If I may add my 2-cent worth and cut to the chase- simply put - density is good. Real good. Most major U.S. cities have experienced urban renewal in the last 2 decades. That's a good thing. Ask anyone in New York what they think about urban renewal:. A low crime rate, for one

Evanston is a city, and its downtown is experiencing an urban-like renewal with it's mass transportation system, world class university, Lake Michigan and it borders one of the finest cities in the world - Chicago. No other Chicagoland suburb or arguably any other city/suburb in the U.S. has those amenities. I agree with Bill's analysis that Berkeley or Cambridge would be better comparisons to Evanston. But I say so what. Evanston is a city of its own, unique and unlike any other. Leave it at that. With 7 residentail highrises and 2 commercial highrises (I might have missed one or two) what's the big problem with one more highrise/tower in the center of town?

Let's face it - with rising fuel prices (they doubled from last year) global warming, suburban sprawl, etc, there is no reasonable argument AGAINST a dense urban area such as Evanston downtown. Think GREEN. It's not like anyone is proposing to build a highrise in northwest Evanston, which BTW, is where my family and I live.

Oh, I forgot, most people who are moving usually first set their eyes on Evanston. There's a real good demand to live here. That's why developers risk their money and time to meet that demand even in a shaky real estate market we have now. Anyone who owns property in Evanston and cares about their investment should support more development and downtown density. Period.

With the tower will come more people, and with more people will come more businesses and with more businesses will come more tax revenues, and with more tax revenues will come a healthy local economy that Berkeley, Cambridge and especially Cicero will envy with disdainful jealousy.

OK, maybe it was more than 2 cents. I guess I have an inflated view of the issue.
Anonymous Al

We have a lot of problems from the local all the way up to the federal government because our governments make decision after decision based on faulty assumptions, bad intelligence, and voodoo economics. Evanston's current pension and traffic problems are a function of that, or we wouldn't need to be tripling parking meter rates. People like John Kennedy and Jeff Smith and other Evanston activists in the Central Street Neighbors, ECRD, etc., deserve our thanks for taking discussion beyond simplistic models, doing the research that otherwise doesn't get done, and asking the hard questions. In a town that's been developed for as long as Evanston has been, asking how much more dense we should be is a totally legitimate question. That's not fear-mongering, that's realism.

Reply:
Please see my response to Mary Rosinski's comment.

Asking questions is essential, stacking the deck in selecting the data you use is reprehensible.
-- Bill

I was surprised to read about "fearmongering" in Evanston so I read the article on density itself. I think evanstonnow's criticism is way off.
I lived in Evanston and have spent my life in the construction industry. Development isn't necessarily good or bad, it all depends on the thought behind it. Jeff Smith and the Central Street Neighbors Association are adding thought to the process and Jeff in particular does so articulately, sometimes with a flourish.
There are a lot of bad actors in politics, and corruption at all levels, and a lot of things in Evanston that don't add up. It seems weird that instead of going after those, this website is attacking residents and community leaders like Jeff Smith who are trying to bridge differences and look for real solutions."

Reply:
You have a very selective recollection of Evanston Now's content if you think that Jeff Smith and the CSNA are the only ones who've been criticized here. Forgot about our multi-part series on the city's budget a few months back?
And if you have actual evidence of corruption in Evanston, why don't you present it, instead of making unsupported blanket accusations?
With proof, Evanston Now would be delighted to report on the corruption you claim exists.
-- Bill

Ok, so all this is about density huh? Well when are we going to get our 4-lane boulevard in South Evanston because all this drivel appears to be about North Evanston. First you blocked the Virginia Slims Tournament and then you blocked the Chicago Bears from playing here, so now what is your problem? We heard a new rumour that all these transients that are moving in don't like our Custer Street Fair one weekend out of the year, well what if it was your Central Street whatever it is you call it. Maybe whats really needed is that South Evanston should secede from the North.

Reply:
Chicago Avenue a four-lane boulevard?
Only after the Purple Line is turned into a subway to make room for it.
Don't hold your breath.
--Bill

Anonymous wrote :

Your post relies on name-calling and divisive labeling in what must be an attempt to generate emotional responses. Such tactics are counterproductive and distract from the points.

and others have written similar criticisms accusing Bill Smith of personalizing the argument.

