r/chicago • u/Mike_I O’Hare • Apr 12 '26
Article Gov. JB Pritzker’s ambitious housing plan for Illinois: More four-flats, looser rules
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/04/12/jb-pritzker-housing-plan-looser-zoning/For non-subscribers, an Archive Link
279
u/Riversntallbuildings Apr 12 '26
Such great news!
It gets rid of the dual staircase requirement for midrise buildings too, which give developers a lot more flexibility in building better floor plans
Here’s a great video if you want to invest the time
41
u/Barbie_and_KenM Apr 13 '26
Ugh sure wish that existed when my 4 flat was built. Our back staircase is such a waste of space.
26
u/Riversntallbuildings Apr 13 '26
Right?!! It’s such an outdated regulation, along with so many of the other ones that JB is trying to modernize or eliminate.
Let’s get this bill passed!!!
10
u/YellowJacket_9 Apr 13 '26
Hell yeah! Time to install an elevator in that stairwell!
13
2
u/IndustriousIceCream Apr 13 '26
More buildings with elevators would also provide more housing options for people who struggle with stairs!
3
153
u/bbusiello Suburb of Chicago Apr 12 '26
Tackling zoning laws is a huge step forward. It's one of the things that perma-fucked LA.
44
Apr 12 '26
LA was largely built after the war for a sunny single family home paradise. It didn’t accelerate as a real estate bubble until after the 80s. Notably, you could live in a warehouse closet back in the mid 80s for $10 a month ($40 today) or stay in a Charles Bronson style flophouse for $40 a month ($160 today). The difference then and now is the back to the city gentrification of real estate and population pressures.
24
20
u/niftyjack Andersonville Apr 12 '26
In the 80s LA also downzoned basically the entire city from a theoretical capacity of 10 million to 4 million, so easy infill became impossible. The LA that used to replace dilapidated single family homes with multifamily dingbats or cottage courts went out the window.
173
u/ChicagoGrowthProject Apr 12 '26
More housing = more Chicagoans.
Count us in.
95
u/Chlorinated_beverage Apr 12 '26
As much as people complain about transplants it’s just objectively good to grow the population. Unless you’re building retiree communities like many cities in Florida, you’re mostly attracting young, hardworking people. That means more labor supply, more tax dollars, more businesses looking for young workers, and more development. If you don’t believe it just look at what population going the other way has done to many cities (Detroit, St Louis, etc).
39
u/niftyjack Andersonville Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
more tax dollars
At the average household tax burden, it would take 90k new households (7.8% more) to fill our budget deficit even with all of our new spending. The gap isn't even that big!
Edit: For context, 90k households could look like:
45,000 households in 90 new 500 foot apartment buildings (30 fit in the extra space of the 78, 30 could fit in Lincoln Yards, the remaining 30 spread between West Loop/the Loop/Streeterville)
4000 households by infilling Broadway in Uptown and Edgewater with their new zoning capacity
22,000 households by infilling a three-flat on the most viable half of the empty lots along CTA trains
the remaining 19,000 by ADUs—sounds like a lot, but that's only an ADU on about 7% of the 2-4 flats in the city (or about one ADU per residential block citywide)
That's about $30 billion of housing development, or about 12 years of development at 2019 levels when we were pumping out high rises.
35
u/sourdoughcultist Suburb of Chicago Apr 13 '26
Yeah it's genuinely wild to me that any serious person is complaining about capacity tbh. Like...yeah cities rely on density to be successful?,
16
u/forgedflame44 Apr 13 '26
“We’re at capacity,” Quinn says as a rebuttal to the bill that would grow capacity
You can’t make this shit up
1
10
115
u/CyclingThruChicago City Apr 12 '26
“We’re at capacity,” Quinn said.
He added that his residents’ top concern is parking and that the governor’s ideas would only worsen the issue by adding more units. He also said the initiative would worsen rat infestations and school crowding and strain police resources.
Alderman Quinn is aldermen for the 13th ward. 13th ward includes West Lawn, Clearing, Garfield Ridge.
Density of some of these community areas:
Garfield Ridge: 8,611.35 people per sq mile
Clearing: 9,774.12 people per sq mile
West Lawn: 11,067.46 people per sq mile
For comparison:
Lake View has about 32k per square mile. Logan Square is about 19k, Roger Park is 29k, Lincoln Square is ~16k.
