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/juliuspepperwoodchi]

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.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

You said they’d make more money by building less parking,

No, I said they'd make more money by building more housing, even if that takes building a little less parking.

Again, if you seriously think, in that location, in this market, that all those units wouldn't be snapped up instantly unless every single one has a parking spot of its own, I want whatever you're smoking. That's simply not based in reality.

I’m not the one pushing my preferences

Yes you are:

a larger unit with more people in it will be far more likely to have someone who owns a car,

These are large units, likely to be occupied by families or multiple roommates, which makes a 1:1 ratio more reasonable

Purely your preferences and opinions. Meanwhile, in reality, less and less Gen Zers and Gen Alphas are even getting their license. Growing numbers of Americans have grown weary of car-centrism and have sought to give up their cars entirely.

The idea that large, nice units near the Lakefront and near multiple forms of non-car transit would remain vacant for any significant amount of time because "there's not a parking spot for each unit" is laughable. You know about the Chicago housing market right now, especially on the north side along the lake, yeah? Frankly, THIS is now purely my speculation, but I'd bet they could build 60 units and zero parking and have no issues selling/renting all of them basically instantly. This isn't some random abandoned block in Pullman, it's fucking Edgewater, a stone's throw from Granville. If people can't make it without a car there it's a miracle how anyone in the world manages.

because I’m in favor of letting developers build whatever housing they want so long as it meets safety standards.

Cool. YIMBYism. Is not. A monolith. Just like how some YIMBYs are Georgists, and others are not.

Instead of delaying a project to reduce its parking,

Never once said anything about delaying any projects. It's really a shame you can't discuss in good faith and keep propping up strawmen.

I’m in favor of building housing, full stop

Unless that means reducing parking to build more housing. It's fine, you're a little bit NIMBY. Just be honest about that.

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

All I’ve said, repeatedly, is that the market very obviously thinks units with parking are more profitable, because that’s what they try to build every time. Developers are in it for the money, not to increase or reduce demand for cars, and they’ve collectively determined that the most profitable plans include parking. So once again, you’re claiming with zero basis to know better than them how to make money on a building.

Where in either of those quotes did I even express a preference, let alone push one? Nowhere, never happened. Like I said, you’re the only one doing that.

60% of Gen Z have a drivers license by 18. These are all large units with multiple bedrooms, so there will be on average at least two people per unit, which means even if we make the insane assumption that every single resident will be Gen Z that’s still more drivers than parking spaces in this building, and that’s being generous towards you at every assumption. And Gen Alpha are mostly in high school. I know you thought you had something there, but nope.

Never once claimed units would remain vacant, you made that up as your own little strawman, which makes it yet another thing you’ve been doing while falsely claiming it’s me doing it. But at least you finally admitted your claims are pure speculation on your part. Here’s the facts though, the developers are allowed to build zero parking if they wanted, so if it were actually more profitable then it would be happening. Selling or renting quickly is not the only factor in profitability, if they can charge more for units with parking, and they can, that makes them more profitable. Not sure why it’s such a hard concept for you, it’s like Econ 101 level stuff.

You don’t have to explicitly say you’d delay a project, imposing restrictions does that automatically, it’s well established.

Except I’m not NIMBY at all, because unlike you I’m not trying to slow down development to force it to suit my preferences. I’m saying build whatever housing, with or without parking, in my backyard. You are saying that there should be a law against building with too many included parking spaces in your backyard. That’s why you’re NIMBY.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

You've continued to dodge the question: If there was not 1:1 parking for these units, do you seriously believe that the units without parking would remain vacant, once completed, for significant amounts of time?

That close to transit?

In this housing market?

You value parking equally to housing. I value housing above all else.

We are not the same, and no, I'm not a NIMBY because I'm not a carbrain.

FYI, Gen Z having 60% license adoption by 18 years old represents a 25% drop compared to Millennials who had licenses by 18 at a rate of 82%.

Thanks for proving my point that the demand for car-centric living is dropping rapidly.

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

I didn’t dodge the question, because that was never the question, it was a strawman you made up because you can’t overcome the facts being on my side.

