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

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#21

Post by bilbo0s »

baron816 wrote: post #9
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.

It’s not just NIMBY-ism, and NIMBY-ism isn’t what drove these away. What it is is pretty much the minimum mage—housing has to meet a minimum threshold in quality or else it can’t exist. Never mind that people might still be willing to live there and are able to make their own decisions. And some people might not have other options. To many, this seems like exploitation. They’d rather have people living on the street…

Bingo.

And it's not even the exploitation. Believe it or not, it's the fact that there is no one to hold liable if things go wrong. At root, it's about on which head does liability rest. You don't meet code, firefighters rush in, and the staircase collapses. Who do the cops and the firefighters go after? If it's the owner of the SRO, then no real estate investor will build one. (At least, not one that isn't up to code.) You can try to loosen the code, but the firefighters are only going to allow you to cut so much before their unions have your picture up on billboards around town as the big, bad, slumlord pushing for substandard housing.

Owning a lot of real estate is not a picnic, and you learn a lot of things you never knew before about how local politics work.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#22

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

It’s not like Karen doesn’t have a point. I live in Ballard and our property crime rate has skyrocketed ever since the homeless camps took over a few parks. One camp over in the U district is even famous for hosting a bicycle chop shop where components are stripped from stolen bikes, which the SPD won’t do anything about. Not wanting drug needles and smashed car windows in your backyard really isn’t unreasonable.

There are no easy solutions to these problems, at anyrate. We will all have to make a few trade offs, but they have to be more reasonable than dumping all of the problem in a few places.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#23

Post by barry-cotter »

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.

If you want to use gendered raced insults go for it but if you would prefer to be more accurate and inclusive you could use NIMBY, middle class homeowner or environmentalist.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#24

Post by bilbo0s »

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…

It was NYC. (Manhattan.) And they didn't have separate entrances for subsidized units, they had separate entrances for wealthy penthouse owners who really did have greater security concerns than the run of the mill residents living on lower floors. People who can afford a 20 to 50 million dollar penthouse do think long and hard about security.

But the masses simply ignored the service provision aspect and screamed "Why do you guys have a poor people door!?!?!"

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#25

Post by oh_sigh »

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…

It is more expensive to build a separate entrance for certain classes, not less expensive.

And those kind of affordable housing schemes are a joke from a social perspective. Yes, it's great if you win the lottery. But it doesn't do much for the 99.998% of people who don't win the lottery.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#27

Post by throwaway894345 »

perardi wrote: post #4

I suppose this is the last men’s hotel, as in, literally for men-only, in Chicago. But there are still single-room occupancy buildings, or SROs, around. They are largely clustered in Uptown. I would link to them, but, perhaps unsurprisingly: not much of a web presence. And let me tell you, as one of those gentrifying tech folks living in the new or refurbished developments in Uptown and Edgewater: there are some nice…

Where are some of these SROs at? Are they along Sheridan north of Montrose? That seems to be where things are the most dodgy (which isn't to say they aren't nice people, only that you notice the stark contrast when you cross Montrose on Sheridan or Hazel).

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#28

Post by nitrogen »

oh_sigh wrote: post #25
andrew_v4 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is more expensive to build a separate entrance for certain classes, not less expensive. And those kind of affordable housing schemes are a joke from a social perspective. Yes, it's great if you win the lottery. But it doesn't do much for the 99.998% of people who don't win the lottery.

It's probably still a net win to build separate entrances if they would lose significantly more money on decreased value of the non-subsidized units than the separate entrances would cost.

Re: The Last Men’s Hotel in Chicago

#29

Post by stopwithslurs »

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.

Can you people stop using my mother's name as a slur that means obnoxious white woman? I'm used to this bigotry on Reddit but why is it ok here? I'm so sick of it.
Post reply on HN