We All Fall Down: Chicago’s Porch Violations

Share Button

When I say the word "balcony" most of you will think of Juliet pining for Romeo. Chicago's balconies (or, as we call them, "porches,") are a little different. They're big vertical structures attached to the rears of buildings serving as fire escapes. Unlike the black metal fire escapes that come to mind when you think of New York City, Chicago's renters almost invariably will have a story about moving in or out down a rickety wooden back porch.

When I first moved to Chicago in the late 90's our low rise buildings were almost universally adorned with these wooden monsters, all painted in a pale gray-blue shade known to hardware stores citywide as "porch paint" or "Chicago Grey." These porches were mandatory for residences to comply with the city's fire code, minimizing the chance that an occupant would have to run through a fire in order to escape a burning building. But the porches were old, the paint (probably loaded with poisonous lead) was flaking, many of them as old as the buildings themselves.

By the turn of the century new buildings were popping up with porches made of pressure-treated lumber or wrought iron which didn't need to be slathered with porch paint, changing the color of our city's back alleys by removing all of that gray. But these new materials were largely restricted to new construction and condo conversions, funded by all those subprime mortgages that would get us in trouble before the end of the decade. Landlords dragged their feet on replacing their ancient porches. This procrastination eventually culminated in one of the rental industry's most notorious events.

Lincoln Park Nightmare

It happened on June 29, 2003. A party occurred on the 700 block of West Wrightwood Ave, a low-rise apartment building in Lincoln Park. The ancient porch was loaded with happy 20-somethings who had moved into the city after graduating from suburban high schools. Far too many happy young 20-somethings as it turns out, along with beer kegs, old broken appliances, and the assorted clutter that tends to build up on old porches of apartment buildings in the city.

The first 911 caller spoke only of debris blocking the alley behind the building. First responders discovered a collapsed porch, thirteen fatalities, over fifty injured, others trapped in the basement. The incident brought worldwide attention to the condition of the city's porches. It also brought unwanted attention to the owners of the property, who at the time were alternatively known as LG Properties Co., or Restoration Specialists, LLC according to the documents on file with the Cook County Recorder's office.

The city sued the landlord and the contractor who had built the porch. The landlord blamed the tenants for overcrowding the porch. The victims sued everybody and eventually the city also sued the tenants. The court cases didn't wrap up for 10 years and cost about $16.6 million. All told only the attorneys walked away happy.

While the company has changed names since then for obvious reasons, based on what I was able to uncover the property is still in the hands of the same people or possibly their children. They seem to have learned their lesson. Over the past 10 years they've pulled permits for 4 construction projects which is a considerable number based on our research.

That address incurred only one additional violation from the start of available data in 2006 until 2016, although the owners' quality control seemed to slip at that point as they accrued eight more violations between November 2016 and June 2017. All of these violations have now been resolved, and from what we can tell none of them were very serious. Nothing we can find in our investigation of the owners in relation to this particular address stands out to us as egregiously terrible. The ruined porches were replaced with a sturdy steel fire escape.

Waking Briefly

If you ask most Chicago landlords about the most important watershed moments in the industry's recent history, most of them will probably mention this collapse in their top 5 along with the city hall fire, the ARO, the subprime mortgage fiasco and the massive security deposit lawsuit frenzy of the early 2010s. Thousands of buildings were caught up in the city's knee-jerk reaction to the tragedy. 500 landlords found themselves in the county court facing huge damages. Over 700 more wound up at the department of Administrative Hearings dealing with citations.

Landlords across the city were forced to tear down and rebuild their porches, adding architects, engineers and contractors to list of happy workers along with the attorneys. The CRLTO summary that most tenants must receive with every lease was graced with the addition of a couple of sentences at the top stating that all porches must be able to support 100 pounds per square foot. It was a porch apocalypse.

The problem is that the heavy scrutiny following the tragedy of 2003 stuck in the minds of the public nationwide, but that was 16 years ago. The city has gone back to business as normal. The porches rebuilt in 2003-4 of pressure treated lumber have been subjected to 16 Chicago summers, 16 Chicago winters, snowpocalypse, polar vortices, heat waves, hail and ice. They've seen tenant after tenant haul countless IKEA bookshelves and enormous couches from grandma up and down, they've been bonked by city drivers, they've been scorched by overenthusiastic BBQ fanatics.

Pressure-treated lumber is still wood. It's partially organic. It rots. Metal porches can still rust if they're not painted regularly. I should point out that the average lifespan of a Chicago roof is 10-20 years. If your building's porch is 16 years old you should be somewhat concerned.

Renters come to Chicago expecting to find a city that learned its lesson about porches in the same way that we learned about fire. A skim through recent news articles makes it clear that the lesson of 2003 may have already been forgotten. Landlords will talk about 6/9/2003 and how it affected them. But they don't mention 3/18/2019, 12/22/2018, 10/26 and 10/27/2018, or 6/10/2018, all dates of recent porch collapses in the Chicagoland area. None caused any fatalities but they did cause about 15 trips to the ER combined.

These 5 collapses did not all follow the same old story of an old porch overloaded with young, drunken partygoers. One had passed an inspection two months prior. Another was a pressure-treated wood porch on a relatively new condo building. A third was hit by a car. One was made of concrete and metal. The last one actually detached from the building and fell over. It becomes apparent when looking at these five case studies that 100 pounds per square foot is only part of the problem.

Tenants look at apartment buildings and see pressure-treated lumber or steel. They assume that this means that the porch has been rebuilt to code following the 2003 disaster. This is very clearly not always true.

While You Were Sleeping

The city has continued it's vigilance over its many porches since 2003 but it suffers from a system that depends on complaints to trigger inspections. The violation data in the city's data portal only goes back to 2006. This means that it doesn't include all of the violations that were handed down in the immediate aftermath of the Wrightwood Avenue incident. Even so, there are 50,024 separate violations on record pertaining to porches. The descriptions for 42,354 of them read "repair porch system." The descriptions for 7537 of them read "replace dilapidated & hazardous porch" - an indication that the porch was damaged beyond repair. The rest address minor infractions such as porches built too close to the property line.

Let's look at the inspectors' comments about some of these porch violations. I've added a little punctuation and fixed spelling.

"Ledger board requires more bolts, header joists and stringers undersized, stringers overcut, loose treads and risers. Columns require vehicle impact protection. Joist hangers installed with drywall screws. Missing pickets at 3rd level."

"Rear porch, 3 levels. All nailed joint connected banister components have failed to such a degree that these wood members are pulling apart. There are no metal tie back clips at any of these banister joints. There are no heavy duty brackets at any of the vital beam-to-column joint connections. There is joint separation between these structural beams and columns... The tongue and groove floor deck boards, that are not designed for exterior use, are severely dry rotted and buckling. The stair treads are loose and dry rotted. The entire stair system, a separate structure affixed to this porch, is laterally unstable and swings severely from side to side. The beams supporting this stair system are undersized 2x8 boards. This porch is in a severe state of disrepair and dangerous and hazardous."

"Front 1 story wood porch. Concrete block columns: washed out mortar. Ledger beam, only face-nailed to building. Undersized 2x8 joists span 10 foot 6 inches. Stringers only face-nailed at top connections, treads are splitting. Decking boards are loose and buckling. Metal railings are horizontal only 27" in height, spaced with 11" gap."

Pretty scary, no?

These are all relatively recent violations. None of them should have occurred in a post-porch collapse world. The landlords should already know that Chicago is tough on porch inspections. Unlike many of the other issues that inspectors might find at a building following obscure internal-access only checklists, the city provides a free PDF of entire code. They also provide a copy of the checklist that the porch inspectors use. It's not like landlords are flying blind.

But Chicago's porches are largely out of sight and out of mind, tucked away in back alleys. Landlords know that they won't be caught or fined unless someone complains. They know that most tenants are unaware of porch engineering techniques. They may even forget that the porches are part of the building, because technically they aren't. They're accessories.

