Today’s Headlines for Monday, August 28

  • Ordinance Would Require 15% Affordable Units or New Units Elsewhere in Gentrifying Nabes (Tribune)
  • Police: SUV Driver Fatally Struck Man Who Was Crossing in 6200 Block of W. Devon (Tribune)
  • Hit and Run Driver Critically Injures Pedestrian, 24, by Millennium Park (Tribune)
  • Uninsured Driver Ignores Cones, Seriously Injures 2 Cyclists in Triathlon near Addison/LSD (Sun-Times)
  • Pedestrian Islands Are Coming in Near Jeff Park Transit Center (DNA)
  • NICTD Has Been Holding Up Burnham Greenway Extension for Almost 4 Years (Tribune)
  • MHSRA: Rome Does Airport Express Service Right
  • Transit Tees Grand Opening Party at 5226 N. Clark in Andersonville on 9/7 at 6 PM
  • Chicago Cycling Club Leads Tour of Historic Woodlawn Sites on 9/9 (DNA)

Get national headlines at Streetsblog USA

wide banner copy

  • hopeyglass

    Nabes….. = Neighborhoods….?

    It’s a good sentiment, but “affordability” in this market is depressing. Sigh.

  • Jacob Wilson

    “The driver refused medical attention and was issued citations for negligent driving and operating a motor vehicle without insurance.”

    Talk about a slap on the wrist. If you want to kill someone just get them to enter the Chicago triathlon and then run them over. Your punishment will be a minor traffic violation. Don’t even worry about having insurance either, no biggie.

    This motorist should be in handcuffs but they’re probably happily buzzing a cyclist somewhere at this very minute. Why not, right?

  • Carter O’Brien

    The irony alert is usage of the term “Nabe” in and of itself contributes to gentrification. It falls under the category of drawing speculator attention, and is a stark polar opposite of the standard shorthand of “hood.”

  • Carter O’Brien

    It’s just disgusting. Wait until organized crime figures out this loophole. Why buy guns from Indiana when you can just use your car?

  • johnaustingreenfield

    Don’t read too much into this folks, I was just trying to save a few letters.

  • F. Hayek 69

    The affordability ordinance will only further drive the middle class out of the city. New units will have to be more expensive to compensate for the subsidized ones. Inclusionary zoning is a failed policy.

  • Carter O’Brien

    I hear you, but it’s the usage creep that worries me. I think it would be fair to say poorer people and POC specifically ought to be on guard against their communities suddenly giving birth to “nabes,” it means the forces of displacement have you in their sights (aka my personal favorite, the attempt to remake Avondale into “West Roscoe Village.”

  • hopeyglass

    Gracious, that is utter nonsense. Now, new development with outrageous rents and housing prices that are out of reach for most now grown up Millenials whose wages have stagnated since the 80s, that might have something to do with the vanishing”urban middle class” animal….

  • F. Hayek 69

    As supply catches up to demand, rents are flatlining and even falling in NYC.

    You have no facts and zero evidence to show that inclusionary zoning is an effective policy.

    PS look up the word Millennial.

  • ardecila

    More new luxury units means fewer wealthy people competing for apartments in older buildings.

    If I make six figures a year and a brand new building with a pool and a gym is available, why would I cram into a vintage apartment with tiny bedrooms and a washing machine in the basement? If the new building isn’t available, though, I will just have to suck it up and live in the older building. Maybe the landlord will slap a fresh coat of paint and some granite countertops so I’m not slumming it TOO much.

  • hopeyglass

    I’m cool, thanks.

  • F. Hayek 69

    Stick to Sim City. Thanks.

  • johnaustingreenfield

    Let’s keep the conversation polite. Thanks.

  • Carter O’Brien

    It’s an assumption that wealthy people are currently cramming into unimproved vintage units, but is there any actual evidence for this? If your evidence is “rents are rising,” I will save you some time as that is a cause-vs-correlation disconnect.

    Supply can create demand as surely as the other way around. Gentrification is one of those wicked problems where both dynamics happen simultaneously, but in a City where property taxes disproportionately fund city services, they are ultimately what drive out long term residents (and landlords). It is the impact of new construction on your taxes that tips the scales, because assessments are done largely on comps using similar square footage on the building side, and zoning precedent puts pressure on the land side.

    All you really need to do is look at areas with expensive new high density construction – can you show me one part of Chicago that has gotten more affordable? Manhattization is a word for a reason.

  • Carter O’Brien

    Whose demand, is the question.

  • michael goldman

    Here’s some evidence: a lit review of empirical inclusionary zoning studies. From the review, “…the most highly regarded empirical evidence suggests that inclusionary housing programs can produce affordable housing and do not lead to significant declines in overall housing production or to increases in market-rate prices”

    http://media.wix.com/ugd/19cfbe_9a68f933ed6c45bfb5f8b7d2ef49dda0.pdf

  • michael goldman

    This piece nicely summarizes the evidence on inclusionary zoning. Overall, it’s pretty positive.

    http://media.wix.com/ugd/19cfbe_9a68f933ed6c45bfb5f8b7d2ef49dda0.pdf

  • Carter O’Brien

    Right at the beginning:

    “While there have been numerous studies on inclusionary housing, they unfortunately do not provide conclusive evidence about the overall effectiveness of inclusionary housing programs.”

    The problem specific to Chicago and the Milwaukee Ave corridor is not inclusionary housing as a concept. I have no doubts that removed from the murky seas that muddle zoning, development and aldermanic prerogative constituting pay to play it can be done well.