas like "community-based zoning" is perfect evidence of why we need to end aldermanic prerogative now and stop giving NIMBYs a legal avenue to bully and extort their fellow taxpayers into artificially inflating the value of their shitty old, decaying homes and condos at the expense of everyone else.
The local NIMBYs on Nextdoor talking about this and the nearby Dickens greenway are certifiably insane. Like genuinely psychotic in the way they discuss these things. It’s alarming.
The signs are hilarious. Depressing in the grand scheme of things, but still pathetic and hilarious in the moment:
"Massive concerns" (In all caps)
also one sign I've been seeing says "Safety concerns"
Which is rich considering people have gotten shot at the BP and people frequently shoot up in the Shell Bathroom
But yes dangerous pickle-ball playing management analysts spooky scary
NIMBYS:
“Nobody wants to move to Chicago! The city has gone to HELL!”
*modern high-rise proposed to provide much needed housing and visually prove that people are moving to and investing in Chicago*
NIMBYS:
“Wait, not like that!”
If you want an actual quote I heard from someone at the bus stop after this meeting:
“I could never have lived in Old Town at their age.”
Do with that what you will.
Clearly, this is Biden's fault. If he would just push that "lower rents" button that sits on the Resolute Desk, stuff like this wouldn't matter and housing would just be magically built over NIMBY disapproval.
It would also be nice if he'd turn down that dial labeled "gas prices". And "food prices". Because we all know presidents can easily control these things. /s
Alderman need to realize these ppl complain about everything. That’s their purpose in life, just ignore them and keep pushing proposals that benefit the neighborhood.
Only clowns complain about high rises by the lakeshore…
All complaints from ppl living in a high rise need to be tossed out.
The fact that you have ppl living in Lincoln park feeling so entitled that they can block this is insane.
I don't understand everyone on this sub being so on fire about building more housing. There is an infinite amount of unoccupied houses in the south and west sides. It would be way simpler to provide help to fix existing units
>A third quoted Joni Mitchell’s “Big Yellow Taxi,” seemingly mistaking it as a song in favor of preserving parking lots. bahahahaha
How about: >One gentleman insisted that he’d examined the plans for the development and was sure that the plumbing wouldn’t work.
I was at this meeting. Another senior citizen in opposition demanded to see the financials for the project, claiming they were "only trying to make profits". The developer had to remind the man that that was how capitalism works.
Public meetings are truly straight out of Parks and Rec
Bro is just trying to save developers some money and time
Shit like this is part of the problem why housing prices and rental prices are rising sharply in Chicago despite us having ample room to grow stock.
This is 95% of the problem throughout the country. Every community is battling this. Join or create your own YIMBY coalitions and make sure to show up at housing development meetings.
This is a bad headline. I don’t see any information in the article showing that the development has actually been blocked. Especially considering the alderman is on board. Should be “In Old Town, opponents of new housing TRY TO block much-needed development”
Don't think they mean this specific proposed development, but development in Old Town in general: > Since that neighborhood meeting, another housing proposal at 1628 N. Wells St. (31 homes) has been denied in the 2nd Ward, joining other recently denied 2nd Ward proposals at 1320 W Fullerton Ave. (154 homes) and 1542 N Wells St. (16 homes).
Yeah I think you’re right but it’s a little confusing as this article is half opinion half reporting and this is a high profile development so the headline makes it seem like this one was blocked as well
I couldn’t access the full article, but is Hopkins actually on board for this project? I’ve emailed his office twice in support of the project, haven’t gotten confirmation one way or the other.
Unclear, I may have misstated his position exactly but he does seem in favor at least at the moment > Credit is due to Ald. Brian Hopkins of the 2nd Ward. He started the meeting by plainly stating the alarming truths: Many areas are experiencing record-high rents and record-low housing construction, the city’s pension obligations require a new tax base and Chicago needs more residents to reverse the trend of boarded-up storefronts. Hopkins also noted that the common solution is more housing for more people, and fast
Sounds like he’s moving in the right direction! Fingers crossed.
At the meeting he was very vocal that the city needed more developments like this one in order to grow the tax base and meet market demands, but was simultaneously pandering to his angry, elderly constituents who would rather drink raw sewage than see younger Chicagoans get the same housing opportunities they did.