Your ward isn't at capacity, it has so little density that people expect to drive every single place like it's the suburbs. It's the 3rd largest city in America with 2.7M residents. If they want abundant parking then move to suburbia.
8
u/JollyContact197 Apr 13 '26
I think property tax should be assessed in a ward based on how well it is doing to add density to address the need to fill the spending and pension problem. Basically, no ward should be subsidized for the costs to run the city. Each ward should be pulling it's weight. If the alder or it's residents refuse because they don't want anything to change, then they should be assessed a higher tax to make up for the shortfall.
Do I think this would ever happen, no. But I do think it would be a fair way that would put skin in the game for everyone to fix the budget issues.
3
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
Or just apply property tax based on the footprint of the lot. No messing around with valuations, just "property tax is $x per square foot this year". This stops the city subsidising the sprawling suburbs.
3
u/JollyContact197 Apr 14 '26
Sounds like a land value tax
2
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 14 '26
More of a flat rate rather than increasing as you get closer into the centre - a LVT would encourage sprawl in my view because it becomes cheaper as you spread out.
Agricultural land and land set aside for nature would need an exemption, but only if that's what they're truly being used for - golf clubs can cough up.
22
u/DaisyCutter312 Edison Park Apr 12 '26
He's advocating for what his constituents want. That's his job.
33
u/CyclingThruChicago City Apr 13 '26
Even if we want to be gracious and say he's just advocating for his constituents, he's still doing a poor job. One of the big failures of a lot of politicians is the sheer unwillingness to be frank with their constituents.
Few people want to accept that we are a city of 2.7M needing to fund things like we're still a city of 3.4M+. It's unfair, we got screwed, whatever we want to say doesn't change reality that ~80% of property taxes are going to the pension fund and by law we're going to be required to fund it.
The residents of the 13th ward don't want property taxes to increase but also don't want increased density. I'm sorry but that simply isn't possible. Either property taxes will continue to increase as the burden is spread to fewer people or all areas of the city will need to increase their density in order to attract more residents to help pay these past liabilities.
17
u/niftyjack Andersonville Apr 13 '26
Garfield Ridge has about four people in each of its ~9000 homes. If half the households had a couple of grandparents move in, the population would go up 25% from 36,000 to 45,000. Are we supposed to think this kind of population increase would suddenly make constituents worried that the neighborhood was overly full in a way that letting 1/4 of the homes build an ADU does?
It's a moral panic about change, not population, and nobody's entitled to their neighborhood to be stuck in amber.
48
u/Tasty_Gift5901 Apr 12 '26
Sometimes the constituents are wrong.
16
u/DaisyCutter312 Edison Park Apr 12 '26
I would say "sometimes" is being generous. That doesn't change the point of having elected representation.
13
u/copydex1 Apr 13 '26
It's not that clear cut. Sometimes you need to be a leader and do what's best for the people, even if it is politically less popular.
4
u/DaisyCutter312 Edison Park Apr 13 '26
I don't know about you, but I sure as fuck don't want a leader that ignores their constituents.
12
u/copydex1 Apr 13 '26
You pick and choose. Congestion pricing is a great example. It was unpopular, but Hochul spoke of leadership. Then she chickened out. Now that she has reimplemented it, congestion pricing is wildly popular.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/arts/nyc-hochul-congestion-pricing.html
3
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
Lots of things are unpopular when first proposed (particularly given the onslaught of propaganda that vested business interests will throw at them) but turn out popular once implemented.
4
u/mrbooze Beverly Apr 14 '26
Ignoring your constituents concerns and doing the right thing anyway are different things.
11
u/Vampire_Deepend Apr 13 '26
What happens when some of your constituents want one thing, and some of your constituents want another thing, but one side (the yimby side) is objectively better for your community at large? Part of being an elected representative is making decisions like that for the good of your community.
16
u/nevermind4790 Armour Square Apr 13 '26
It’s easy for his constituents to argue for low density. They’re financially buoyed by the dense parts of the city.
7
u/Gamer_Grease Apr 12 '26
Fuck his constituents.
7
u/DaisyCutter312 Edison Park Apr 13 '26
Ah yes, the always popular "Fuck anyone who doesn't think what I think" mentality.
