41.1% of land area is single-family only. Mixed-use, non-single-family + planned development is 33.8% of land area. The majority of residential land area in Chicago is zoned single-family only.
41.1% of land. Not the places where people actually live. Take Marina City (AKA the corncobs); there’s a restaurant on the ground floor of one, and I think House of Blues Chicago in the other, and then, I dunno, a few hundred condos above them? Go into Wicker Park, Logan Square, Rogers Park, Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square, Ukrainian Village, Little Village, and on, and on, and almsot every single retail establishment has at least 2-3 stories of apartments and condos above it.
That’s possible, but not a given. Unfortunately, it would be complicated to calculate (and perhaps not even possible unless Chicago’s GIS system has good data for how many housing units are in those Planned Developments).
Even then, Chicago is probably close to a best-case scenario, not representative of the norm.
Take households from census data, divide by number of buildings. If the number is greater than 2 you’re wrong, less, you’re right. But I don’t know if that data is available
ITT: people who think mixed-use housing is way more common than it actually is.
Ngl I live in Chicago so to me it seems like the norm rather than the outliar
It’s not, even in Chicago.
41.1% of land area is single-family only. Mixed-use, non-single-family + planned development is 33.8% of land area. The majority of residential land area in Chicago is zoned single-family only.
41.1% of land. Not the places where people actually live. Take Marina City (AKA the corncobs); there’s a restaurant on the ground floor of one, and I think House of Blues Chicago in the other, and then, I dunno, a few hundred condos above them? Go into Wicker Park, Logan Square, Rogers Park, Lincoln Park, Lincoln Square, Ukrainian Village, Little Village, and on, and on, and almsot every single retail establishment has at least 2-3 stories of apartments and condos above it.
All along the waterfront is “no residential allowed”
Fucking stupid.
If you map it by population, I would expect there to be a difference.
That’s possible, but not a given. Unfortunately, it would be complicated to calculate (and perhaps not even possible unless Chicago’s GIS system has good data for how many housing units are in those Planned Developments).
Even then, Chicago is probably close to a best-case scenario, not representative of the norm.
Take households from census data, divide by number of buildings. If the number is greater than 2 you’re wrong, less, you’re right. But I don’t know if that data is available
Considering it looks like every major arterial is zoned for mixed use, that’s not so bad. Or at least not as bad as it could be.