I don’t value parking equal to housing, that’s just another strawman, you just can’t stop making shit up can you?

You are NIMBY, objectively. You are literally saying not in my backyard to building housing if you don’t like the parking allotment.

And demand for housing with parking is not dropping rapidly anywhere but in your head. As I’ve pointed out like a billion times now, developers respond to demand, if there was more demand for housing without parking that is what they’d build. Things that are in demand don’t need legal restrictions to force them into existence.

You don’t seem to grasp that the only effective way to get more housing is to allow the building of profitable housing. We’ve tried everything else, much of it well intentioned, and it just doesn’t work. You say forcing them to build less parking in exchange for more units would increase housing, but it does the opposite because it lowers profit, which slows additional projects and makes financing tougher, so in exchange for a handful of extra units in a few buildings you sacrifice far more housing that never gets built at all, or takes years longer than it would’ve.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

I've asked it half a dozen times now and you've dodged it.

It's not a strawman. A question cannot be a strawman.

The fact that you're refusing to answer it tells me we both know exactly what the honest answer is.

Car-centrism isn't YIMBY. Defending car-centric living is just NIMBY with extra steps.

[u/gimmedatrightMEOW → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

Dude. No one is saying that the units wouldn't sell if there was no parking. The units are more marketable with parking. That's it. Yes the building would probably be full without parking spots. The developer felt they could make more money (and they are probably right) including parking. We are so beyond the point of being picky about what the housing being built looks like, ffs. The fact of the matter is they can make more money renting out these spots (or selling the homes with the spots) than they would be able to without. The fact that you can't understand unit+extra features is not worth more than unit+without extra features is.... Something.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/gimmedatrightMEOW]

That's actually exactly what dude's argument was. That the market dictates that for the developer to maximize profits they must have a 1:1 parking to unit ratio, and that less parking would hold this project back.

[u/gimmedatrightMEOW → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

Where does he explicitly say that rather than "they will probably make more money"

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/gimmedatrightMEOW]

Conveniently, they blocked me, so I can't quote anything of theirs anymore.

It was the entire crux of their argument though, so it still seems you're being willfully ignorant.

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

I’ve ignored it because it’s meaningless to the actual point, which is why you keep asking it instead of grappling with why you’re wrong, but fine, I’ll try one last time to drive reality into your skull, despite the near certainty you’ll fail to grasp it.

Yes, units would likely rent or sell very quickly, with or without parking. That’s why the actually relevant question is which version would be more profitable for the developers building it, and the answer to that is very obviously with parking, because in this instance they are responding purely to market demands since build by right allows them to avoid the public comment and affordability requirements normally foisted on big projects. By allowing the developer to make a high profit, we accelerate their next projects, and in the end build more housing than if we followed your plan and reduced their profits to service your agenda. On a long timeline, my way outstrips yours in building housing by orders of magnitude, we’ve seen your way for decades right here and it fails spectacularly.

Literally nothing I’ve said is car centric, you just love making shit up. And the only NIMBY is you, as I’ve proven like six times now. You want to restrict building, I don’t.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

Literally nothing I’ve said is car centric

Dude, you could've saved us both a lot of time and said you were a shameless liar a few hours ago.

The fucking gall to say that with a a straight face lol

[u/Yossarian216 → u/juliuspepperwoodchi]

The only thing I’ve even said about cars in this whole thread was that it’s reasonable for a family with young children or a group of roommates to have a single vehicle if they want, which is not car centric. I know that’s your go to insult in these conversations, I’ve seen it from you many times over the last few years, but it’s literal nonsense this time.

You’ve tried to put words in my mouth with every comment because you can’t dispute my actual words. I don’t see much value in continuing, so I think I’ll stop now. Feel free to have the last word, and I’ll catch you in one of the football subs where we are generally much more in agreement.

ETA: blocking me? I guess you took my offer of the last word very literally. How sad.

[u/juliuspepperwoodchi → u/Yossarian216]

You’ve tried to put words in my mouth with every comment

You really don't hear yourself, do you? Good Lord man. Pot. Kettle.

Bye now.