Tag: Chicago

Inside the machine: visiting the O’Brien Water Reclamation Plant

Half of all the electricity consumed at one of the largest wastewater treatment facilities in the Midwest goes to running air blowers and pumps. That was the detail that stuck with me most from Saturday’s open house at the Terrence J. O’Brien Water Reclamation Plant at the corner of Howard Street and McCormick Boulevard in Skokie, one of seven facilities operated by the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRD).

I visited with two friends; I think we left there with a clearer picture of the hidden machinery behind our region’s daily life.

A plant almost a century old

The O’Brien plant opened in October 1928. At the time, it was the largest sewage treatment facility in the world. Nearly a century later, it still serves over 1.3 million people across 143 square miles: Chicago north of Fullerton Avenue and 17 north suburban Cook County communities including Evanston, Skokie, Wilmette, Northbrook, and Glenview. Wastewater from all of those homes and businesses travels through a network of intercepting sewers beneath McCormick Boulevard before arriving at the plant’s 97-acre campus at Howard Street.

The MWRD service area map shows the locations of the seven water treatment plants (Hanover Park, Egan, Kirie, O’Brien, Stickney, Lemont, and Calumet) using a green icon. Download as PDF.

The plant was renamed for Terrence J. O’Brien, a longtime MWRD president who died in 2021. It’s one of seven plants in the district, each serving a distinct drainage area across the Chicago region.

Simpler than you’d think — and more remarkable for it

The treatment process is more straightforward than most people imagine. Incoming wastewater first passes through screens that remove large debris, then into settling tanks where solids drop out — capturing 60 to 80 percent of suspended material. After that, the water moves into aeration tanks where staff introduce what they affectionately call “bugs”: beneficial bacteria that consume the remaining organic matter. A final round of ultraviolet light disinfection kills any remaining pathogens before the treated water discharges into the North Shore Channel. This effluent is cleaner than the water in the channel.

That channel, built between 1907 and 1910, carries the plant’s effluent south toward the Chicago River — an engineered system designed to move water away from the lake and through the region. Because much of Chicago relies on combined sewers — single pipes carrying both stormwater and sewage — heavy rain events send a surge of combined flow toward the plant. It connects to TARP, the Deep Tunnel system, which captures and holds that overflow until the plant can process it. The plant handles an average of 230 million gallons per day, with surge capacity up to 450 million. At the time of our visit the plant had processed 156 million gallons.

Touring the plant

The MWRD ran an efficient open house, with guided tours departing every 15 minutes. Our guide was a retired staffer who came back to volunteer. Before working there for 10 years he worked at a suburban municipality’s drinking water plant.

A highlight was the 1926 Pump and Blower Building, a vaulted brick-and-steel industrial hall with a skylit roof that. Inside, massive blowers push air into the aeration tanks to keep the bacteria alive and working. Those machines account for roughly half the facility’s entire electricity consumption. It’s a staggering thought: hundreds of millions of gallons treated daily, and the biggest energy draw is simply moving some air.

We weren’t allowed into the grit chamber during the open house, but our guide noted that school groups regularly visit it — and that children almost universally react to the smell by pulling their shirts over their noses.

Infrastructure worth knowing

More people should understand how the infrastructure they pay for and benefit from actually works. The O’Brien open house is a rare chance to do exactly that: to stand next to the blowers, walk past the settling tanks, and talk to the people who run it. Staff talked to us about how they test at the plant and at businesses that generate “industrial wastewater”, including breweries and metal processing facilities.

The staff also test for viruses as well as fecal matter to assess the effluent’s cleanliness. The tour guide said that before the water enters the UV channels Before the UV channels the water has over 1,000 fecal coliform per 100 mL; after treatment it drops to 25, sometimes as low as 3. The MWRD’s NPDES permit sets the effluent limit at 200/100 mL as a 30-day geometric mean, so readings of 3–25 represent the plant performing well above the requirement.

