Chicago is known for its diverse neighborhoods, but it is also a city of 50 wards, each led by an alderperson with their own agenda. As 2025 begins, the city is grappling with budget issues, population growth, and rising crime perception, while aldermanic prerogative—where each alderman has veto power over development in their ward—adds another layer of hurdles to solving these challenges.
We’ll examine this issue today through the lens of two major residential projects currently stuck in bureaucratic red tape, including Old Town Canvas, which was blocked by Alderman Brian Hopkins just yesterday.
Latest ward map of Chicago via City of Chicago
A Brief History of Aldermanic Power
Chicago, incorporated in 1837, has never had a formal city charter, making it the largest U.S. city without one. Without this, the city operates without a ‘constitution’ that oversees the local government and provides certain guidelines like impeachment.
The city initially split into three wards with six aldermen, eventually growing to 70. In 1923, the current system of 50 wards and aldermen, with veto power, was established. Each represents around 54,000 residents, with boundaries redrawn every decade.
While cities like New York moved to an at-large system for government in 1938, Chicago’s ward-based model persists. This structure has led to gerrymandered wards, segregation, concentrated aldermanic power, and political favoritism—often at the expense of cohesive city development.
During a community meeting for Old Town Canvas last year, Alderman Hopkins stated, “Ultimately I am the decision maker on this. I’m not going to hide from that. This is a zoning decision and in Chicago we have something called aldermanic prerogative.” (Timestamp – 3:26)
Lawsuits and Investigations
Aldermanic veto power over zoning has contributed to issues like limited affordable housing and poor accessibility. In 2018, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) launched an investigation, finding that majority-white wards often block, deter, or downsize proposals with affordable housing according to HUD’s regional director. More can be found with Chicago Sun Times.
This has created a large deficit in affordable housing, with HUD also pointing to local resident committees that pressure aldermen to reject such projects-a situation that the city has yet to fully address. In the same year, HUD sued Chicago for similarly blocking ADA-compliant affordable housing according to WTTW.
At the same community meeting as above, a local resident asked the developer, “This project will affect our quality of life whether its increase traffic or increase in crime … why can’t you just move this project if you are thinking of units, you know, for low-income families.” (Timestamp – 52:20)
Image of all Aldermen from 2023-2027 via Sun Times
The Budget Crisis
One of the city’s biggest challenges is its budget deficit. Chicago has a long history of mismanaging deals, such as the parking meter lease and pension funds, leading to higher property taxes. Recently, Mayor Brandon Johnson floated a $300 million tax increase, which was pared down by aldermen before approval.
Though expanding the tax base could address the budget shortfall, aldermen often block new housing projects that would bring in revenue. Alderman Brian Hopkins (2nd Ward) has acknowledged the need for new tax revenue and even called for revenue ideas on WGN News, but then blocked Old Town Canvas yesterday. This would have provided both new housing and tax income.
Updated rendering of Old Town Canvas by GREC Architects
Old Town Canvas, led by Fern Hill, would replace a one-story Walgreens with a 500-unit tower, including 100 affordable units and parking for Moody Church. Despite redesigns aimed at appeasing local residents, the project faced strong opposition from nearby condo owners spreading altered renderings, phone calls, and skewed newsletters.
After a sustained lobbying effort, Alderman Hopkins rejected the project, despite the fact that it would have contributed $2.5 million in annual tax revenue. Fearing political backlash, Hopkins sided with the neighbors. It’s unclear whether Fern Hill will continue working with the city or pull out altogether.
Rendering of 1840 N Marcey Street by SCB
Another project facing hurdles is at 1840 N. Marcey Street, near the stalled Lincoln Yards development. The proposal includes two towers with 615 units, 124 of which would be affordable. If built, the project would contribute $3 million in annual tax revenue. However, alderman Scott Waguespack (32nd Ward) blocked its approval due to density.
This led to a yelling match at City Council last year, delaying its decision once again. Developer Sterling Bay is now seeking an uncommon alternate route due to the issues with the council, going straight to the Zoning Committee for approval.
Cities with highest increase in rents via New York Times
The Bigger Picture
Chicago stands at a crossroads. Local politics, driven by aldermanic veto power, are stalling progress and deterring developers. Chicago’s housing shortage has contributed to some of the highest rent increases in the nation, exacerbating budget deficits and hindering growth.
Expanding the city’s housing stock could help address many of these issues—reducing the budget gap, funding public services, boosting small businesses, and creating jobs. It would also improve the city’s appeal, particularly in a region rich in fresh water and climate resilience.
More history on the city’s Aldermen can be found here.