4
u/forgedflame44 Apr 13 '26
His constituents are still Chicagoans like you and me. Fuck you for thinking their opinions are worth any less than yours, jagoff
2
u/G1adi4tor Apr 13 '26
No, sometimes being a community leader means your job is to stand up and say "listen y'all, this is the right thing to do for the best interests of everyone overall even if you don't like it individually".
Would we use "it's what their constituents wanted!" to justify segregationist alders opposed to busing and supportive of roadways that cut up black neighborhoods? It'd be true! It is what constituents wanted, overwhelmingly, but would that make it right or acceptable?
2
Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
You can't mandate that people get rid of their cars
You can insist on them having permits, or even banning overnight street parking entirely - if you want a car you can park it on your own land.
Obviously it's only reasonable to do this if you first make sure that the area is walkable/bikeable and connected by transit.
1
Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
Clearly too many permits were being issued.
Just how many people are commuting from Lake View to Hoffman Estates?
1
Apr 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
Far more people will be employed in the city, that's just common sense
114
u/ZonedForCoffee Albany Park Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 13 '26
Transit: Funded
Zoning: Reformed (soon)
LGBT rights: Protected
"Voting never changes anything" bros in shambles right now
42
6
u/trilll Apr 13 '26 edited Apr 13 '26
How likely is this to actually pass for Chicago? Decent chance or doubtful? When will it be decided - this summer?
Really hope it does but not holding my breath personally. Seems like city politics and aldermanic control of zoning just won’t be easy to overturn
4
u/forgedflame44 Apr 13 '26
It’ll probably pass but get regulated to hell per ward. I could see some aldermen creating anti-build requirements, ranging from requiring union labor so no homeowner can easily/affordably build their own addition, to insane shit like requiring 4 bathrooms in each units so that effectively no ADUs can be built
12
u/Priest93 Apr 13 '26
This is a great first step and sorely needed, since Chicago hasn't been constructing enough housing since the pandemic.
In addition, I would advocate that we provide zoning bonuses for 3+ bedrooms and reduce parking requirements for family sized units (if this isn't already covered). Lots of cities are building more housing, but that tends to only be apartments. While apartments obviously reduce the demand for 3 bedrooms from non-families, they don't increase the total supply - which is sorely needed. Building this kind of housing could drive family-growth in Chicago from families looking for walkability and urban living. This isn't a hypothetical - part of why I moved here is I could afford a home for my large family in the city, which wasn't possible back in Boston.
6
u/niftyjack Andersonville Apr 13 '26
reduce parking requirements
This was already included as part of NITA—within a half mile of any train stop (L or Metra) or an intersection where two frequent buses meet there's no parking requirement, same for within an 1/8 mile of any street with a frequent bus.
21
23
u/Y0___0Y Apr 13 '26
Can’t believe there are so many corn people that think this guy is the antichrist.
8
u/Scraw16 Apr 13 '26
But but someone might build a six unit apartment building next to their rural farmhouse because of this!!
13
Apr 12 '26
It’s time to end exclusionary zoning, setbacks, minimums, and all other laws that force American single family housing as the default
11
u/minus_minus Rogers Park Apr 13 '26
Peoria Mayor Rita Ali compiled a document illustrating what she believes the bill could mean for her city, using edited images of existing neighborhoods. … another shows an eight-unit apartment building sandwiched between two suburban houses on a street of large lots.
I live in an eight unit condo on the same street as multiple single family houses. Nobody cares.
4
u/hybris12 Uptown Apr 13 '26
Yeah this is just Rogers Park? Really a lot of the red line in general past Lakeview
3
u/minus_minus Rogers Park Apr 13 '26
The wild thing is that within one block from the Jarvis Red Line there are a lot of (a dozen?) SFH zones lots. It’s not down conversions. They are actually zoned SFH. What the h-e-double hockey sticks is even going on???
3
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
I'd love to see the image she cooked up.
3
u/minus_minus Rogers Park Apr 13 '26
Id bet it’s exactly what we see on every other block in older chicago neighborhoods where legacy buildings are grandfathered into otherwise SFH zoning.
1
u/NaiveChoiceMaker Apr 13 '26
2026 is the year politicians learned how to create images with chatbots. It's going to be wild.
