Category: Real Estate

Built in 1912, banned in 1957: the courtyard homes at the Damen station

Finding an affordable home near the Brown Line in Ravenswood is hard. Not having enough homes to rent or buy creates cutthroat competition and drives up prices — wait lists for apartments, offers over asking for anyone trying to buy. The retail and day care workers who serve this neighborhood face the same shortage as everyone else: too few homes that meet their needs and budgets, too close to where they need to be.

Half a block from the Damen station there’s a building that shows how local zoning codes can inhibit and prohibit multifamily housing from being built, and how the BUILD plan was designed to start allowing lower-cost housing types again.

The building

The courtyard building at 4615-33 N Damen Ave has 45 homes: studios through three-bedrooms, wrapped around a landscaped courtyard, a few hundred feet from rapid transit that connects to jobs across the city. It went up around 1912 (the Cook County Assessors’ Office’s records also say 1914) more than a decade before Chicago adopted its first zoning ordinance. There was no restriction on how many homes could fit on the lot, no required parking, no formula setting a minimum amount of land per apartment required before a permit could be obtained.

(This attached courtyard building is also known in land use and architecture as a point access block because there is a single block of housing with multiple points of access, where each point has a level of two to four apartments sharing a single stair core.)

You could not build this kind of housing on this block today. The law has not allowed it since 1957.

A Sanborn fire insurance map excerpt showing the area around N. Damen Avenue in Chicago's Ravenswood neighborhood, approximately the 4600 block. The Chicago Rapid Transit Lines Ravenswood Branch elevated rail runs east-west across the upper portion of the map, with a station visible near N. Damen. B
Sanborn map showing the Brown Line station and the courtyard building.

Evolution of Chicago’s housing suppression rules

Each time Chicago has revised its zoning rules, the housing capacity of this lot has shrunk:

  • 1912: 45 homes built. Chicago had no zoning ordinance — no parking requirement, no cap on homes per lot, no minimum-lot-area formula.
  • 1957: The city’s first major zoning rewrite added off-street parking requirements and a minimum-lot-area formula. Maximum allowed on this lot: roughly 33 homes. The parking requirement was just as prohibitive: nowhere on this lot to add it without tearing out apartments to pour concrete.
  • 2026: The current code is stricter still. Maximum allowed: 30 homes — three fewer than the 1957 ban permitted, and 15 fewer than actually exist.

You can see it in the property report on Chicago Cityscape: a building fully occupied for over a century, serving its neighborhood, standing half again as dense as current rules in the B3-2 zoning district would allow on its own footprint.

This is what a ban on affordable home choices looks like in practice. The courtyard building style didn’t fall out of fashion. People still choose to live in them. The bans on building new ones were written in 1957 and have only tightened since.

What the BUILD plan would do

The BUILD plan is relevant to this specific address. The plan’s provisions don’t simply gesture at more homes. They name the specific home types that municipalities would be required to allow, and courtyard apartments are on the list. The kind of homes here, in the kind of community that needs more home choices near transit, is the kind of flexibility for responding to housing needs that the bill specifically restores.

Pair that with the BUILD plan’s investment to actually finance construction, and you have a path to more homes — near the jobs, the schools, and the transit that the people our communities rely on need to reach.

Illinois already knows how to build this housing. It’s standing half a block from the Brown Line, a century old and against the rules. Pass the BUILD plan.

Two-flat journal 10: the project has a permit and basement digging has begun

I don’t feel like explaining the ups and downs of the last six months, which is when my building permit application was resubmitted. I’ll commemorate the occasion by sharing these photos of the new footings that have been excavated.

A new steel beam – actually three segments – will be installed in the basement, supported by two new posts on these two new footings. The orange lines in the footing holes represent the top of the future floor slab, indicating a 18″ dig-down.

The holes cannot be filled in until a city building inspector comes by. After they are filled in, and a post is installed, more excavation will occur on the perimeter to do underpinning. This will extend the depth of the house’s foundation to support it for another one hundred years, and probably prevent more sinking and shifting.

City Council finally passes a permanent ADU law

The ADU pilot program the City Council passed in December 2020 and took effect on May 1, 2021, will finally convert to a permanent law on April 1, 2026 – just shy of five years old. The new policy will increase the permanent eligibility area by a little more than double what the pilot areas allowed (a 135 percent expansion to be more precise). Further expansions are optional and up to each alderperson to decide when and where to “opt in” additional parts of their wards. Additionally, the construction of coach houses will have to comply with unusual labor requirements tacked on by an alderperson who called ADUs “an attack on the working class”.

I was shocked when the ADU ordinance (read it here) passed unanimously, 46-0. The ordinance number is SO2024-0008918, and when you open the legislation details page look for the filename called “SO2024-0008918 ADU 9.23.25 (LRB 10a) (2) (1).pdf”

How do I feel? I’m relieved this seven-year-period of ADU advocacy is over, and I’m disappointed in the outcome. More advocacy will be needed to ensure that most alders maximize the eligibility areas in their wards.

