Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

newrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#11

Post by andrew_v4 »

bombcar wrote: post #8
perardi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

So let's be realistic and admit these buildings do NOT have to be built in residential areas with Karens abounding. The perfect is the enemy of the good here; let them be wedged into industrial areas or other "not as desirable" parts of town. Trying to pretend that the "bad part of town" can be removed if we just figure out the magic steps is part of the problem.

Not sure I completely agree, but I definitely do think this kind of project can be derailed by proponents who want to be uncompromising about it and don't think it's acceptable to compromise in something like location because its harder to get built where people don't want it.

An example people probably won't like is those mixed income buildings (can't remember where now) that had separate entrances for the subsidized units. It's definitely not egalitarian in some sense, but if it allows more subsidized housing to be built for people that need it, is it really better just to not do it?

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#12

Post by perardi »

bombcar wrote: post #8
perardi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

So let's be realistic and admit these buildings do NOT have to be built in residential areas with Karens abounding. The perfect is the enemy of the good here; let them be wedged into industrial areas or other "not as desirable" parts of town. Trying to pretend that the "bad part of town" can be removed if we just figure out the magic steps is part of the problem.

So how are we dealing with transit?

We are going to build giant housing projects (with what capital or grants) and then create mass transit to them?

How’s that ended up working so far?

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#13

Post by gwright »

perardi wrote: post #7
hellbannedguy wrote: post #6

I would like to see America build more of these. Even lightening building codes, and zoning requirements (allow for very small rooms). If the Infrasctructure bill promised more of this type of housing I would be thrilled. I'd be happy with a few public restrooms strategically placed around cities, but I guess I'm the only one that needs easy access to a bathroom! 1. It's obvious homlessness is just getting worse. I j…

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

I know I'm working from incomplete data and confirmation bias, but it seems to me that those who fight against permanent facilities also seem to be against taking action against ad-hoc encampments. This just one of an almost endless set of contradictions I see in discussions of public policy these days.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#14

Post by pkkim »

OldHand2018 wrote: post #10

This block of Chicago is really interesting. It’s like going back in time to when American cities were far seedier places than they are now. It survives in part because the neighbor across the street is the Metropolitan Correctional Center [1] (an architectural masterpiece that was ruined by painting it about 10 years ago). The other reason it survives is that many buildings are owned in full by people that just aren…

Also the site of Chicago's first Chinatown. https://chicagodetours.com/forgotten-chinatown-chicago/

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#15

Post by chitowneats »

OldHand2018 wrote: post #10

This block of Chicago is really interesting. It’s like going back in time to when American cities were far seedier places than they are now. It survives in part because the neighbor across the street is the Metropolitan Correctional Center [1] (an architectural masterpiece that was ruined by painting it about 10 years ago). The other reason it survives is that many buildings are owned in full by people that just aren…

I worked at this intersection for half a decade. Your analysis is spot on. As for the chicken, you must be referring to Chicken Planet: http://www.chickenplanetchicago.com/

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#16

Post by renewiltord »

bombcar wrote: post #8
perardi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

So let's be realistic and admit these buildings do NOT have to be built in residential areas with Karens abounding. The perfect is the enemy of the good here; let them be wedged into industrial areas or other "not as desirable" parts of town. Trying to pretend that the "bad part of town" can be removed if we just figure out the magic steps is part of the problem.

Based on SF, it appears that any such attempt will fail on the grounds that you are attempting to put these people "out of sight, out of mind".

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#17

Post by perardi »

andrew_v4 wrote: post #11
bombcar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So let's be realistic and admit these buildings do NOT have to be built in residential areas with Karens abounding. The perfect is the enemy of the good here; let them be wedged into industrial areas or other "not as desirable" parts of town. Trying to pretend that the "bad part of town" can be removed if we just figure out the magic steps is part of the problem.

Not sure I completely agree, but I definitely do think this kind of project can be derailed by proponents who want to be uncompromising about it and don't think it's acceptable to compromise in something like location because its harder to get built where people don't want it. An example people probably won't like is those mixed income buildings (can't remember where now) that had separate entrances for the subsidize…

Mm, yes, this is closer.

You see this with other goods too, notably cars. Creating a car that meets all contemporary safety standards is hugely expensive.

Is that safety a net good? Yes. Does it have societal costs? You betcha.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#18

Post by bilbo0s »

gwright wrote: post #13
perardi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

I know I'm working from incomplete data and confirmation bias, but it seems to me that those who fight against permanent facilities also seem to be against taking action against ad-hoc encampments. This just one of an almost endless set of contradictions I see in discussions of public policy these days.

I'm fair certain Karen is leading the charge to shut down ad-hoc encampments as well. Let's be honest, we have a lot of Karens in the US, and they're well known for not liking things like tent cities.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#19

Post by brendoelfrendo »

gwright wrote: post #13
perardi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, I hate to pull this out, by: NIMBY-ism. To a first approximation nobody wants an SRO on their back yard. Me? I am just fine with it, I have lived near SROs for years . But…oh whatever, I’ll be blunt: Karen doesn’t want a giant building full of itinerant men on her block, and she is going to fight tooth and nail to prevent such a thing.

I know I'm working from incomplete data and confirmation bias, but it seems to me that those who fight against permanent facilities also seem to be against taking action against ad-hoc encampments. This just one of an almost endless set of contradictions I see in discussions of public policy these days.

The conclusion we can draw from this is that "people" (in quotes because, as you say, this is an incomplete data set) don't want to solve the problem of homelessness, they simply want to remove the visible signs of it in their local area. Make them go somewhere else, as it were.

To be fair, this is not necessarily one person holding a contradictory position, but the only realistic outcome of a process where people can't agree on a solution; several groups agree the encampments are a problem, but if they can't agree on a solution than the only action taken is removing the encampments.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#20

Post by [deleted] »

bilbo0s wrote: post #18
gwright wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know I'm working from incomplete data and confirmation bias, but it seems to me that those who fight against permanent facilities also seem to be against taking action against ad-hoc encampments. This just one of an almost endless set of contradictions I see in discussions of public policy these days.

I'm fair certain Karen is leading the charge to shut down ad-hoc encampments as well. Let's be honest, we have a lot of Karens in the US, and they're well known for not liking things like tent cities.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN