Transit in St. Petersburg

February 4, 2025 / / 0 Comments

Steven’s note: I originally drafted this post in December 2016, for Transitland (my contract employer at the time). Here’s the original (archived) post on Transitland’s website.

St. Petersburg Tramway Russia 2013

Photo of a Russian-built tram in Saint Petersburg by Hans-Rudolf Stoll.

We [TransitLand] recently added the feed for surface transit in Saint Petersburg, Russia. ORGP is the transport organizer’s name in the Latin alphabet. ORGP website is a central source of information for the various municipally- and privately-operated ferry, bus, and tram routes.

St. Petersburg (SPb) also has trolley bus routes, which drive using electricity they collect from an overhead wire. These buses can only deviate from their route where an intersection between wires is available.

There are 1,066 routes in the SPb feed.

  • 5 ferry routes
  • 48 tram routes
  • 51 trolley bus routes
  • Remaining are bus routes using conventional buses.

I couldn’t find ridership information for these routes, but the statistics on the Wikipedia article say that a much higher proportion of SPb residents ride the subway each weekday than people in Chicago ride the ‘L’  in my hometown. The ‘L’ runs mostly on elevated track, but has some subway and at-grade sections.

Speaking of the subway in SPb, we don’t have their GTFS feed yet and we could use your help. If you know the URL to the SPb’s subway feed, submit it on this form.

The Transitland connection

One of the features in Mapzen’s new Mobility Explorer, launched in late November, is to drill down into the transit routes, stops, and operators in a city – all of that data is based on what’s available in Transitland. It visualizes this data quickly and easily; think of it as an expansion of what Transitland’s Playground does.

Once you’re in Mobility Explorer, search for “Saint Petersburg, Russia” and click on the result. On the left sidebar, click on “show routes” and you’ll see that all of the routes in SPb will appear in the same color.

Click “style by: mode” to distinguish the subway, ferry, bus, and trolley bus routes in different colors.

A great feature of Mobility Explorer is that it tells you the Transitland API call to get the data in the current map view. You’ll find this link under the main “Show [xyz]” buttons in the left sidebar.

Trams in St.Petersburg - Tram nr 5409 lijn40 - 10/06/2016.

DSCN7260 Trolleybus depot 3, department 1, Saint-Petersburg 3510

It’s very common see regular length buses with three doors in Europe, while buses in North America often have two doors. Articulated buses often have 3-4 doors, 1-2 more than their counterparts in the United States.

Two apartment buildings under construction in the "North Union" development in the 27th Ward.
Two apartment buildings under construction in the "North Union" development in the 27th Ward.

Fair share: how many new homes were permitted in your Chicago ward?

February 1, 2025 / / 0 Comments

Now that I’ve audited the Chicago building permits for the last four years I can more accurately visualize where new homes were permitted across Chicago’s fifty wards. I was not surprised to see that the 27th Ward carries the team known as City Council, but I was surprised by how big the gap was between the first and second place wards, and the gap between the fewest number of wards where 50 percent of new homes were permitted and the number of wards where the other half were permitted.

In the period 2022-2024…

  • 24.0 percent of new homes were permitted in the 27th Ward
  • 10.6 percent in the 34th Ward
  • 8.1 percent in the 3rd Ward
  • 6.9 percent in the 4th Ward

Those four wards comprise 49.5 percent of new homes permitted, while 46 wards permitted the remaining 50.5 percent. Some of this imbalance is due to how different alderpersons accept new development proposals, and the current zoning capacity of properties in each ward.

Incredibly, when rounding to the tenths place, 24 wards permitted so few new homes in that time period that they round down to 0 percent.

To further illustrate how some wards are where so few new homes are permitted, which may be due to factors beyond the alderperson’s control (local rents not meeting development and construction costs, and racism, to name a couple), consider that six wards permitted fewer than 10 homes each during that three-year period.

While Chicago does not have quotas or goals on how many new homes should be permitted or built either citywide or by ward, the city will maintain a housing shortage if most wards are not facilitating or allowing new housing to be built. The allowance of new housing is heavily influenced by each alderperson’s choices.

