Such concerns led Aurora’s city council to enact a temporary zoning moratorium on data centers as well as warehouses. Mayor John Laesch made clear officials are not against data centers as a whole.
“It’s just trying to give us time to make sure that we have the proper guardrails in place,” he said.
In neighboring Naperville, at least one city council member said he’s exploring the idea of a similar pause.
My longer-term question for Aurora, Naperville, and suburbs with similar concerns: what will they approve for the land that might be used by data centers and warehouses? Several options they could pursue:
Green or open space on this land. This might be hard to do with land zoned for commercial and industrial use as suburbs hope such land will generate tax revenue and jobs. But residents might like this option if the alternative is something that generates noise and traffic.
Pursuing office space or industrial uses with limited noise and pollution. The problem with this could be whether there is demand for such structures. How much vacant office space is there already in office parks and buildings along I-88? How long could a community pursue these options if the market is not favorable?
Perhaps some suburbs can wait this all out. Will the boom in warehouses and data centers end at some point? If some suburbs say no to data centers and warehouses, they will end up somewhere. Will the warehouses end up not being in wealthier suburbs?
Case in point: Evanston’s Land Use Commission narrowly voted last Wednesday to recommend denial of a zoning application to build a 31-story, 430-unit apartment building in downtown Evanston. The tower would be among the tallest in all of Chicago’s suburbs. All the apartments would be studios, 1-bedrooms and 2-bedrooms, with 86 of the units deemed “affordable.”
The commission isn’t the last word on the project; the City Council will have that final say. But the 4-3 vote against the project reflected divisions within the community about growth. Speaking at the commission meeting, Chris Dillion, president of Chicago development firm Campbell Coyle (which isn’t developing the 605 Davis project that was the subject of the proceeding), clearly was frustrated: “Downtown Evanston cannot be preserved for only those who already are here. We need to make room for everyone,” he said, according to the Evanston RoundTable.
A majority of commissioners nonetheless thought the project was too big…
In Highland Park, another lakefront community about 14 miles north of Evanston, a fierce debate is underway about the redevelopment of a 28-acre vacant tract once the site of a Solo Cup factory. Prominent Chicago developer The Habitat Co. has proposed building 232 townhomes.
A recent meeting of the village’s Plan Commission on the project featured pointed criticisms, jeering and disruptions from residents complaining about the usual things when substantial residential developments are proposed — traffic and the impact on schools. But one resident complained that because some of the units were envisioned as rentals, the new residents would be “transient” and not invested in the future of Highland Park, according to a Tribune report.
The commission didn’t vote on whether to recommend approval, but a majority of commissioners expressed misgivings. Habitat partner Kathie Jahnke Dale said that any major reduction in the density, which already had been scaled back from a prior proposal, would lead the developer to walk away, likely leaving the site “vacant for another 15 years.”
This resistance is not unusual. For decades, suburbanites in the Chicago and across the United States have often resisted proposed developments that would bring denser and/or affordable units to their communities. Leaders and residents bring up concerns about noise, traffic, density out of line with the surrounding area, threats to property values and local quality of life, and concerns about the residents who would live in new residences.
Given this consistent opposition, what positive outcomes are possible regarding suburban proposals for affordable housing? Some thoughts on the possible options:
Approval of the proposal in its initial form. This is rare. But there must be examples that could serve as models that others could learn from. What factors in suburbs lead to approving needed affordable housing from the start?
A significantly smaller proposal. This happens quite a bit with proposals for suburban development: the initial pitch from the developer is considered and in the discussion with the community, the number of units is reduced. Take the Evanston example above slated for 31 stories and 430 units. Given the concerns expressed, perhaps the community would be okay with 15 stories and 200 or so units. Or with townhouses as in the second example, the density is reduced a bit with more open space provided. These changes can lessen the affordable housing contribution made but at least some affordable housing units are added.
I do not know if proposals that are rejected all together can be positive. Perhaps it encourages an ongoing conversation in the community? Perhaps turning down a reasonable proposal galvanizes local efforts to support affordable housing?
For new affordable housing to be constructed in suburbs, my sense is that significant support needs to come from local leaders and residents who can articulate how this will benefit the community. Since many suburbanites will see such proposals as a threat, what about them adds to the community?