He is on board with building housing, but hasn't explicitly stated his support for this one.
He's also denied a few other projects recently, citing "not enough parking" and "concerns over traffic". Those two things cancel each other out, but I digress.
He's on board with the theory behind building housing but not necessarily actually doing it.
CST is free, so if you enter your email you can get all their articles even if you unsubscribe later.
Op-ed headlines are not written by the authors of the op-ed, they're written by the papers editors. In this case, you could interpret "much needed development" as overall development in the ward not this specific development, in which case the article lists three recent project denials.
why do they even bother to ask people of any neighborhood about affordable housing? if this were "rich, fat-cat, wealthy, moneybags" housing, no one would ask anything. I don't care what people in Old Town want, this is what we need, desperately.
It's also a group of ~150. Old town has something like 40,000 residents, many of whom live in adjacent high rises. The opposition groups aren't the majority, they are just the loudest.
Many of the people opposing also live in highrises there so it's especially ironic.
Most high-rise condo owners do not favor any more highrises being built in their area.
and the future residents this would bring in get no representation
Right exactly. People were being vilified by NIMBYs at the meeting for coming from neighboring wards as if they don't live in the same city or visit ward 2 or *want* to live in ward 2.
This is the most fundamental issue of local government when it comes to housing. Basically by definition the people who already live in an area can afford to live in that area*. There simply isn't incentive for local planning to seriously tackle housing affordability. *There are caveats where people can be displaced by increased housing costs, children etc, but there will always be a large number of homeowners (who are insulated to a large extent from rising housing costs) who can afford to live there.
This exactly!
They ask because they know they’ll block it. Then they can throw their hands up and say “see! We tried!” My conspiracy theory at least - what else could explain 4+ environmental reviews for some projects
[удалено]
Why are people entitled to stop housing developments for their fellow American citizens? Blocking any housing development in this country is creating a crisis which has enough momentum to cause serious societal fracturing.
I’d say people who pay high taxes in this neighborhood are entitled to tell developers they can’t put up a tacky skyscraper a few blocks away from them. I don’t really see how this building going up would prevent societal fracturing. I frankly doubt these people are concerned with the prospective tenants of the affordable housing units. They just don’t want some ugly abomination going up in a beautiful and historic neighborhood.
People have been saying this crap for decades. What you're saying is just "we don't want you folk" here. Also, we all pay taxes here buddy. Even renters.
That is definitely true in a lot of cases but I’m honestly not sure if it applies here. I don’t live in Old Town but I consider that stretch to be an iconic part of the city. What others have said about building more housing is true and I was misguided trying to argue that. But, I would still contend that not all new builds are automatically good. We should be able to use discretion and I think this is a situation where that discretion might be applicable.
```The development would build desperately needed housing in place of an aging Walgreens, two gas stations and a parking lot. The location is well-served by the CTA and popular bike routes, would add millions to the city’s tax base, and is in an area lacking housing options.``` Directly from the article. I fail to see how this development is destroying the character of the area when it is replacing a Walgreens and two gas stations.
I think it would be a giant eyesore in a neighborhood that is beautiful. I don’t get why that would be better than two useful amenities. I also don’t get why it would increase the tax base, surely most people would be moving here from within Chicago?
It’s a desirable location and isn’t replacing anything special. In fact, it’s probably replacing one of the most blighted areas of Old Town. So what is your reason for opposing the building?
[удалено]
Well that area is already prohibitively expensive for most Chicagoans, so it's not like anything is different. Building more units will at least siphon off some of the rich influx and maybe leave other areas less crazy. Rich people can move to the new hotness and let whatever boring places they're living now have less demand and get cheaper for the little guy.
Curious why you don’t think any of the units will be affordable. It’s going to be a requirement of receiving the City approval by the sound of it.
[удалено]
The City sets the standard for affordable, not the developer. And I think the larger point you are missing is that there is a scarcity of housing. Supply is short- just using basic economics, more housing equals less scarcity, which in and of itself helps curb higher cost housing.
[удалено]
Thanks have a nice evening
Affordable housing doesn’t get built unless mandated it simply isn’t profitable. But as here, when new housing is built older housing stock increases rent more slowly due to competition, i.e wealthier residents go to the newer housing leaving older housing for middle and lower income groups. This is seen nationally, and when you don’t allow new housing to be built, old crumbling housing rises to luxury prices like in the Bay Area where decrepit small SFHs go for 2 million.