More history on the city’s lack of charter can be found here.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
The aldermanic system needs to be replaced with an at large system. The vast majority of aldermen only work to kill smart development that would help the city. Alderman Walter Burnett seems to be the only alderman of note who has the best interests of the city at heart. We could see a direct savings each year with the elimination of these clowns, not to mention the money that would be added to the tax base if these projects could come to fruition.
Note to the developers: you gotta grease the wheels 🛞 more. Got it?
No, you don’t get it. You obviously don’t know the 2 aldermen referenced in this article.
Nice read. I get the need for more housing but Lincoln Park is already a dense area that’s congested with traffic. Plus, many residents don’t want to see such tall buildings around our neighborhoods.
There are numerous existing towers of comparable size within two blocks of these proposals. Neighborhoods have to be able to grow and evolve or the city will decline.
If the wards that blocked proposals were forced to shoulder the additional tax burden this would change quickly. Right now, we are all paying more taxes so a few Lincoln Park condo owners can keep their skyline views.
“If the wards that blocked proposals were forced to shoulder the additional tax burden this would change quickly.”
This is not a bad idea, not sure how to operationalize it but maybe…
First: add up the tax value of the projects killed by the alderperson in each ward.
Second: raise property taxes in those ward to make up the amount of lost revenue attributable to each ward.
Third: take any balance left (of the $300M) and apportion it evenly across all wards.
Fourth: not sure how, but there should be a “reward” for wards that allow development that generates additional tax revenue.
I imagine the locals in Brian’s ward will embrace projects if their personal property tax bills are impacted!
Side note: I also think there are other ways to reduce the $300M number – this post is just a thought exercise prompted by Adam’s post.
Indeed, this is a great start! I’ve thought a similar tax must be applied to those, most famously in Lincoln Park, down zone a 2-3 flat into a gigantic single family home. Usually the combined tax bill of a 2-3 flat is greater than even an expensive single family home, so this revenue gap should be accounted for as well.
What we’re talking about here is operationalizing the YIMBY movement into the tax system. And it sounds like the kind of structural innovation this city needs. Makes me wonder if any city around the world does something like this today?
Jim I completely agree. What are some recommendations you’d make to pursue this in the tax system. Should we be advocating through the assessors office?
Found the dummy in the comments.
Traffic??? Maybe get rid of every surface parking lot that encourages vehicular use. Aka, the parking that is occupying this damn site.
Bloody hell the entitlement of well-established persons.
Lincoln Park is not dense at all, believe it or not. Peak population in Lincoln Park was a whopping 102,000 in 1950 and a paltry 69,000 today. That’s a decrease of 40% due to de-conversion of 3 flats into single family homes. If it weren’t for DePaul being there it would be a sleepy pseudo-suburb
lDePaul is the entity that has leveled residential housing left and right and replaced it with their own properties. Maybe watch the old Kartemquin film “Now We Live on Clifton” and learn something about urban displacement.
What has killed Lincoln Park’s density and street traffic would be deconversions and Airbnb. But don’t let facts get in the way of your biased viewpoint.
It’s possible to build densely without adding to traffic congestion. Remember there are more ways to get around Chicago that are not a car. You’re acting like we can’t build because everyone expects to bring their cars. If we build for a low number of car parking spaces and we price in the externalities (i.e. congestion) to our streets by prioritizing car-based transportation last while making transit the most convenient (even more than Ubers), safest, most frequent way of getting around, people will not feel a need to own a car. I’m not making this up, this is how world class large cities work.
We’ve reached a point (years ago) where we can’t operate well as a city still acting like we’re Milwaukee instead of accepting that we’re much more like NYC.
You should be ashamed of yourself. Maybe think about making Chicago better instead of pulling the ladder up after you with this elitism
What density?
It’s already dense so one more tower wouldn’t change anything. We need more housing above all else. We’re living in a housing crisis, not a traffic congestion crisis, no matter how bad traffic is. Wake up.
Traffic could easily be fixed in these kinds of areas if we reduced the amount of parking minimums and made changes to encourage public transit, walking, and biking.
Funny how the most desirable areas of the city are also hardest to build in. If aldermen are the issue, why do we have wide swaths of the south and west sides, currently zoned for residential, that sit vacant?
No demand
Even in the south and west sides we need a bit of an up zoning to make the numbers work. I personally would like to see a general up zone to r-5 across the city’s residential sites. R-4 has a height cap and FAR which limits small developers from getting at-grade four-flats built.
Just a question for the chat. What are some best practices for advocating for a city-wide zoning change. We need to build on this momentum.
What density?
Is it not the alderman’s job to represent the will of the people in his ward?
I think most people in the ward would appreciate lower taxes, more funding for schools and parks, and more funding for city services like police and mental health services.
Is it the alderman’s job to say who can and cannot live in their ward?
I thought segregation was frowned upon?
