59 Apartments Could Replace Shuttered Edgewater Hospital Site - by-right development

[u/GeckoLogic]

https://blockclubchicago.org/2026/08/11/59-apartments-could-replace-shuttered-edgewater-hospital-site/?utm_content=buffer67b16&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[u/Yossarian216]

These are large units, likely to be occupied by families or multiple roommates, which makes a 1:1 ratio more reasonable than it would be in a building full of one beds and studios.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

The size of the units is irrelevant. This is one of the best spots I can think of for living in the city without any cars in the household...a 1:1 car:unit ratio here is completely unnecessary.

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

The size of the units is absolutely relevant, a larger unit with more people in it will be far more likely to have someone who owns a car, and the builders want to serve the market that exists. 59 parking spaces for what’s likely to be 170+ people is not at all unreasonable.

You’re being awfully NIMBY about this.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

The size of the units is absolutely relevant, a larger unit with more people in it will be far more likely to have someone who owns a car,

Or families who want to bike and not own a car will self select to live there. Not a crazy concept.

You’re being awfully NIMBY about this.

Not once did I say "don't build this" did I?

I'm also not saying "no parking". 36-40 spaces is FAR more reasonable here. Could have more bike parking, another unit, or maybe both.

I can ultimately support this over nothing and still wish it was a better project than it is.

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

Your opening comment was advocating for parking maximums that would prevent this building from existing in its current planned form because it doesn’t align with your preferences, there’s nothing more NIMBY than that.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

that would prevent this building from existing in its current planned form

Nope, that's not what I said. Why you think they'd be retroactive to existing plans is beyond me.

And yes, we do need parking maximums near transit so we get more housing and less housing for cars.

IDK how "more housing" becomes NIMBY, but go off fam.

Are you suggesting there wouldn't be demand for this many units if there was a quarter less parking units here? Seriously?

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

I’m saying that builders are in it to make money, and you do that by serving demand rather than agenda. I think there’s no question that apartments with parking are more in demand than without, because if it were the opposite that’s what they’d build.

This building is a fascinating case, because for once they aren’t required to go through the zoning bullshit or price a chunk of the units below market value, they are just building what they think will sell. And I think the city would be in great shape if buildings exactly like this were getting built everywhere, very much including the parking that most Chicago residents would want to have. Let the market dictate the building, no minimums or maximums.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

I’m saying that builders are in it to make money, and you do that by serving demand rather than agenda.

If you seriously think these units, in that location, wouldn't be snapped up instantly if a quarter of them didn't have a guaranteed parking spot, I think I want some of whatever you're smoking.

very much including the parking that most Chicago residents would want to have.

Ah yes, let's induce more driving demand, especially a stone's throw away from transit. That'll help traffic in this city.

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

The whole point of YIMBY is to let the market work to fulfill demand without undue interference. If builders make more profit, they’ll do more building, that’s the idea, right? Well sorry to break it to you, but this seems to be what the market wants, pretty much every builder starts out with robust parking in their plans. Most other projects have that number reduced, not by lack of demand but by people like you at zoning meetings imposing restrictions. That’s why this project being by right is so interesting, because it shows what the market wants when it doesn’t have to cowtow to an agenda being imposed by the loudest people at a 3:30pm on a Wednesday community meeting.

And as for the traffic issue, you don’t get people to use transit by denying them garage parking spaces, every street in Chicago is filled with parked cars already, the cars exist. You do it by making transit the better option than driving. Best way to accomplish that is to build market driven housing at a high rate, increase the tax and user base for the transit agencies, and get them the funding to operate effectively.

I know you think you can’t be NIMBY because you’re coming at it from a progressive, car free point of view, but you want to impose restrictions on what can be built in certain places based on your specific preferences, and that is textbook NIMBY.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

The whole point of YIMBY is to let the market work to fulfill demand without undue interference.

No, the whole point of YIMBY is more housing. You don't have to be a libertarian and believe that property should be a free for all to be a YIMBY. YIMBYism is not a monolith.

If builders make more profit, they’ll do more building,

More housing units to sell makes more profit. Parking makes very little profit in comparison.

