4 ms·
The likely responses to this are a) a pied-a-terre tax on unoccupied residential structures, and b) authorizing a LOT more construction, probably by increasing
by johan_larson 11y ago
The likely responses to this are a) a pied-a-terre tax on unoccupied residential structures, and b) authorizing a LOT more construction, probably by increasing permitted density, which will lead to a lot of single-family structures and townhouses being replaced by condominium towers.
There are similar issues in Toronto, but here we are building new towers on every corner, or near enough. Toronto, fortunately, has plenty of room to spread in three directions.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago>which will lead to a lot of single-family structures and townhouses being replaced by condominium towers. This is what's happening in Chicago right now. Single family homes and two story apartment buildings, which dominated Chicago and made it a pleasant place to live (lowish density, lots of room, decent sized backyards, etc) have been replaced in gentrying areas with super dense condos that are 3 to 6 units large on the same tiny lot. No yard, no parking, no front yard, tiny bedrooms, etc. It really changes the character of the neighborhood and the system really can't handle this kind of density. You would have 3-4 people in a SFH which is now a lot with 6 condos with 18-24 people. This means not only higher pricing but more traffic, no parking, higher load on utilities, local parks being overfilled, etc. No one talks about density it seems, but something very real happens when we quadruple density like this.
- jaredmck 11y agoWhat neighborhoods in Chicago are becoming more dense like this? I don't recall seeing this being too common.