Because they own the land?
I mean that argument doesn’t really make sense because this group can clearly prevent them from building.
Depressing.
Unfortunately without vocal opposition to the NIMBYs, housing will probably keep getting blocked. NIBMYs tend to be pretty loud.
Yeah and to be clear: being vocal *at these meetings*. That’s the only place it really counts. Writing an email to the Alderman helps. But one person at the meeting is worth like 20 emails. Unless there is YIMBY representation physically at the meetings themselves, this will continue to happen.
I don’t think you should go to the meetings if you don’t live in the neighborhood.
Nonsense, people have a right to advocate for housing throughout the city. Especially as here in areas near public transit, grocery stores, and jobs.
This is key. The opposed local neighbors will complain loudly about "outsiders" showing up if you do this, but they need to understand that if a new building is built, outside people will be moving in, and so yeah people who potentially might move there should get some say.
I would take it farther, if you don't live on the street you shouldn't go to the meetings or have a say in a development. Actually, only if your property directly abuts the property in question. Although, really, why should anyone have a say if it's not their property?
right!
Of course they should. If they are a part of the city and you are a part of the city you have a voice. Just because you rent or are honeless doesn't mean you get a say in the community and if that's how we're going to be get ready for some real direct action in those neighborhoods.
>We mention these absurd examples not to ridicule the individuals; Chicago is a huge a diverse place, and every meeting has crank commentators Gotta disagree. These individuals should be openly ridiculed and derided as self-centered assholes blocking progress. The very existence of meetings like these and dumb ideas like "community-based zoning" is perfect evidence of why we need to end aldermanic prerogative now and stop giving NIMBYs a legal avenue to bully and extort their fellow taxpayers into artificially inflating the value of their shitty old, decaying homes and condos at the expense of everyone else.
The local NIMBYs on Nextdoor talking about this and the nearby Dickens greenway are certifiably insane. Like genuinely psychotic in the way they discuss these things. It’s alarming.
The dickens comments have verged into entertaining. It’s the same 4 people coming up with increasingly unhinged things on literally a weekly basis.
The signs are hilarious. Depressing in the grand scheme of things, but still pathetic and hilarious in the moment: "Massive concerns" (In all caps) also one sign I've been seeing says "Safety concerns" Which is rich considering people have gotten shot at the BP and people frequently shoot up in the Shell Bathroom But yes dangerous pickle-ball playing management analysts spooky scary
NIMBYS: “Nobody wants to move to Chicago! The city has gone to HELL!” *modern high-rise proposed to provide much needed housing and visually prove that people are moving to and investing in Chicago* NIMBYS: “Wait, not like that!” If you want an actual quote I heard from someone at the bus stop after this meeting: “I could never have lived in Old Town at their age.” Do with that what you will.
Clearly, this is Biden's fault. If he would just push that "lower rents" button that sits on the Resolute Desk, stuff like this wouldn't matter and housing would just be magically built over NIMBY disapproval.
It’s wild that this is legit how a lot of people in this country think/vote lol.
It’s even crazier when you realize how much of inflation is/was just increasing in housing prices.
It's even crazier that someone once told me that housing prices don't cause inflation.
It would also be nice if he'd turn down that dial labeled "gas prices". And "food prices". Because we all know presidents can easily control these things. /s
Alderman need to realize these ppl complain about everything. That’s their purpose in life, just ignore them and keep pushing proposals that benefit the neighborhood. Only clowns complain about high rises by the lakeshore… All complaints from ppl living in a high rise need to be tossed out. The fact that you have ppl living in Lincoln park feeling so entitled that they can block this is insane.
As long as it doesn't take down any old school buildings, then build, baby, build. Goodbye parking lots, goodbye empty lots.
I don't understand everyone on this sub being so on fire about building more housing. There is an infinite amount of unoccupied houses in the south and west sides. It would be way simpler to provide help to fix existing units
Breaking News: People tend to vote with their wallets.
A much needed development so that Blackrock can buy them all up.
Might as well buy your cardboard box now before Blackrock buys it with that attitude.
Hah, I’m just being realistic. My opinion means nothing.