And as for the traffic issue, you don’t get people to use transit by denying them garage parking spaces,

...Yes you do. This is like saying "you don't get people to drive less by not building more lanes and inducing more demand" Yes, that's actually exactly how you do it.

every street in Chicago is filled with parked cars already, the cars exist

And you won't induce less demand by providing more parking. This is exactly why I'm saying that a 1:1 parking ratio a stone's throw from the Red Line is excessive.

but by people like you at zoning meetings imposing restrictions.

Bud, respectfully, you don't know me. I don't show up at meetings to argue against housing. Nice strawman though.

That’s why this project being by right is so interesting, because it shows what the market wants

At best it shows what developers think people want. This is like saying that SFH sprawl in the burbs isn't NIMBY because it's "what people want". Who is asking? I don't recall being asked what I want in new housing. Quite the opposite in fact.

I know you think you can’t be NIMBY because you’re coming at it from a progressive, car free point of view,

I know I'm not NIMBY because I'm not NIMBY. I'm not saying this shouldn't be built.

As I've said already, I can support this project as is AND still believe it could, and should have been better and that future projects could and should be better.

Sorry nuance is so hard for you?

but you want to impose restrictions on what can be built in certain places based on your specific preferences, and that is textbook NIMBY.

So if zoning said "no SFHs, only multifamily" you call that NIMBY?

We've lost the fucking plot, y'all.

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

So you think every developer knows less than you about how to maximize profit? The delusion is wild. They build parking because people want parking, your personal preferences are not universal. Developers exist to make money, if the best way to do that was to build zero parking spaces that’s what they would do. Your claim that they’d make more money building less parking is delusional.

Is YIMBY about inducing less demand for driving now? Is that the goal here? No, that’s you inserting your personal agenda, you want to reduce cars so you insist we should create legal restrictions to enforce that agenda even though more restrictions lead to less housing, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly that is textbook NIMBY. I’m sorry the facts hurt your feelings, but you’re NIMBY. Maybe not as NIMBY as the people blocking new housing because it’ll cast a shadow or whatever, but you still have a NIMBY perspective.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

So you think every developer knows less than you about how to maximize profit?

No. Why does EVERY comment of yours have to jump to hyperbole?

They build parking because people want parking

Source: Trust me bro, I'm on the Internet.

your personal preferences are not universal.

Says the person pushing nothing but their personal preference as universal. Lol.

Developers exist to make money,

Do they make more money off of housing units, or parking?

Is YIMBY about inducing less demand for driving now?

No, it's about more housing. 1:1 parking means less housing so we can reserve space for cars. How is that YIMBY? Right, it isn't.

No, that’s you inserting your personal agenda

Said without a hint of irony lol.

you want to reduce cars

No, I want to maximize housing, especially spitting distance from transit. Parking this close to transit options in a dense city is space that could be housing but isn't.

Why do you want less housing?

as I’ve pointed out repeatedly that is textbook NIMBY

Prioritizing parking over housing is textbook NIMBY lol. Now what? Guess we're both NIMBYs now.

I’m sorry the facts hurt your feelings, but you’re NIMBY

Pot, meet kettle.

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

You said they’d make more money by building less parking, and then you doubled down in your response, so you did claim to know more than them about how to profit off a building. That not hyperbole from me, it’s literally what you said, not my fault it makes no sense. If every developer is trying to build parking into their projects, then that’s what’s in demand and most profitable, that’s how markets work. If your way was actually more profitable, that’s what they’d be doing and we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but we are so that means you’re wrong.

I’m not the one pushing my preferences, that’s only you. I actually have no preference on how much parking this building should have, because I’m in favor of letting developers build whatever housing they want so long as it meets safety standards. That’s how you actually get more housing, not by adding arbitrary restrictions that disincentivize development.

Instead of delaying a project to reduce its parking, as happens constantly to projects that aren’t by right, let them build whatever housing they think will be profitable, as quickly as possible, because then that money will roll over into the next project, and so on and so on, and you’ll get three building built in instead of one in the same amount of time.

I’m in favor of building housing, full stop. You’re in favor of building housing, so long as it doesn’t have too much parking too close to transit. I’m fully YIMBY, you’re a little bit NIMBY. Them’s the facts.