The process is elegant in its logic, the history is genuinely impressive, and the scale is humbling. MWRD’s website does a better job than I at summarizing the process. The MWRD holds open houses at several of its water treatment plants each year. There are two more this month:

Chicago’s ten co-living buildings, circa 2019

This is adapted from a piece I originally wrote for the MAP Strategies blog in January 2019, when I was consulting for them. The original is gone from their site but lives on in the Wayback Machine. I’m republishing it here because the inventory is a useful snapshot of where Chicago’s co-living market stood at the start of 2019 — a moment when it looked like co-living might become a real fixture of the city’s housing landscape. How that played out is a story for another post.

The co-living trend seems to be picking up in Chicago. Co-living is a housing arrangement where people who don’t necessarily know each other live in the same apartment and share a kitchen, but each tenant is only responsible for a lease on their own bedroom. It saves tenants money through shared facilities — typically including in-unit laundry — and many of the new co-living developments offer the same amenity package as Chicago’s market-rate apartment buildings: rooftop decks, coworking space, gyms.

Co-living isn’t new. Unrelated adults have been sharing apartments for centuries. What’s new is the on-site amenity layer, on par with the newest apartment buildings in the city. As a renter myself, there’s a real attraction to it: you save a little money by having roommates, you don’t have to find them yourself, and you aren’t responsible for their share of the rent. Many operators bundle weekly professional cleaning into the rent, which handles the chore-wheel question. Some apartments come fully furnished.

Related: Chicago’s zoning code regulates the number of unrelated adults that a household can be designed to accommodate – laws that undo this are sometimes called “The Golden Girls Bill”. Read more.

The regulatory picture

In Chicago, co-living buildings adhere to the same zoning code standards and largely the same building code standards as a multi-family development. They are also subject to the same Affordable Requirements Ordinance (ARO) standards as a multi-unit building. Even though the standards are the same, navigating the Department of Buildings and Department of Planning & Development processes isn’t always straightforward for new co-living developers.

Ten buildings, six operators

By my count there were ten co-living buildings operating or under construction in Chicago at the start of 2019, run by a mix of local, national, and international companies. Most allowed whole-apartment leases in addition to room-by-room leases.

Common is a New York–based operator that has built a platform local developers can plug into for new construction or conversions. Three Chicago buildings:

  • 455 W Briar Pl. in Lakeview — a converted two-flat with 14 bedrooms and 8.5 bathrooms, permitted as an SRO. (“SRO” is a zoning code term; the building code calls the same thing congregate living.) This was the only conversion in Common’s Chicago portfolio at the time; everything else was new construction.
  • 2048 W Chicago Ave. in Ukrainian Village — new construction.
  • 1407 W 15th St., between the Illinois Medical District and Pilsen — under construction at the time. It later opened as Common Addams.

PMG (Property Markets Group) is a local developer that operates two co-living buildings:

  • The L in Logan Square, at 2211 N Milwaukee Ave.
  • X Chicago in University Village, at 710 W 14th St.

1237 West at 1237 W. Fullerton Ave. — A privately owned DePaul University dormitory that recently began accepting non-students. Owned and operated by The Scion Group.

Quarters at 171 N Aberdeen St. in the West Loop — The first Chicago location of Berlin-based Medici Living Group’s international Quarters brand. The building was developed by MCZ Development.

30 East Apartments in the South Loop — Opened in 2017. It’s surrounded by several colleges and universities, so the marketing leans toward students, but you don’t have to be one to live there. Developed by Gilbane and managed by Asset Campus Housing.

Bungalow is a startup that master-leases existing houses and apartments. At the time: a 5-bedroom house in Bucktown and a unit in Wicker Park.

If I missed a Chicago co-living building from that 2019 moment, let me know.

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:

Zoning assessment: Old Town Canvas

The alternative headline is “Zoning assessment: how to propose a large building outside downtown Chicago when the current zoning code doesn’t typically allow that and the current zoning code goes against historical development norms for the city”.

I’ve said many times on social media how the Chicago zoning code doesn’t allow many extant buildings to be built because a zoning district that would allow the height, bulk, or density (“size”, for short) doesn’t exist anymore. All of those examples were outside of the downtown district because the downtown district still allows the size of all the extant buildings there.