Illinois has a shortage of about 142,000 housing units and must build 227,000 in the next five years to keep pace with demand, a number that would require recent annual production rates to double, according to a new economic study.
The joint study published Tuesday by the Illinois Economic Policy Institute and the Project for Middle Class Renewal at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign found that although the rental and for-sale housing markets in Chicago and Illinois as a whole remain more affordable than many coastal cities, such as New York and Los Angeles, and some other states, Illinois still faces a severe housing shortage that is escalating affordability challenges.
National housing shortage estimates are wide-ranging, with Freddie Mac citing 3.7 million and the National Association of Realtors reporting 5.5 million.
And the recommendations for how to do this?
The authors suggest a variety of solutions, some of which Chicago officials and other state leaders are already working on, including easing zoning restrictions, quickening permitting processes, offering tax incentives to convert commercial buildings to residential units and increasing surtaxes on short-term rentals such as Airbnb. Aldermen recently took a step toward giving themselves the power to ban Airbnb and other short-term rentals from opening in their wards, a move that could potentially lead to an increase in housing supply.
This is not a new issue. And even drastic changes right now would not lead to 227,000 new units in five years. This is a long-term project that needs to be addressed.
One thought: this is an opportunity for Illinois to do something that could help lead the way in the United States. Here is why. It is a blue state and Chicago and its region dominates politics and perceptions. (This is not to ignore those living outside the Chicago area; there are just fewer of them.) It has more affordable costs compared to numerous other important cities. Chicago is still an important, world-class city. If Illinois could make a serious dent in providing affordable housing across the state, it could become a model for numerous other places. What works in Illinois might not work at all in New York City or Seattle or San Francisco or other super-heated housing markets. But it might work in Cleveland, Nashville, Denver, and other American metropolitan regions. Figure it out and Illinois and lots of areas could benefit.
For numerous reasons, it seems like politicians and business leaders in American cities and regions are hesitant to truly tackle affordable housing. But those who get out ahead of it can (1) help people living there and (2) provide models and tools for others to learn from and use.
In Orange, Santa Barbara and San Diego counties, the threshold for a low-income single-person household will soon surpass $100,000 if current trends continue, according to data published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in April.
They would join three Bay Area counties that already hit that bureaucratic threshold.
California defines income levels by how they compare with the area’s median income. But in areas with unusually low or high housing costs, those definitions are often tweaked to reflect the reality on the ground for residents. Therefore, someone earning $100,000 could be above the area’s median income line but be considered low-income because of the high cost of housing. A number of government programs use these income designations to determine who qualifies for benefits such as housing assistance…
Between 2020 and 2025, the threshold to be considered low-income rose 40% across Southern California’s ten counties, reflecting the rising cost of living across the region.
At the same time, median incomes — representing the middle, not the average — across the region rose 35%.
Similar concept applied to a very different housing situation yields very different AMI limits. California housing prices are higher to the degree that the median income needed is much higher than in the Chicago region. Someone from the Chicago region might see this story about California regions and think that the housing situations are barely comparable.
At the same time, both regions struggle to provide affordable housing. The income levels may differ as might the physical landscape but both share limited appetites from municipal officials, developers, and residents for affordable housing.
Thinking beyond these two regions, are there regions that are doing better at constructing more units of affordable housing? Where incentives and local guidelines and people encourage affordable housing? Where there is good housing available at more or all of the points of the AMI limits?
According to a memo, The Residences at River Point would set aside one-quarter of the apartments for households making 30% or less of the area median income. Roughly half would be earmarked for households making 60% or less of the AMI, and the rest would be for those making 80% or less of the AMI.
According to the federal Housing and Urban Development Department, the AMI for the Chicago metropolitan area, which includes Kane County, is $50,976 for a four-person household.
The AMI is set by HUD who has a chart of the various cutoff points for the AMI for the entire region. From the City of Chicago:
For those who have not run into these figures before, several things from this chart might stand out:
The AMI depends on household size. Discussions of housing and affordability can often focus on median household incomes but HUD adjusts for the total number of people in the household. This fits with housing with more space and bedrooms generally being more expensive.
The AMI figures are for an entire region. The Chicago region includes more than 9 million residents and hundreds of municipalities. While the AMI limits for Chicago might differ quite a bit from other regions, there can be quite a bit of variation within the region as well regarding incomes and housing prices.