I’m generally a pro-development citizen but one of the issues with the Marcey project is Sterling Bay’s demand for property tax breaks. It’s not just about the scale of the project. That said, aldermanic privilege is the leading source of corruption/bribery/extortion (a la Ed Burke and dozens of others), red tape and stasis in Chicago, since local residents are almost always opposed to higher density in every downtown and North side neighborhood in the city.
Look into who shows up to these community meetings and them compare that to the demographics of the ward and I think you’ll find a significant gap. The community feedback process is incredibly flawed and does not represent the majority of people living in the community.
You are correct. I’ve been to plenty of community meetings that are filled with old people (or career resisters) who are against any type of development. There are a lot of young people, myself included, who work and can’t attend meetings and/or have no idea when/where these meeting take place. Our voices never get heard.
I guarantee you most people would shrug if you told them this building was being built.
What the alderman is doing right now is representing the will of weirdos who show up to community meetings.
This is terrible. And those who don’t understand the need for new developments are misguided. Chicago is a union town for skilled labor. And when new developments are stalled or killed, you’re killing the labor market. Plumbers, Fitters, Iron workers, Electricians, and etc. Sterling Bay and Fern Hill are platinum level companies trying to keep Chicago as beautiful international city it’s become the last 50 years. Both companies are stewards for the city, they’re not some fat cat developers looking to built slum apartments. Property development IS the mother’s milk for what keeps this city growing. And for those who shrug and want to keep it the same, that’s fine. The money will go to other states and cities, and you can say that you stood against evil rich people.
It doesn’t have to be this way.
💯💯
Well said
Why haven’t all these grumpy LP residents moved to the suburbs already? Embarrassing for a “city” .
Seriously. They brought the suburbs to the densest parts of the north side…
I live in Lincoln Park and would LOVE more high-rises and density. We live in Chicago. Move to Iowa City if you don’t want density.
This city is amazing but with the councilors and its old residents it is an indefinite torture
Chicago, a city that is suffering the slowest death ever – a bleed out of 1,000,000 residents since 1950, a period of 75-years, where only ONE decade showed minimal growth. All other “coastal” and sunbelt cities are growing, as we shrink, leaving less population to pay for our 34 billion in pension liability. I think the corner currently looks very suburban and was looking forward to some height at the street wall. The tower would have been set back, and not that noticeable to pedestrian traffic. I was also looking forward to the added pedestrian traffic – more like Brooklyn and San Francisco, adding vibrancy, while supporting more restaurants and businesses. Come on residents of the Old Town Triangle – it’s not like they were sticking this tower on Crilly Ct. I’m a fan of Brian Hopkins, but I must respectfully disagree with this decision. I wonder how many years Chicago has left before we segue into a hemorrhagic bleed out of residents and go by way of Detroit – finally.
That’s a little bit of an extreme straw man argument in my opinion. Yes Chicago can do better and should work to get to strong population growth again, but it’s not on a coast and those cities that are have an inherent geographical and regional advantage that Chicago doesn’t. It’s a lone giant competing for residents nationally and is in a region that suffered more economic decline than really anywhere else in the history of the US. We need the rest of the Midwest to get their acts together and make this be a very attractive and financially productive place to live again.
If anyone here who is pro-development and lives in Ward 2, maybe it’s time to consider getting more involved. Volunteer to be on the ward’s land use and development committee which becomes an official piece of what becomes Hopkin’s decision. I’m not sure exactly what this committee is called in Ward 2, but I know that River North has such a committee and it is made up of volunteer residents.
Thanks for this direction Jim
Fantastic write up
Old Town is close to the lake and a park, but other factors diminish its appeal. The neighborhood is home to aging NIMBY residents living in rundown apartments from the 60s and 70s, as well as loud and rowdy former frat bros who disrupt the area on game days. While a new tower could have improved the neighborhood, it seems unlikely to be built now. Overall, the neighborhood feels like a lost cause.
This is a complicated issue. The comment in this story that got my attention was the comment that a housing shortage has resulted in the 21% increase in rents. I have watched thousands of apartments being added to the inventory in Chicago over the past 5 years. I don’t think a housing shortage has resulted in these huge rent increases, I think the increased rents have resulted in a shortage of affordable housing city-wide. Increased rents are driven by a number of factors which include increased property taxes, pandemic-related inflation, increasing insurance costs, and greed. Property costs have been driven up partially by the massive purchases of developers who want to make maximum dollars on everything they build. Once they have paid so much for the property, “right sizing” for the surrounding neighborhood goes out the window. While I am opposed to Aldermen having 100% control over what is built in their wards, they must have input that is given weight.
“greed” makes no sense as an explanation of high prices. Are cities cheaper cities full of developers who are equally greedy? Of course not.