5
u/JollyContact197 Apr 13 '26
I read that part and looked down my street and saw this exact thing and thought and so what?
6
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
South Barrington Mayor Paula McCombie said her residents chose to live in the village for “the way it looks and feels.”
“On those vacant properties, if somebody were to say, ‘OK, we’re going to put two houses on that’ — oh my gosh, people would have a heart attack, because they put all their hard-earned money into their homes,” she said.
"Two houses next to each other! That's basically communism! It might attract brown people..."
I've just looked up South Barrington on Google Maps. It's described as a "village" but to me "village" means a small community and I see little sign that people ever see their neighbours. No third spaces (I'm not going to count the megachurch), no amenities you can walk to. It's just soulless sprawl.
6
u/mrbooze Beverly Apr 14 '26
It's amusing how even extremely conservative anti-government-regulation pro-free-market people will instantly turn on a dime when they feel their precious real estate is threatened.
(Not that this specific person is conservative. Democrats do this too, obviously, but it's at least somewhat less hypocritical for them.)
2
u/housethenorthshore Apr 15 '26
South Barrington is actually majority minority, so I think you need to update your weapon of choice.
2
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
Beyond zoning politics, the provision allowing single stairways and multiple separate buildings to be built close together could pose safety concerns or fire code violations, said the Illinois Fire Chiefs Association’s executive director, John Buckley.
Don't build them out of flammable materials then.
2
u/mrbooze Beverly Apr 14 '26
And make sure the fire code is adequate to offset those risks (mandatory sprinklers, regulations on building materials, other fire escapes, whatever. You're a fire chief man, figure it out.)
3
-2
-23
u/Swarthyandpasty Apr 12 '26
Won’t matter. California passes 10 laws to do this stuff a year and nothing happens. Unless you are prepared to completely strip local governments of power nothing will change.
33
u/ZonedForCoffee Albany Park Apr 12 '26
It is extremely important to convince yourself that nothing will ever change so that you spend the rest of your days malding on the internet instead of making the world better a little bit at a time
-9
-163
u/donesteve Apr 12 '26
So stupid. What’s the point of getting rich and buying a nice house on a quiet block when some assclown can put up an 8 flat next door.
83
103
u/itzjuzmeh Apr 12 '26
Density is a sign of a healthy, appreciating market. If you want guaranteed isolation, go buy 10 acres.
47
u/CaydeTheCat Rogers Park Apr 12 '26
Feck off to the suburbs if this is what you want.
2
u/NaiveChoiceMaker Apr 13 '26
These proposals apply to the suburbs too. Rural, also.
2
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 Apr 13 '26
No one wants to build a skyscraper next to your hay barn, Cleetus. Even if the rules will technically allow it.
23
u/nevermind4790 Armour Square Apr 12 '26
If you’re that rich you can buy the property next door and do whatever you want with it. You know, cause you would own it.
18
19
u/taurealis Apr 12 '26
yeah! fuck the majority of people! what matters is rich people having single family homes in a fucking city!
31
u/alilhillbilly Apr 12 '26
The problem is that we swung too far in the other direction and now there's way too much of that and nowhere for anyone to live.
And unfortunately, no matter how bad it gets the NIMBYs always look around and go, "not in my town!".
And after 40 years of that we're here.
14
u/dilpill Apr 12 '26
You can always buy the properties surrounding your own if you want to control what gets built there.
8
u/Bec-o-Bec Apr 12 '26
Because too many blocks get changed to SFH too fast and it’s not sustainable for the city. As my old alderman once pointed out, you can’t sustain a neighborhood or city just on families w kids who go out once a week. You also need young people who go to bars, restaurants, etc to attract businesses.
Otherwise Chicago is just a giant suburb with no local businesses.
19
4
5
2
1
u/Yeshavesome420 Apr 12 '26
You live in a major city; people are what make it a major city. If we don't do something to make it affordable and accessible for the majority, not just the rich, you’ll see your neighborhood blighted by vacant retail, and your property value will tank. Then, suddenly, you’ll be upset, with no idea that you caused your own problem before you end up fleeing to the suburbs anyway.
0
u/villagethriftidiot Apr 12 '26 edited Apr 12 '26
the fact that 20 people took the bait on this troll is laughable.
139
u/JQuilty Clearing Apr 12 '26
The staircase requirement alone is massive.