When a building incurs a "replace dilapidated and hazardous porch" violation it is no minor issue for the tenants. The city has the power to deem the building uninhabitable for the portion of the repair process when the building has no porch at all. So that steel or pressure treated porch that a renter might think is so sturdy could lead to them searching for a hotel room a few months down the road.

Open Your Eyes

Tenants have a great resource available in the form of that checklist from the previous paragraph. It doesn't take much effort to learn the vocabulary of porches and how to recognize different sizes of lumber on sight. It doesn't take much to spot rust patches on metal porches. Look closely at the porches of every apartment you visit on showing tours. Ask when the porch was most recently inspected or rebuilt. If they say that it was rebuilt since 2006, check the city data portal to see if they pulled a permit. This ensures that someone with the right skills reviewed the plans before it went up.

Even if you're not hunting for new housing you should still take a moment every spring to inspect the porches of the buildings where you live. If you see something that looks wrong, talk to your landlord about it. If they don't listen, complain to the city about it. You don't want to spend every summer cookout traumatized over the time you wound up in an ambulance. You don't want to wind up at the vet explaining how your dog slipped through the railings or at the hospital worried about your kid who fell over a banister that was too low. You don't even want to trip over an uneven tread when hauling your groceries up the back stairs. Porches are supposed to keep you safe and occasionally allow you to grow some tomatoes. They're not supposed to kill you.

While I'm on this soapbox let me toss out one more sermon. Those porches are supposed to be fire escapes. Too many that I saw in my travels around the city were crammed full of furniture, bikes, planters, shoes, toys or trash bags. Every one of those items could be something you cuss at on the day your building catches fire. The weather's supposed to be lovely this Saturday. Make some time to go clear up the porch and give it a good hard look.

Reactive or Proactive?

This article concludes our four part series on building code violations in Chicago. We've covered a lot of ground over the past month here and yet I feel like I've only scratched the surface. But before I wrap up I want to leave you with one final thought.

Chicago's complaint-dependent inspection process has resulted in countless buildings getting cited only because the inspectors can't get inside. While porches are always visible, other problems that could cause life-threatening illness or injury remain hidden from scrutiny. Some cities such as LA, Seattle, Boston and Kansas City have attempted to institute Proactive Rental Inspection (PRI) programs, although they have faced numerous court challenges. These programs make inspection of rental properties mandatory citywide. Chicago-based tenants rights groups have been calling for the city to convert to a PRI system for years now. Based on what I've seen in the data, I have to say I agree with them even though I think it may be beyond the capabilities of the Department of Buildings in its current form.

Until such time as PRI might become law in Chicago (or even appear in the minutes of the city council), Chicago's tenants need to learn about what's involved in the creation and maintenance of a building. Those who live in old buildings, those who live with children and those who care about elderly renters should particularly include the basics of building engineering best practices in their general awareness along with all those other random "adulting" skills they don't teach you in school. If you delve into this information and find you really enjoy it, you might find that there's a future for you as a private apartment inspector. Chicago doesn't have any that I know of. We could probably benefit from having a few around.

Thanks for reading!

RentConfident is a Chicago startup that provides renters with the in-depth information they need to choose safe apartments. Help us reach more renters! Like, Share and Retweet us!

Published by

Kay Cleaves

Behind Closed Doors: The Other Most Common Building Violations in Chicago

Share Button

Last week I used the Chicago data portal to investigate the most common building safety code violations in Chicago and discovered that the frequency of violations is dictated not by the real distribution of problems throughout buildings, but instead by the ability or inability of the city inspectors to observe the state of individual properties. Of the 10 most common overall violations, 8 of them can be observed without entering the building at all, one could be observed by entering publicly accessible areas, leaving only one - the absence of smoke detectors - to require access behind closed doors. Even that one lone interior violation can technically be observed by an inspector without permission to enter the property if they give a good hard look through the windows.