Blaming high prices on greed is like blaming a plane crash on “gravity”. It’s not a helpful framing.
If you don’t think density is a problem, consider Fern Hill’s location–North Ave., Wells, Clark, and LaSalle–all vying for access to Lake Shore Drive. No grocery stores to speak of but the overpriced boutique Foxtrot. To think that people aren’t going to use their cars, or have the thoroughfares blocked by double-parked Ubers, FedEx, and Amazon delivery trucks, is a bikers’ wet dream. The developers just want the site for park and lake views, and the rest of neighborhood be damned, once they’ve made their money. As for Marcey St., it’s within a stone’s throw of the Clybourn Corridor. It practically takes 30 minutes to go from Cortland to North Avenue, about four blocks. Besides, I thought Sterling Bay was hurting for cash, with their failed Lincoln Yards development?? Try finishing those buildings first, instead of building luxury Cabrini Greens.
So only the people that already live there deserve park and lake views? Screw anyone else who wants those?
The lakefront is 26 miles long… plenty of park and lake views available
Susan: The tower proposal included space for a new grocery store and an off street motor court for all the trucks and Ubers. But your desire to preserve the neighborhood for current residents and totally inappropriate reference to Cabrini Green speaks volumes to your real issues with this tower.
No grocery store is moving in. And, you obviously don’t understand the area. The motor court access/exit is terribly dangerous. The pushback on this project has everything to do with it being too big for the block. The neighborhood would support a mid rise building. If a community can’t function people leave. Then your tax revenue leaves. The neighborhood wants responsible development.
There is literally a 42-story 492 unit building on the same block as this proposal that has been there for 50-years and they don’t even have the motor court for pick-up/drop-off. Not to mention 3 other building of similar size within a two-block radius…how is this different from what is currently in the neighborhood?
Yes!!!! Susan you are spot on. Fern Hill can build with everyone’s blessing if they weren’t being so greedy. Build a mid rise building. Fern Hil is all about the $. In addition – property taxes have doubled in last five years for those who live in the neighborhood. Fern Hills luxury tower will not reduce the neighborhoods tax burden. People will leave the area because there will be no way to get in and out of the area.
The developer is not being greedy. A high rise is what makes the project feasible from a financial standpoint. It is also the right solution urbanistically. We are talking about only 500 units. Such a minimal number, of which one would never see all the residents arriving or leaving at the same time. Sure, there’s probably an architectural solution which would accommodate 500 units in mid-rise buildings, but this would require a dense massing with increased bulk. You would still have the same population density. Even if the ‘tower’ became a mid-rise, we are still only talking about maybe 300 units, which is a paltry reduction in population density.
Seems like those arguing for a mid-rise rise have a condo with a view in the neighboring tower and are trying to protect their “investment” instead of promoting more housing stock and welcoming more people to share their neighborhood with.
If it takes you 30 minutes to go 4 blocks, may I suggest taking a walk or riding a bike?
I’d love to say that I bike for altruistic reasons like that it’s better for the environment or that it’s healthy for me, but honestly most of the reason is that it’s more efficient and I don’t need to worry about personally contributing towards the traffic like you’re describing.
Ian, thanks for this article! I hope people share it far and wide.
The state of Chicago is corrupted by its aldermen
I wonder how much money Fern Hill flushed down the toilet wasting their time with this great proposal? Developers, don’t waste your time, resources and money on proposals in this provincial town that doesn’t even realize it’s in the throws of death.
“throes of death” (previous comment, excuse me)
I would imagine the only people trying to fight this are the direct neighbors. And the ones that will lose their view from their own high rise condo. There are already multiple high rises on that block. It’s a city. The idea of not having more density in a city makes zero sense. Wake up, and let’s block out the noise of a few small neighbors by keeping this support going! YIMBY!
They are – I spent a part of Saturday listening into the most recent community meeting on YouTube. The community respondents with negative feedback provide their addresses – most live in the nearby high rises and are finding ways to block their project other than stating they don’t like that the project blocks their view. It must be nice to own a condo in a high rise and spend your time all day rounding up NIMBY community members.
1. Cars should never dictate adding or avoiding new housing. It is a fact that alternative transportation will continue to increase because of car ownership costs. Public transportation will need to be improved whether anyone wants to pay for it or not. It is an economic fact.
2. Housing prices are high, because there is not enough housing. Affordability comes when there is choice i.e. supply. This is why Old Town Triangle, Gold Coast, LP residents do not want more housing. Less supply = higher prices for their assets.
3. Aldermanic system is archaic and should not exist, obviously. It is extremely corrupt, and does not allow for experts, educateded analysis, and proven economic and urban planning to be implemented. Of course the Alderman block this. He should talk to Alderman Burnett on how to get paid for saying yes.