Will Chicago Legalize Coach Houses / Adopt a pro-ADU policy?

[Elliot Rudmann]

Chicago investors/landlords: I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on this potential change. Mayor Emanuel's latest five-year housing plan (passed in December by the City Council) included a section that mentioned accessory dwellings. "The City will identify options to leverage building codes or zoning to create affordability through accessory dwelling units (ADU)".

There has been a national push towards adopting pro-ADU legislation and upzoning. Minneapolis just radically changed their zoning (allowing three-flats to be built on some previous SFH zoned lots). Oak Park now allows coach houses (if your lot is big enough). Denver, Portland, and LA - to name a few - already allow ADUs with certain restrictions, yet Chicago has generally banned them since 1957.

With Chicago losing so many housing units from multifamily de-conversions to single family homes, I think adopting more ADU-friendly zoning would help naturally restore these lost units and bring back some affordability, which would help Chicago's economy long term. It would also help increase income for homeowners/landlords and increase work for builders and architects. I've definitely thought about converting my unfinished basement to a small apartment or putting up a garage with a 1bd/1bth on top to help increase cash flow, but it's not realistic without attempting the virtually impossible (and expensive) task of trying to spot-upzone my property. There would be a lot of things the city would need to figure out (infrastructure impact comes to mind) but overall this seems like a great way to add density while preserving the neighborhood character and giving some power back to homeowners and landlords. 

There's a related petition circulating right now that I've signed that I think a lot of Chicago people on BP would support: https://www.change.org/p/chicago-city-council-re-legalize-coach-houses-and-similar-accessory-housing

[Justin F.]

If I had to choose one or the other for Chicago,  I would choose Minneapolis style zoning, increasing the standard lot zoning to allow 2 flats and 3 flats. That alone would do a great deal to increase the density and affordability while still maintaining neighborhood character. The current 1900's era 2 flats and 3 flats are some of the most affordable housing stock. The current zoning that promotes too much single family in a dense urban city is silly and short sighted. Chicago is not alone in that regard.

While I'm not the biggest fan of Coach Houses, it is sensible zoning to allow them on what is typically underutilized yard or garage area. I will be signing this petition. 

It would also be sensible if Chicago sorted out their illegal basement unit situation. It seems to be a common  yet illegal practice that results in a lose-lose-lose for the tenant, building owner, and city. Would it not be safer for everyone if we legalized the ones worth legalizing and made compliance more affordable and reasonable? Tax revenue needed desperately for the city, affordable apartments for those who desperately need it, extra income to help homeowners pay their bills and stay in the city longer- seems like another no-brainer.

[Account Closed]

I'm really curious if anyone has experience building small units like rear houses and coach houses (they're legal in Oak Park). 

Once they're re-legalized in Chicago there's going to be some immediate interest in people who can pay cash or get HELOC loans - are GCs ready for this?

[Brian H.]

From an architecture/urban planning perspective, I think this would be great. I feel the same for real estate. Though I'm definitely in favor, and have signed the petition, it'd be interesting to see some in depth analysis of how this will affect things, pros/cons, etc. It'd be great to get ahead of any likely problems so that the majority of folks who will reap benefits, can. 

[Justin F.]

If I had to choose one or the other for Chicago,  I would choose Minneapolis style zoning, increasing the standard lot zoning to allow 2 flats and 3 flats. That alone would do a great deal to increase the density and affordability while still maintaining neighborhood character. The current 1900's era 2 flats and 3 flats are some of the most affordable housing stock. The current zoning that promotes too much single family in a dense urban city is silly and short sighted. Chicago is not alone in that regard.

While I'm not the biggest fan of Coach Houses, it is sensible zoning to allow them on what is typically underutilized yard or garage area. I will be signing this petition. 

It would also be sensible if Chicago sorted out their illegal basement unit situation. It seems to be a common  yet illegal practice that results in a lose-lose-lose for the tenant, building owner, and city. Would it not be safer for everyone if we legalized the ones worth legalizing and made compliance more affordable and reasonable? Tax revenue needed desperately for the city, affordable apartments for those who desperately need it, extra income to help homeowners pay their bills and stay in the city longer- seems like another no-brainer.

[Brian H.]

Great points @Justin F., so much of our current housing stock (2-4 flats) is no longer buildable per current zoning... in the same areas where it already exists! Sometimes it is technically, or if you get into the nitty gritty parts of the code, but it probably shouldn't be that hard, same with the basements like you said. Why aren't you a big fan of coach houses? Come to think of it, the only one I've lived in (in Cleveland), I wasn't a big fan of either...

I don't know the history of Chicago zoning very well, but I'm curious as to why so many areas seem to have been changed to lower density relatively recently (though it's probably not pretty based on what I do know of Chicago zoning history). Perhaps @Account Closed can speak more to that end?

[Account Closed]

The petition isn't only about re-legalizing coach houses. It's also to support ADUs, which come in all shapes and sizes. What's not explicitly said in the petition is that there needs to be a "re-opening" of residential capacity, as controlled by the zoning maps, in our neighborhoods to allow 2-flats to be built where they used to be built but are currently banned. 