But what if the inspectors have someone on the inside to open the door? This near unanimity of exterior violations led me to wonder what the most common interior violations are, so today I'm going back to the data portal to find out. Continue reading Behind Closed Doors: The Other Most Common Building Violations in Chicago

Published by

Kay Cleaves

Face Value: The Most Common Building Violations in Chicago

Share Button

Chicago has a very stringent building safety code. For years the city has been notorious for being the only municipality in the country to use its own home-grown laws instead of the International Building Code. Upcoming changes to the city laws will bring us closer to those in the rest of the country, but we're still not completely following the IBC for everything. But no matter which laws are in effect, getting caught in violation of the code is expensive.

City inspectors ticket buildings just like parking officers ticket illegally parked cars. In fact both types of tickets can be challenged at the same place, the city department of Administrative Hearings. Fines range from $20 for minor infractions to $50,000 for the worst safety problems. Of course every fine has administrative fees tacked on, so even a $20 fine will actually cost about $100 plus the cost to repair the actual problem once all is said and done. In addition to the Department of Administrative Hearings, additional violations are tried in the civil court of Cook County.

The city of Chicago's data portal contains a list of all building code violations uncovered by city inspectors going back to 2006. This massive database is one of the many resources we use in creating our apartment safety reports. But we can obtain other useful information from the list without drilling down to an individual address. Today we'll be sorting it by violation type to determine the 10 most common problems that can get building owners (including landlords) into hot water with the city. Some of these problems are minor, others are major, but in each case tenants can expect that the cost of the fine will be passed on to them in the form of rent increases. Continue reading Face Value: The Most Common Building Violations in Chicago

Published by

Kay Cleaves

Accountability Check: Chicago’s 2014-2018 Housing Plan

Share Button

In our January newsletter I said that we were going to cover the city's new five year housing plan for 2019-2023, which was approved by the city council towards the end of last year. In last week's article (which you guys seemed to like, thanks!) I said that we would be covering it today, and we are to an extent, but not directly. We'll cover it directly next week. Because as I reviewed it, it became apparent that it is a promise and a plan, and like any promise its worth depends on the reputation of the person who makes it.

There are certain times when promises and proposals are so exciting that we don't think about how trustworthy the source might be. When someone proposes marriage, we're often swept off our feet with relief and joy without thinking about how many times our partner has been divorced. When a landlord offers us an apartment after getting denied a few times by others, we might leap to accept it without reading the lease.

The new five year plan was breathlessly covered by media outlets, mostly because of its leap from introduction to approval by the city council in less than a month. As it has been approved we will look at it. But my personal motto is “remember where you came from.”

This is not the first five year plan for housing that Chicago has had. It is the sixth consecutive five year plan, which means we're now entering our 26th straight year of municipal five year housing plans. So first let's take a look at how Chicago did in keeping its promises from the old one, which was in effect from January 2014 through December 2018. Continue reading Accountability Check: Chicago’s 2014-2018 Housing Plan

Published by

Kay Cleaves

Three Data Policy Changes That Would Make Apartment Searching Less Uncertain

Share Button

Let's establish right off the bat a couple of the principles upon which RentConfident is founded. The first: policymakers have a faulty understanding of how complicated it is for renters to move. The second, which is informed by the first: home buyers have access to far more data about property on the market than renters do.

The folks who control access to important data have this far-fetched idea that renters can just up and leave a bad apartment on a whim, which in theory is true. They don't have to worry about selling the property when they're done with it. They don't have to worry about land values and estates. But there is still a high cost involved, one that can add up to the equivalent of three to six months of housing expenses added on to the annual budget just to cover moving to a new location. There are leases and utility contracts. If you have kids there may be new uniforms, new books, new commuting routes. That's not even getting into the extraordinarily complicated steps that must be taken when a government subsidized ("Section 8") tenant suddenly has to move.