These income guidelines apply to a number of programs but are not the only metrics that might be used regarding housing affordability.
After adjusting for inflation, Chicago’s median household income grew by just 9% from 2000 to 2023. Meanwhile, the city’s median cost for rent and utilities grew by 28%, roughly three times faster, according to a WBEZ analysis of census data.
This particularly affects lower-income residents:
Like Robinson, about 129,000 renter households in Chicago — roughly one-fifth of the citywide total — make between $2,000 and $4,000 a month, according to a WBEZ analysis. About 30% of those households are spending a majority of their income on rent and utilities…
Twenty-five years ago, a majority of the apartments in a dozen neighborhoods would have been affordable for someone making about half the city’s median income, like Robinson. They would have included North Lawndale, South Lawndale, the Lower West Side, the Near South Side, Douglas, Grand Boulevard, Washington Park and Woodlawn. Now, a majority of the rents in those eight neighborhoods are completely out of her reach. For example, after adjusting for inflation, the median rent in the Near South Side community has nearly quadrupled since 2000.
And the causes?
New apartment construction fell off dramatically in the late 2000s, in the early years of the subprime mortgage lending crisis and the Great Recession. “A number of single-family home builders [and] a number of multifamily developers left the sector all together,” Hermann said. “Less housing was built for more than a decade than we’ve seen pretty much ever.”…
The city is also losing housing — in particular, older two- to four-unit apartments that have historically offered more affordable rents for families.
Can leaders – political, business, real estate, etc. – address this issue? Building more units overall could help. Offering more incentives for affordable housing could help. Promoting and incentivizing development throughout the city – and not just areas where developers see the potential for a lot of profit – could help. Can housing be a leading issue to tackle?
Big cities face numerous issues but housing is a foundational concern. Residents need quality housing at prices they can afford. Not having such housing can affect all areas of life, including people’s hope for what their future can be. It can lead to people leaving (hinted at by the end of the article) and limit who can move in. And if the affordable housing shortage continues, the number of units needed only increases.
Three people have lived in the deserted cathedral in the past two years, with each occupant — an electrician, a sound engineer and a journalist — paying a monthly fee to live in the priest’s quarters.
The cathedral is managed by Live-in Guardians, a company finding occupants for disused properties, including schools, libraries and pubs, across Britain. The residents — so-called property guardians — pay a fixed monthly “license fee,” which is usually much lower than the typical rent in the same area…
The practice of populating disused properties with guardiansis unregulated in Britain and comes with fewer legal protections for the residents than renting. Guardians have also complained of inconveniences and outright hazards, such as no access to drinkable tap water and rickety ceilings…
The practice started in the Netherlands in the 1980s and has long attracted artists, musicians and other creatives in search of enough square footage to do their work, as well as those prepared to live more precariously. For example, in Britain, guardians can be asked to vacate the property with 28 days’ notice, compared with the two months afforded to most private renters…
The UK housing ministry states in its guidance on guardianships that it “does not endorse or encourage” the practice because people “can be asked to live in conditions that do not meet the standards of residential properties.”
This seems like a short-term solution to two big issues facing a number of cities. Where is the affordable housing? How might older but unused buildings be preserved or used again? Each issue is complex. Each would take a long time to address.
In the meantime, what truly happens to these buildings? It seems like they have some use but given the stories shared here, it sounds like they are slowly deteriorating.
And what are the experiences of residents? Based on what is shared here, it sounds like it might be a less than positive experience overall as people are able to get by and not much else.
Are there any cities in the United States that have similar programs and, if so, what are the outcomes?
Suburbs such as Niles, Des Plaines, Buffalo Grove, Palatine, Wheeling, Elk Grove Village and Rolling Meadows no longer are flying under the radar. And based on strong supply-demand fundamentals as well as greater municipality support, the future looks even brighter for new rental options in the Northwest suburbs…
While those starting their careers continue to make up the bulk of renters, Gen Xers and baby boomers also are drawn to the maintenance-free and resort-like lifestyle renting offers them at a time when they are looking to downsize and enjoy retirement.
And with high interest rates and low for-sale housing inventory, even 30- and 40-year-olds who are in the thick of raising children and typically gravitate to single-family homes have turned toward renting in recent years — both out of necessity and choice.