The city’s ability to grow and spread the property tax revenue burden fairly depends on new development occurring across the city. This is especially the case in areas where new housing can moderate rising demand housing costs, and transportation infrastructure and amenities are in good supply.

map of Chicago showing the 50 wards. Each ward is labeled with its ward number and the percentage of new homes permitted in that ward for the period 2022-2024.
Map 1. Chicago’s 50 wards and their share of new homes permitted in 2022-2024. Tap or click the map to enlarge it. Open the spreadsheet containing data that powers this map.

Other statistics

Table 1. New construction homes permitted, by year

202220232024Total
7,5744,4984,36016,432

Methodology

Using Chicago Department of Building permits that are imported to Chicago Cityscape’s Building Permits Browser, I review each new construction permit’s description to count the number of units authorized by that permit. Foundation phases of multi-phase permits and most revision permits are excluded. I do my best to catch projects that change scope between two permits, such as a permit originally issued for a two-flat but changed to a single-family house, or a larger multifamily building losing or gaining units in a subsequent permit.

New construction coach house units are also excluded because they are allowed only in five pilot areas in a subset of wards; view ADU statistics on Chicago Cityscape.

The statistics are also shown in Chicago Cityscape’s building permits analysis table, which is updated daily; look for columns with a heading that says the year and the word “audited”. Data for permits in other years are not yet reviewed and corrected.

This is an imperfect comparison of wards because there was a redrawing of ward boundaries and an election in 2023. This means that some alderpersons are new, and that all alderpersons oversaw new development approvals and the capacity of their zoning map in different areas before and after the remap.

On the flip side, the new ward map also means that the number of inhabitants in each ward was roughly equal at the time of the remap. This supports some level of data normalization (i.e. new homes permitted per capita), which can be done in future analysis.

rendering of the proposed project showing two buildings connected at the ground and podium level
Rendering of the apartments proposed at 1840 N Marcey St. The building is being designed by SCB.

How the Connected Communities ordinance prevents new development approval from languishing by forcing a vote

January 26, 2025 / / 0 Comments

I want to clear up confusion about how the inclusionary application process, included in the Connected Communities ordinance that took effect in June 20221, works to prevent new proposed projects from languishing in City Council.

It does not bypass alderperson prerogative, the custom of every alderperson supporting and going along with every other alderperson’s support or disapproval of a proposed project.

The inclusionary application process forces a vote for a proposed project that meets certain requirements. Sterling Bay is in the middle of this process, the first time the process has been activated, for their proposed project at 1840 N Marcey St, which would have 615 homes in place of a one-story office building.

How the process should work

An “inclusionary application” is a project that’s proposed to be approved as either a Planned Development or Type 12 and meets these requirements:

must meet these requirements:

  • it has a residential or mixed-residential use
  • the location is in an “inclusionary housing” area3
  • the location is in a transit-served location4
  • either that the full portion of ARO units is provided on-site (20 percent of all units) or that 20 percent or more of the units are affordable via some other agreement or code5
  • it has been approved by Plan Commission
  • a public meeting is held, in the ward of the proposed project, to explain the proposal and solicit comments

The Zoning Administrator and the Chicago Department of Housing Commission must concur that the proposed project meets those requirements6. Another requirement is that City Council’s zoning committee has not voted on it within 300 days of Plan Commission approval.

Chicago Plan Commission approved the 1840 N Marcey St proposed project on June 20, 2024. To stay in the approval process, zoning committee needs to not vote on the project before April 16, 2025 (300 days later).

However, and this is important, the zoning committee can take up the matter before that time and vote to approve or deny it. An approval would mean the project goes to City Council for approval or denial and concludes the inclusionary application process.