Many Chicago neighborhoods (mostly those on the north and northwest sides) have been "downzoned", where the zoning map has been changed from a higher-density zone (most commonly RT-4) to a lower-density zone (most commonly RS-3). 

In some instances, the alders have done this by request of residents who want to "protect" the "character" of their blocks. Historically, this has meant many things, including controlling what kind of person (be they poor or someone of color) is allowed to live in the neighborhood. Some residents say they want the downzoning to use to control the design of future condo buildings. 

In either case, what downzoning does is lead to a gradual decline in population density, as 2-flats and 3-flats are replaced by single-family houses (either through demolition or deconversion) in higher-income areas. 

Note: I only have GIS zoning maps from 2012 to present, so it's next to impossible to analyze which areas have changed residential capacity via zoning and when they changed. The Harold Washington Library center, and the planners at City Hall, have older zoning maps on file. 

[Justin F.]

@Brian H. With some exceptions, coach houses tend to be less visually appealing than all the other buildings on the block. I will give you they are usually just as appealing as a garage, who is their main competition. They can certainly be done nicely. 

As an owner, the coach house needs to provide enough housing to offset the maintenance and replacement costs of an entirely separate roof, siding, etc. If a studio coach house is 50 years old, it might just be breaking even in certain neighborhoods- but we're talking about adding density to places people want to live, so it seems like a no-brainer.

@Account Closed Driving around almost anywhere in Chicago, the density of what's built is so different than the current zoning.  If we were to have another Chicago Fire, we wouldn't be able to rebuild 90% of the existing multi families under current zoning.

While it seems like a great idea at first, mass Down-zoning is too blunt a tool that can be used to concentrate power in the hands of Zoning Authorities and elected officials- for good or for bad. Even when used for 'Good', its effect is to slow down construction so much as to make cities affordable, looking at you Boston MSA. If only there were easier ways to force tasteful development.

[Account Closed]

Downzoning to single-family only is a bad idea; it means that a 2-flat owner who wants to build an addition must get a zoning change. It means that a 2-flat owner who wants to build a basement unit must get a zoning change. 

----

What does it matter what coach houses look like? They're all in the alley, invisible from the street. All of the ones in Chicago were built before ~1957 (unless they were built without a permit, in which case they could have been built afterwards). Have you seen new ones in other cities? Look up laneway houses in Vancouver (which has a cottage industry of high-design ADU architects like Lanefab), and ADUs in Austin, Denver, Portland, Los Angeles, and elsewhere. 

[Kumar Tummalapalli]

The important thing to note is that ..in oakpark the lot has to be more than 6500 sq ft , is that right? If so there is no point in even making this change , as houses around 800k will mostly fall in to that category and I don't know if the SFH consumer at that level would even consider a coach house and even if they build they will likely use it as a man cave or some sort of recreation

I don't know if this was done just to fill the pockets of some consultants and so on ... Anyway ,,, atleast something has happened 

[Elliot Rudmann]

@Kumar Tummalapalli - the lot size restriction there is ridiculous and should not be applicable to the city of Chicago. I don't have data on how many lots in the city are >6500sq/ft but I'd imagine it's very few. Implementing a lot size restriction that big that in the city would render the change useless for all but the uber rich. Considering how progressive Oak Park generally is -- or claims to be -- I'm surprised they stuck that restriction in. Better than nothing I guess, but hopefully Chicago gets it right. 

[Kumar Tummalapalli]

@Elliot Rudmann I think @Account Closed did some good analysis on how many lots would qualify. His website is one of the best (for chicago city)  interms of this sort of data and analysis .

[Account Closed]

I quantified how many lots in Oak Park qualify for the village's coach house rule. I cannot quantify it for Chicago because there's no rule yet.

Nevertheless, I am designing my own rule about legalizing coach houses & ADUs, and I can test and quantify that rule when I'm done developing it.

Thanks for the shoutout @David Des about my website

[Brian Ploszay]

I am a supporter of the coach houses and signed the petition.  Coach houses are usually located in older neighborhoods where the original housing stock is at least 100 years old.  They haven't been building them in awhile.

The purpose of this change in the zoning law is to make housing more affordable.  Chicago is plagued by excess R3 zoning, which allows only for single families.  Many areas in the North Side of Chicago could use loosening up of this zoning restriction.  It would never happen because of neighorhood and probably Aldermanic opposition.

Even if allowed, I bet few people would build coach houses.  You give up the garage and possibly some back yard space.  Costly to dig a foundation from the backside of the house.  You can fit an excavator back there.  And you have to connect the sewer and water lines from the original house.  All very expensive.   

[Brent Watanabe]

Also support and signed the petition.

Isn't part of the zoning change to look at not having the requirement of utilizing the plumbing of the principal home?

Regarding what Coach Houses look like, I think there are some lost opportunities for re-capturing and engaging/activating space.

Check out the research proposal by Future Firm called Rebel Garages.

[Meera Lakhavani]

Thanks for sharing @Elliot Rudmann! I signed and am circulating to my network.

@Account Closed thanks for your fantastic work documenting the happenings in the city. My architect mentioned you by name when describing the pro ADU ordinance that he expects to pass this summer.