The city of Chicago’s uncertain political environment and higher taxes also have increased the suburbs’ draw for some people, with rental communities near Metra stops or major expressways providing an appealing alternative for professionals who prefer the slower pace of the suburbs while still enjoying an easy commute.
And while there are suburbs hesitant to embrace rental housing, a growing number of municipalities understand the many economic benefits of new, high-quality rental options — such as increased foot traffic in their downtowns and activating underutilized sites.
If there is demand for housing, developers will want to build but suburbs often want housing that fits their particular goals and character. How will apartments fit into communities often full of single-family homes? What might apartments do to daily life in downtowns and around transportation corridors? Who will live in these apartments?
In my research on suburban development, I have seen discussion and debate involving all three of these questions. Focusing on the last one, the description above highlights the ideal apartment dwellers in suburbs. The first group is young professionals. These residents might be coming off finishing their education and are looking to establish themselves. They may have smaller households. They may not have the financial resources yet to purchase a home or they like the idea of living in a more vibrant location. Then there are those looking to downsize. They want an easier life. They may have owned homes in the past but do not need all that space or the trouble of maintaining a home and property. And “even” those who families may want to rent.
And these are not necessarily cheap or affordable rentals. These are places that are “high-quality” and “resort-like.” Their location near walkable amenities and transportation likely drives up demand and cost.
If the goals were to provide more units at prices accessible to more residents and prospective resident, the apartments might meet with more concern from local residents and leaders who could view them as threats to a particular quality of life and to their property values.
Why this particular concern? We could start with a broad statement: there is a need for cheaper housing in many American metropolitan areas. The rise in housing prices in recent years has priced out many residents from quality housing or living near where they work or residing in places they want to. This is not just true in the most expensive urban areas like Manhattan or San Francisco; there is a need for housing in numerous suburban areas.
At the same time, affordable housing can mean different things in different communities and among different actors. Is affordable housing about providing broad housing opportunities to most people who could live in a region? Or is it for lower-income residents? Or is it for seniors? When suburbs discuss affordable housing, I think they have different populations in mind depending on the local history and context.
The last few decades demonstrated that affordable housing is not a concept many suburban communities welcome. It has particular connotations. It may be perceived as a threat to existing property values. It is for particular residents. Few American suburbanites seem to want to live adjacent to affordable housing, even if they are for the concept in general.
So what might happen in 2025? There surely will be discussions at the federal, state, and local levels about affordable housing. Different levels of government and different actors may want to use different levers to encourage affordable housing. What kind of carrots or sticks might be offered? The 2024 presidential campaigns had different thoughts. Could there be significant shifts either way in the next year? If Americans continue to be concerned about their own economic standing, the issue of housing prices will not go away. But who will act and what might they do?
The Skokie Village Board gave tentative approval at its Oct. 8 meeting for developers to build hundreds of luxury apartments across three buildings at the upscale Westfield Old Orchard Shopping Center.
The first phase of construction would create 425 apartments between two mixed-use buildings, one five stories tall and one seven stories tall. The second construction phase would be for an additional seven-story building that could be used for more apartments or a hotel, said Stephen Fluhr, Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield’s senior vice president of development…
The additions to the mall were met with criticism by an affordable housing group, which blasted the Village Board for approving plans they saw as having too few affordable apartments.
The first phase would put two buildings in the area of the former Bloomingdale’s retail space in the northwest part of the mall, south of Old Orchard Road and east of Lavergne Avenue. The developers’ intention is to create a new neighborhood complete with parks, restaurants and spaces for concerts and farmers markets, according to Fluhr. The development is a partnership with the mall’s owner URW and Focus, a development group that is also in the process of building apartments near malls in Vernon Hills and Aurora.
Many malls would like to add housing to their property (examples from the Chicago suburbs to southern California): it makes use of vacant shopping space and provides local residents who might visit stores, restaurants, and entertainment options at the mall.
But, as communities consider affordable housing, why not include affordable housing as part of redeveloped housing at the mall? Many suburbs have limited greenfield development options so redevelopment provides an opportunity for affordable housing. Or affordable housing could provide housing for people working at the mall or working near the mall as shopping malls tend to be close to all sorts of businesses and jobs.
The bigger issue at hand is likely this: how many suburbs are truly willing to add affordable housing? And if they say they want to add such housing or have local regulations that require it, where will they allow it be located?
Legally Sociable 