After that 300 day period elapses and the zoning committee has not voted on the proposed project, the applicant can submit written notification to the zoning committee chair to request that the committee act on the applicant’s inclusionary application. A clock starts. There are three outcomes at the end of 60 days:

  1. zoning committee has voted and did not approve the proposed project
  2. zoning committee has voted and approved the proposed project (a “do pass” recommendation)
  3. zoning committee does not vote on the project and reports a “do pass” (approve) recommendation to City Council – this is the key part, the “shot clock”, of how the Connected Communities can ensure that a compliant residential project’s zoning change application doesn’t languish in City Council.

If it’s approved via #2 or #3, it proceeds to City Council which still vote on the project. And they can approve or disapprove it; there is no bypassing zoning committee or bypassing City Council.

Typically at City Council meetings, the Council votes on a motion that approves, in a single vote, all of the zoning change applications that the zoning committee approved (a.k.a. those proposed projects that have a “do pass” recommendation). If that happens, then the project has been approved by City Council.

But an alderperson could make a motion to vote on zoning change applications separately, and pull this proposed project out of the group. This is when alderperson prerogative might come out to play, and 26 or more alderpersons may go along with the alderperson of the ward where the project is located and who doesn’t support the proposed project, and the proposed project/zoning change application is killed.

It’s also when 26 or more alderpersons can make choices on behalf of the city and not on behalf of a discriminatory practice and vote to approve the project.

Notes

  1. The inclusionary application process may have been added in part to avoid future lawsuits against the city when City Council allows a zoning change application to be deferred indefinitely (the languishing part of this article’s headline). Glenstar sued the City of Chicago after City Council let the proposed apartments at 8535 W Higgins Ave languish. ↩︎
  2. A “type 1 zoning map amendment” changes the zoning district and obligates the property owner to build what meets the zoning district’s standards and what is described in their zoning change application. Contrast this with a “type 2 zoning map amendment” which allows anything to be built that meets the standards of the zoning district. ↩︎
  3. An inclusionary area means a high-income area with a low amount of affordable housing and is considered, informally, not to be in a gentrifying process. See the ARO map on Chicago Cityscape. ↩︎
  4. The proposed project is within 2,640 feet of a CTA or Metra rail station entrance or exit or within 1,320 feet of a CTA bus line corridor roadway segment listed in Table 17-17-0400-B. ↩︎
  5. The code says, “20% or more of the on-site dwelling units are subject to recorded covenant, lien, regulatory agreement, deed restriction, or similar instrument approved by the Department of Housing”. ↩︎
  6. See the full code starting at 17-13-0608 and going through 17-13-0608-B. ↩︎

Two-flat journal 9: other two-flat rehab blogs

January 20, 2025 / / 0 Comments

It’s been nearly two years since I’ve written a blog post about the gut rehab of the two-flat I bought in 2020 so I figured an update was necessary. The status is that I’m working on finalizing a contract with a general contractor and I have a loan application in progress. Read the other two-flat journal posts.

Two-flats – and their cousins the three- and four-flats – are the second most common building type in Chicago. There are approximately 254,800 homes in 2-to-4 flats in Chicago, according to data collected by the Cook County Assessor’s Office. And according to the U.S. Census they make up 27.2 percent of residential structures in Chicago. That’s compared to 25.5 percent detached homes, 3.8 percent attached homes, and 43.5 percent of houses, apartment, and condo buildings with five or more units (2-to-4 flats can also be condo buildings).

Thus it makes sense that there would be a handful of blogs to discuss their renovation.

(Although in the same vein it would probably make sense that there are blogs to discuss renovating condos, and I haven’t come across those.)

That’s my house on the left, captured in December 2024.

I’m glad each one of these is pretty well-organized because it takes a lot of time to peruse a project-oriented blog for specific information if you haven’t read it from the beginning.

Here are the blogs

Most recently updated is listed first.

Two Flat: Remade
This is the story of a deconversion (to a single detached house) but the renovation process is pretty much the same as restoring two units; gas service remains in the house. By Matt and Sarah, who bought the house circa 2011 and are still renovating it (check out “The Plan” page to learn about their phasing).

Reshaping our Footprint (One Watt at a Time)
Follow our journey of a deep energy retrofit (or energy efficient rehab) on a 100+ year old masonry two flat in Chicago. The goal is to turn the building into a zero-energy home with a sustainable and resource-efficient landscape. Most posts are by Marcus de la Fleur.