This disconnect between policymakers and renters has led to some extreme shortcomings in the data department. As someone who has built a business around digging into the background of apartment buildings on behalf of renters, I can 100% verify that the absence of renter access to certain chunks of information is blatantly apparent. These are pieces of information that are available, assembled, and even accessible to buyers, but completely blocked off to renters. In some cases the access is barred by company policy. In others it's because of the very short time frame renters have to choose an apartment when compared with buyers, who can remain under contract for up to a couple of months while lawyers and home inspectors do the research on their behalf.

To clarify what I mean, here are three examples of data sources that really should be made accessible to renters.

LLC Cross Indexing

It is certainly useful landlords to incorporate. Many do so as "Limited Liability Companies" or LLCs. Landlords who choose to incorporate as LLCs for their building purchases are usually doing so to protect their portfolio from expensive lawsuits. If a landlord holds a portfolio of, let's say 50 buildings, and buys them all in their own name or in the name of an individual company, then the entire portfolio could theoretically be seized as collateral in a lawsuit. If, however, the landlord creates a separate LLC for each building and puts the name of the LLC on the title as owner, then any given liability lawsuit can only attach the building where the incident occurred. This is all quite practical on the surface.

Of course, this practice has its drawbacks, namely in how it complicates matters when someone on the outside - like a renter, a buyer, or a government inspector - is seeking to understand the scope of a single owner's portfolio. In late April the New York Times online ran a column by Emily Badger about nationwide problems with LLCs and owner anonymity. While many owners use LLC incorporation solely to protect their assets, others use it to launder money or as a way to quickly get out of a bad property without any fear of retribution.

In Chicago it is popular for owners to create a separate LLC for every building they purchase. Some of them register Illinois LLCs, others choose to incorporate in Delaware or Nevada. While you can look up the owner of an individual Illinois LLC on the Illinois Secretary of State's website, you can't reverse search to find all LLCs created by one individual. You can't even cross-index by address. Linking together all the individual shell LLCs that a single landlord uses is what takes the most time when we create our Signature Reports, adding anywhere from an hour to eight hours for a single report. In fact, it's so labor intensive that we had to create a separate version of our report for super large scale property owners like Loyola University, which limits the number of buildings we'll include in the report to 50. If we as a business specializing in apartment data assembly cannot connect the dots of an owner's portfolio in a reasonable amount of time, there is absolutely no way that an average renter would be able to do so in the time required to make a decision on an apartment.

It is important for renters to know who owns their housing. It's important for them to know the size of the landlord's inventory, and to look at all of their properties as a whole for recurring problems that could eventually crop up in their building as well.

While the Secretary of State does make their records available for purchase in bulk, the cost for a download runs in the five figure range or higher depending on how much data you want, and that's only for the first purchase and doesn't include the cost for regular updates. This means that only large scale operations like big law firms and city governments can obtain the raw information that would be needed to create a cross-index, and even then, they would still have to create some sort of computerized system to do the cross-indexing of the raw data once obtained from ILSoS.

The Illinois Secretary of State needs to step back and take a big picture view of how people use LLC ownership data. They need to redo their site to make it easier for the average citizen to track down this information. Delaware and Nevada should probably look into doing so as well, given how many people nationwide choose to incorporate in those two states.

CLUE Reports

In the world of non-government-affiliated data collection companies, there are few that rival LexisNexis in scope and size. They maintain records on any number of useful things, from lawsuits and credit to insurance. Every time something bad happens to you, there's probably a bean counter at a desk at LexisNexis HQ who ticks a little box on a form. Within their vaults is the data warehouse known as CLUE, the Comprehensive Loss Underwriting Exchange. Think of it like a credit report, but for insurance. CLUE exists for cars and property. If you get into a car accident your insurance company will add it to the CLUE report for your car. If a landlord files an insurance claim on their building, it goes into the CLUE report for that property, where it remains for seven years.

Now, I live in a neighborhood that tends to flood after heavy rains. Within two blocks of me there's a chunk of houses that all have been at least partially submerged in Chicago River flood water a couple of times in the past seven years. Many of those buildings have basement apartments. If I were looking at renting in this area I would definitely want to see the CLUE report for every building on my list. CLUE reports would contain record of any recent major disasters affecting the building that were severe enough to get the insurance companies involved, from fires and natural disasters to dog bites and slip & fall injuries.