The Old Town Canvas development would replace the Walgreens building. The development’s size is in line with all the other nearby high-rise residential buildings.

I am going to describe how a building with the size of the proposed Old Town Canvas development is allowed outside of downtown (view the boundary). The development shows how to use multiple standards in the Chicago zoning code to build a lot of needed housing and serves as another example of the Chicago zoning code being much more restrictive than its previous iterations.

I won’t belabor the point any further, but it shouldn’t take “zoning cleverness” to build more housing in Chicago.

About the development

The Old Town Canvas development’s size – proposing 500 homes in a building 395′ tall – is largely possible because of two longstanding standards in the Chicago zoning code, neither of which are unique to the site – there are no loopholes here.

Those standards are:

  1. the “-5” zoning district’s allowance for nearly unlimited height if the property has a sufficient length of street frontage
  2. the ability to establish a Planned Development and shift zoning capacity from one parcel to another, even across a roadway

1. Height limits in “-5” zoning districts

In a B-5 or C-5 zoning district, the height limit is based on how much street frontage1 the property has. For a property that has 100 feet or more of street frontage the height limit is normally 80 feet. However, an exception2 in the zoning code allows buildings to “exceed the maximum height” if approved and reviewed as a Planned Development3.

This means there is no maximum height, but there are certainly influencing factors: the support of the local alderperson, the support of the city planning staff, and guidelines from the FAA.

2. Planned Developments can move zoning capacity between parcels

A basic zoning assessment of the parcels for the building results in an estimate that 179 homes would be allowed here. This is much fewer homes than previous Chicago zoning codes allowed, and much fewer homes on a similar sized parcel than the four nearest high-rises which have about the same or more than the proposed number of 500.

To be able to build 321 additional homes the developer has proposed incorporating the unused zoning capacity of Piper’s Alley, a mixed-use development, and Moody Bible Church, where the most recent community meeting to discuss the traffic study was held this month.

I can’t get into specifics because I don’t have knowledge of how much unused FAR and MLA per unit that each of those other properties can transfer. To do that I would need to see architecture drawings showing how much floor area the buildings have already.

In this case, the owners of the other properties must give their consent to the Old Town Canvas developer to be incorporated into a new – or in this case, an amended – Planned Development and show this consent to the City of Chicago4.

That process is essentially the definition of what many people would call “air rights” (which I think more specifically means being able to build above something, like a railroad or roadway) and municipal governments would likely call “transfer of development rights”.

Neither “air rights” nor “transfer of development rights” are commonly used terms in Chicago. There are several buildings, however, that use air rights granted to them by the railroads that own the tracks under Riverside Plaza buildings.

In New York City, to explain an alternative implementation of TDR, development rights include the ability for owners of landmarked buildings and of buildings in special districts to transfer the zoning capacity beyond the geographic limitations of the Chicago Planned Development standards. For example, a landmarked theater in the Special Midtown District can be a “granting site” of development rights to a “receiving site” within the Theater Subdistrict.

Notes

  1. In some other jurisdictions height limit is based on street width, and in Chicago’s first zoning code height was based on building depth and how much each upper section was set back from the street. ↩︎
  2. See 17-3-0408-A[1] in the Chicago zoning code. ↩︎
  3. There are codified standards regarding height in the Planned Development section of the Chicago zoning code, starting with the guideline, “High-rise buildings or towers should respect the context and scale of surrounding buildings with setbacks at appropriate heights which will also reduce the apparent mass from street level.” Other standards for high-rise buildings within Planned Developments are found in 17-8-0907-C. ↩︎
  4. Section 17-8-0400 of the Chicago zoning code has a regulation affecting ownership and site control and how Planned Developments can have multiple owners controlling multiple sites. ↩︎

The sizable impact of requiring Chicago homeowners to get special use approval to build an ADU

Show your support for a version of the proposed ordinance that enables equal access to ADUs in all residential zoning districts and does not have the carve out explained below by emailing your alderperson and asking that they support ADU expansion into every residential zoning district without special use approval (reference ordinance SO2024-0008918, and then sign this Urban Environmentalists Illinois petition). I spoke about this issue with Mike Stephen on Outside The Loop radio on July 27, 2024 (skip to 6 minutes).

