Link to full article at The Chicago Tribune
The cost of keeping a roof over your head keeps climbing for both Chicago buyers and renters. City officials say Chicago is short by at least 120,000 units of what it needs to balance supply and demand.
There isn’t one silver bullet that will make the situation better, and the City Council on Wednesday was faced with two such proposals. One advanced, and the other was delayed.
Aldermen approved an ordinance that makes it simpler to waive mandatory parking rules for developments near public transportation, a move that could lower costs and increase housing availability. Some experts say such reforms can boost homebuilding by 40% to 70%.
But aldermen deferred a measure to allow so-called granny flats, also known as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), in all 50 wards, postponing a vote. Several years back, the city launched a pilot program in five zones across Chicago to allow for these smaller units, built on the same property as a primary residence.
First the good news: Softening parking requirements near transit appears to be a winner. Research from the Sightline Institute, a think tank in the Pacific Northwest, finds that fully flexible parking produces two to three times more new homes than encouraging granny flats or expanding apartment construction near transit. Hopefully, we’ll see that kind of result from the council’s action Wednesday.
We were hopeful to see more movement on granny flats, but we don’t believe Wednesday’s deferral was the final word. This page has been a consistent supporter of the concept, believing that granny flats, done sensitively, can add to our housing stock without disrupting neighborhoods.
To be sure, there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of ADU development in parts of the city subject to the pilot program — just over 370 units have been added in four years. Ald. Bennett Lawson, 44th, who has long championed this issue in City Council, said during the hearing that “we know from the pilot that very rarely do you see two on a block.” That’s not a lot.
But ADUs are part of a toolkit that needs as many implements as possible to reverse the housing trends that are making it too expensive to live in too many parts of the city.
Yet there clearly still is substantial aldermanic resistance. Many aldermen are concerned that this proposal takes away their ability to control how development works in their wards. Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th, called it “the first step to doing away with zoning in the city of Chicago” during the July 15 zoning meeting.
“You can keep it in your community, not mine,” Beale said. “To have this done by right without aldermanic approval, I don’t know what alderman in their right mind wanna give up that authority. I don’t know who would want to do that.”
To be sure, Beale isn’t just a naysayer — he is clearly a passionate advocate for his constituents. During the meeting, he also told of his fight for tax credits to develop 300 units in a vacant building in his ward. It’s obvious that Chicago’s housing shortage is being plagued by many issues.
We acknowledge the valid concerns of bungalow belt aldermen who are worried about granny flat construction changing the character of their neighborhoods. In some parts of California, residents have complained that ADUs have become “granny towers” that are taller than the primary structures. Those concerns should be addressed in the ordinance.
We think Lawson and others working on the proposal have done a good job of trying to add sensible guardrails, and they should continue to do so. For example, in single‑family districts, building a granny flat would require an administrative adjustment from the zoning administrator, adding oversight without the cost and complexity of a full City Council zoning change. We think it’s also worth noting that under the proposed change, these structures couldn’t be used for short-term rentals such as Airbnb.
Much of the resistance surely stems from Johnson’s push at the outset of this debate to legalize development of ADUs by right throughout the city. That overreach — a direct attack on aldermanic prerogative, which City Council members zealously protect — undermined the trust now needed to forge a compromise.
But by all appearances, the tone has shifted, and those championing ADUs, including the mayor, are open to negotiating.
Housing is a complicated issue, and it’s human nature to be protective of your neighborhood. But whether you’re Team YIMBY or Team NIMBY, you have to agree that the city must do more to boost our housing stock. In our view, ADU advocates should be open to reasonable conditions, but the city shouldn’t give aldermen carte blanche to wholesale bar the construction of granny flats.
There’s still lots work to be done on housing reform. But aldermen made progress Wednesday. Let’s keep it going.