Highlights of the new ADU ordinance

  • the ADU eligibility area increases from 12 percent of the city to 29 percent of the city, with options to increase further
  • the arbitrary cap of 700 s.f. of floor area allowed in each coach house has been removed (there is still a site-specific cap)
  • existing off-street parking can be removed in order to build a coach house on the ground level
  • B (business) and C (also business) zoning districts are now part of the eligibility area
  • ground floor space in mixed-use buildings in B and C zoning districts can be converted to ADUs without having to get a “special use”

I wrote an ADU FAQ for Abundant Housing Illinois.

Media coverage of the passage

All of these articles include quotes from me:

Chicago Fire share the stadium plan they plan to share with the Plan Commission

Updated September 10 to add this link to the traffic and transportation study, and the town hall video hosted by 3rd Ward Alderperson Pat Dowell.

The Chicago Fire owner, Joe Mansueto, plans to build a soccer stadium on “The 78”, a vacant property in the South Loop. The 78 is a planned development that was approved about six years ago to have office towers and about 10,000 homes in multiple buildings. Since the stadium will significantly alter the approved plan, Related Midwest, the owner of The 78, needs to present the revision to Chicago Plan Commission and gain their approval before also gaining approval from the City Council’s zoning committee and City Council.

Rendering of the stadium, looking north-northeast. Other renderings from the set show the area between the stadium and the riverwalk eventually being redeveloped into buildings and differently-designed outdoor spaces.

Here’s what’s changed

We can see what Mansueto and RM are proposing because they submitted their zoning change application to revise the PD back in July, which was subsequently posted in the City Clerk’s online legislation database. (A zoning change application and a Planned Development amendment are amendments to city law; refer to the approved plan in this PD 1434 document.)

  • The soccer stadium would be located approximately between 13th and 14th Streets. The rights of way for these two streets would be delineated and “dedicated” to the public.
  • Metra tracks would remain where they are. At the north edge of the site they enter the site about 185′ west of Clark Street, and then gradually shift to the east to hug Clark Street. The original plan would realign the tracks so that new streets could intersect Clark Street.
  • For the planners, the PD subareas’ boundaries are reconfigured.
  • Crescent Park is out of the plan. This central park would follow the historical Chicago River alignment, before it was straightened from Polk Street to 18th Street in 1926.
  • The riverwalk would be narrowed to 40′ from the currently approved plan for a 75′ wide riverwalk and 25′ “riverfront amenity zone” adjacent to buildings. (City law requires riverwalks to be a minimum of 30′ wide.)
Proposed open space plan

The stadium would have these pedestrian and bicycle access points:

  1. Wells Street, south from Polk Street
  2. Wentworth Avenue, north from 18th Street
  3. A newly built LaSalle Street, south from the elevated Roosevelt Road. This is also where transit riders from the Roosevelt ‘L’ station or any of the buses that use Roosevelt or Clark would access the site.

There would not be access from Clark Street and points east; some of the Dearborn Park and Burnham Station residents may prefer this, given how some of them reacted when a new CTA Red Line station was proposed at the existing substation on the east side of Clark Street at 15th Street. RM eventually moved the proposal to be within The 78.

The proposed site plan also shows a publicly owned parking structure in phase one, below the Roosevelt Road elevation.

Site plan showing the stadium and a publicly owned parking structure

What’s next

Expect another 3rd Ward town hall, in September before the next Plan Commission meeting on September 18. The Plan Commission agenda hasn’t been set so it’s not confirmed that the development team will present on September 18.

The plan can also change again, between now and the Plan Commission meeting. What’s presented at Plan Commission will be what is presented to City Council.

Greenline Homes is building brand new houses with junior ADUs

There’s an upcoming tour for a house like the one described in this post. RSVP for the tour on Tuesday, September 23, 2025.

Greenline Homes builds all-electric 1, 2, and 3 unit houses in Chicago’s South Side, and this year they’ve started building single-family houses with a “junior accessory dwelling unit” on the first floor. An accessory dwelling unit, or ADU, can mean a few things, but generally it means a smaller home within a house that has one or more dwelling units. In Chicago, this is most commonly done by adding an apartment in a basement space of a single-family house or a two-flat, and on the ground floor of an older courtyard building during a renovation that moves shared laundry from the ground floor to in-unit.

Over in Woodlawn, however, Greenline Homes has built what appears as a single-family house but has an apartment with one bedroom and one bathroom in the front half of the first floor. It occupies about one quarter of the houses’s overall floor area. In the rear half of the first floor is the primary unit’s kitchen, living and dining room, and a half bathroom. Upstairs, the space belongs all to the primary unit and has three bedrooms and two bathrooms.

Many Greenline Homes have previously been built as two-flats with a lower level full-floor apartment and an upper level duplexed apartment for the owner. The intention is that buyers have an immediate rental income opportunity, or a place for multigenerational living. Think having an adult child living nearby (on-site!) as they transition from college graduation to full time job or having their first child.

Floor plan for the house at 6537 S Rhodes Ave (view the sale listing on Redfin).

The house is for sale, and there are several others like it, so if you’d like a tour contact Wayne Beals. Here are similar ones under construction that will deliver this year:

Further reading: junior ADUs can also be lockoff units, where the smaller unit is connected to the primary unit via stairs or a locked door, but maintains its only exit to the outside.