Yellow Brick Home
Kim and Scott bought the dilapidated two-flat in 2019 and completed the renovation in 2021 or 2022. Each unit and the outside are detailed in three groups of articles. Yellow Brick Home is the most design-forward of the blogs.

Little Chicago Two Flat
Corey and Emily bought their two-flat in 2021 and did a DIY renovation over the next eight months.

Chicago Two-Flat
Jocelyn and Steve started this blog in 2005! The most posts are in 2005 and 2006 so use the blog archive menu on the right side to go back to that time. Perhaps start by reading this post from March 2005 about removing the drop ceiling.

If you know of another blog about renovating a 2-to-4 flat in Chicago, leave a comment with the link!

Bonus links

Back To The Studs
This a video series by Brad and Sean who have been renovating a Brooklyn brownstone into three units since 2021. I’ve been watching their progress on TikTok, but given the “soft ban” it’s better to look at their YouTube page.

Home electrification case study in North Lawndale
“Through Elevate’s electrification program, contractors installed electric, energy efficient appliances at Ms. McGee’s house in Lawndale. The upgrades included an electric stove, washer and dryer, as well as a heat pump that powers a central heating and cooling system.”

screen grab from Kirsten's video that is an aerial view of the enclosed yard

Exploring Radish: a model for cottage courts from Oakland

December 23, 2024 / / 0 Comments

One of the many benefits of allowing pocket neighborhoods and cottage courts is being able to share high land costs. That, and sharing child care duties, are primary reasons that Phil Levin and Kristen Berman created “Radish”, a pocket neighborhood in Oakland.

Phil founded Live Near Friends, a website advising people on which steps to take to eventually live near friends and family and live happier by focusing on the hard part of finding appropriate real estate, setting up community standards, and arranging rent and legal concerns. He also is a co-founder of Culdesac, in Tempe, Arizona, an apartment complex with a traditional design of close-together buildings and shops near transit.

Phil takes Kirsten Dirksen, who produces videos about uncommon homes, on a tour of Radish, where the viewer can meet the residents, and learn about the architecture of the buildings and outdoor space plus a little about the process to combine two lots into what he calls a “friend compound”.

I previously wrote about cottage courts and how the Chicago zoning code does not allow them, primarily by disallowing more than one house per property. For Chicago, cottage courts can additionally offer the benefit of achieving the same density as a series of two-flats – so as not to reduce the population or population capacity of a neighborhood – while responding to the demand for detached housing and yards – which are putting pressure on two-flats and leading to their deconversions or teardowns. Two-flats have been a typical way for Chicagoans to live in a multigenerational setting, something that cottage courts can also promote.

Radish comprises two properties that started with two existing apartment buildings and an existing backyard house. Levin et. al. added another backyard house (ADU), a small building for a coworking office and shared kitchen (called “Blueberry” on the site plan below), and an RV for housing guests. All of those additions encircle a large shared space with a grassy yard, communal and scattered seating, a fire pit, a hot tub, and a sauna, separated from the car parking area by a privacy fence.

The lot area of the two parcels is about 18,859 s.f. The site plan is from 2020 and the population count reflects that year. Site plan: Supernuclear

In total, there are eight dwelling units on the property in four houses on an 18,589 s.f. set of two parcels. That lot area is the equivalent of six standard size lots in Chicago, on which 12-18 dwelling units will typically be found. But, that large lot size is atypical for Oakland.

Another aspect of cottage courts is that they can facilitate sharing food, high-cost resources (like a hot tub), and child care. Phil, the other residents, and even former residents who live nearby and stop by during the filming, describe how the cooking and child care is shared in the video. Phil’s blog details how he and his wife, Kristen, “built Radish to be a great place to have kids”.

Stay tuned for another blog post on this topic. I worked with Jamin Nollsch to create a cottage court site plan specific for Chicagoans to pair with a memo and sample ordinance that I wrote to promote legalizing this form of housing and living here.