It’s possible that the Chicago City Council votes to approve an ADU expansion ordinance that would require about 38 percent of small-scale residential property owners, specifically in RS-1 and RS-2 zoning districts, to obtain a special use from the Zoning Board of Appeals to build an ADU. Special use approval is intended for limited and certain businesses and building types that can have an adverse impact and may require mitigations that are reviewed and approved by the ZBA.

ADUs have not been demonstrated to have adverse impacts and this potential future requirement would impose burdens on a scale above and beyond anything else the Chicago zoning code imposes. A special use is described in the city’s code as having “widely varying land use and operational characteristics [and] require case-by-case review in order to determine whether they will be compatible with surrounding uses and development patterns. Case-by-case review is intended to ensure consideration of the special use’s anticipated land use, site design and operational impacts.”

Yet an ADU is a residential use; its operational characteristics could not be incompatible with other residential uses. This requirement would be extremely unusual and especially burdensome. There is only one other special use approval that a residential property owner would have to seek, which is to allow housing on the ground floor in B1, B3, C1, and C2 zoning districts.

Applying for a special use for a small home presents a major obligation to the property owner, and requires them to perform the following:

  • Submitting a full building permit application with plans and obtaining a “certificate of zoning denial” before being able to start this process.
  • Paying a $1,000 application fee to the City of Chicago.
  • Hiring an expert witness to write a report and provide testimony at the ZBA hearing.
  • Preparing the finding of fact, a report which (a) describes how the ADU complies with all applicable standards of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, (b) says that the ADU is in the interest of the public convenience and will not have a significant adverse impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood, (c) explains that the ADU is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of site planning and building scale and project design, (d) states that the ADU is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of operating characteristics, such as hours of operation, outdoor lighting, noise and traffic generation, and (e) outlines that the ADU is designed to promote pedestrian safety and comfort.
  • Preparing the application (which is extensive).
  • Complying with onerous legal notification requirements including determining property owners of record within 250 feet of the subject property, paying for and posting public notice signs and ensuring they remain posted until the public hearing, and mailing notice letters to surrounding property owners within the 250 feet notice radius.
  • Presenting the project to the Zoning Board of Appeals at an undeterminable time during an 8-12 hour meeting in the middle of a Friday, possibly facing one’s neighbors who are present objecting to the project.

Not to mention, this will gum up staff time and expertise.

Scale of impact

I analyzed the number of small-scale residential-only properties in Chicago that would and would not be subject to the special use approval requirement in RS-1 and RS-2 zoning districts if that version were to pass.

The map below shows where the proposed ADU expansion would set a different standard for homeowners in RS-1 and RS-2 zoning districts than for homeowners in all other zoning districts. It covers large parts of 40 percent of the city’s 77 community areas (read more about my thoughts on this in my letter to the Chicago Sun-Times editor).

The table below shows the results of my analysis: the owners of nearly 171,000 small-scale residential properties in RS-1/2 zoning districts would be required to undergo a costly and difficult process that would likely result in burdens so great that very few families would actually be able to take advantage of having an ADU.

About the analysis

“Small-scale residential” comprises Cook County property classifications that represent detached houses, townhouses and townhouses, two-to-six flats, courtyard buildings, and small multifamily buildings, up to 99,999 s.f. with or without commercial space up to 35 percent of the rentable square feet.

The full list of property classifications:

  • 2-02
  • 2-03
  • 2-04
  • 2-05
  • 2-06
  • 2-07
  • 2-08
  • 2-09
  • 2-10
  • 2-11
  • 2-12
  • 2-13
  • 2-25
  • 2-34
  • 2-78
  • 2-95
  • 3-13
  • 3-14
  • 3-15
  • 3-18
  • 3-91