CLUE was created to allow insurance companies to communicate between one another regarding the recent history of a property. Beyond that, CLUE reports are subject to the FACT act, which allows consumers to request one copy of their report every year. If you own a car you can request the CLUE report for that car. If you own a house, you can request the CLUE report for that house. (You can order yours here.) Buyers have recently been requiring sellers to provide CLUE reports as part of their purchase contracts. As a condo owner I had to obtain one for my building in order to apply for a condo owner's policy. But there is currently no trend or demand for landlords to provide CLUE reports to renters, even in an abbreviated format.

We think it would be fantastic if LexisNexis made a version of the CLUE report available to renters.

Commercial Sale Listings

This one speaks more to the Chicago market than the national market. Other areas are a lot more open about commercial listing info.

Suppose you order blue shoes online and get red ones instead by mistake. You'll probably send them back. If you rent an apartment from Mr. Blue and suddenly it is owned by Mr. Red, you'll probably wish you could send the apartment back as well.

Once upon a time, when a homeowner listed a property for sale, only the company that held the listing was allowed to promote it. It was the responsibility of agents to hustle and know prospective buyers and market that house to those buyers exclusively. Eventually the MLS came into being in the form of paper books that were delivered to brokerage offices on a weekly basis, compiling the listings of every participating brokage into one massive book.

These days the MLS is online. It powers listing aggregators like Zillow and Trulia along with every brokerage website. In most areas brokerages can only participate in their local MLS if they are members of their local Realtor association. In the greater Chicagoland area, residential agents are expected to join Realtor associations, but commercial agents - the ones who specialize in offices, warehouses, factories and apartment buildings - are not.

In Chicago, apartment buildings with four units or less are usually marketed through residential agents and larger buildings are marketed through commercial agents. This means that you can find a ton of little apartment buildings in the MLS but not many large apartment buildings.

The commercial equivalent of an MLS is a Commercial Information Exchange, or CIE. There are a few CIEs that are used in the Chicago area, namely CoStar (owner of Loopnet, Cityfeet, Apartments.com, and more) and ICEx. But commercial real estate mostly remains a walled garden, with individual commercial brokerages holding their listings close to their chests and only sharing them with their own buyer clients the old school way. Chances are if a property lasts on the market long enough to make it into a CIE, hundreds of prospective buyers have already seen it and taken a pass. There really is no way for a tenant to look online and find out if a specific apartment building is for sale.

I can understand why a landlord would not want their own tenants to know that their apartment building is for sale. Tenants tend leave if they know that an owner change is imminent. This is because new owners have a marked tendency to increase rents. There's also the issue of blockbusting, an illegal sales tactic that originated (unfortunately) in Chicago. It's a practice where agents scare white owners out of their homes at low prices by implying that minorities are about to move into the neighborhood. If a landlord or their agent tells their tenants that the building is for sale it could be seen as a form of blockbusting.

You will probably never see a for sale sign in front of an apartment building unless it is empty. Landlords who are otherwise completely honest and straightforward will still pull their best poker faced bluff if a tenant asks them, "is this building for sale?" Nope. No way. Never. Would never sell this building.

... Yeah, right.

There needs to be a way for tenants to easily and inexpensively check if an apartment building is currently listed for sale. It doesn't have to be shoved in their face but there should be some route available to find out. For all the owner knows, maybe some tenant in the building will come into an inheritance and want to buy it!


As rents continue to increase and the size of the rent-burdened population grows, the need for more data to help inform renters about the condition of their buildings and caliber of the owners becomes proportionately more intense. It is a fine line to walk between research and an invasion of privacy. Some of these data sources will not open up while the modern lawsuit-happy approach to life remains part of the US zeitgeist. If enough pressure is brought to bear on the door of a private storage area, eventually that door will open. Perhaps the same holds true for private data warehouses as well.

Published by

Kay Cleaves