First, I don't see anything in Bill's posting that could possibly be labelled a "personal attack" on Jeff Smith. Saying that someone's arguments are misleading, or that someone is trying to scare people, is hardly personal.
And accusing a group of unnamed neighbors of being status conscious - even if they are not - is hardly a personal insult. [ Why is this worse than saying that condo and apartment residents will destroy a neighborhood, as several of the anti-development groups have done? ]
But I totally agree with Mr. or Ms. Anonymous's statement that 'attempts to generate emotional responses...are counterproductive and distract from the points.'
I too do not like those who 'attempt to generate emotional responses', which is why I oppose the tactics of the 'Save Central Street' campaign to downzone Central Street ( I believe J. Smith played a role in this), the 'Save Evanston' campaign to stop the 'skyscraper', and the numerous other attempts to appeal to emotions ('charm', 'uniqueness') and fear ( of outsiders moving into Evanston, accusing new residents of 'destroying the character' of Evanston ) that many of the neighborhood activist groups - including CSNA - have engaged in.
If you are going to go around pretending that you are 'saving' Evanston or Central Street from imminent doom, then you should not be offended when people accuse you of trying to scare people.

Bill - I am not certain Jeff was trying to raise fears. I think his research was to counter a view that we need more density or density is somehow good. I do not see a problem with adding more population to the downtown with well placed buildings - and projects - note I said well placed projects- not what any developer wants with his property. There has been very poor planning to date with the downtown - I think the lack of good public space is a problem.

Our council I think may have realized as of late they have screwed up the development here by giving far too many TIFs - so we have by no means maxamized the benifit from all this development. There desire for such nonsense as affordable housing taxes and pretending the developers had no impact on the infrastructure has been a joke - now they want impact fees - a day late and a dollar short.

Bill - density for the sake of density is rather meaningless - there are a great number of variables here - youre desire to simplfy the process - just does not work

It should be clear to anyone -Evanston is well position with good transportation, its location on the Lake and being near chicago as a place were population is attracted to live. Your article about density and transportation as a study is not that big a deal - since higher density is likely ot support public transportation.
And peopel will pay a premium to be near it, Years ago I bought my home here since I wanted to be close to the CTA line - I now use the Metra. So I have benifited - The planners here want to use this idea of development around the Metra and CTA - with higher density - yet they need to understand that the higher density can not be just place next to residental areas with limited parking and the small business districts such as Central street. The Central street plan was misdirected by city staff who pushed for higher density near the train - with limit thought to the total impact.

Bill the simplistic views those who want to push development here hold with the lack of planning has lead to screw ups and some very undesirable buildings - some should understand planning is a very complex process balancing a large number of variables- if you wish to achieve a good results.

Bill, the phrase isn’t “straw man list;” it’s “straw man argument” but the difference implied by the misattribution is a darn important one---namely, arguments are dynamic; lists are not.

From everything I’ve read so far, the president of the CSNA, Jeff Smith, raises good questions and explores them out loud and online. I call that dynamic. I call that leadership.

Yet you criticized him for things he never said: he did not say a single negative thing about Cicero or Harwood Heights or any other community. And why knock him for not listing Berkley and Cambridge? Excluding those cities from the analysis was just smart. Comparing Evanston to either city would have been folly on so many levels.

Neither you nor anyone else has to agree with Jeff Smith but to make him the straw man in YOUR argument misses the point and invites the obvious "Why?"

Amidst all the acrimony and lawn signs, Smith provides explanations for why we all might miss the point now and then: The issues are complex, interrelated and interdependent. And just so there’s no misunderstanding, calling something complex is not the same thing as calling a listener (or reader) a dummy; it just says that getting it right is going to take more than pith and personal attacks.

You might want to re-read what Jeff Smith has written because from my read, he's a lot more than a "skilled writer" and a "verbal stylist;" he's offering up big and interesting spoonfuls:
http://centralstreetneighbors.com/?q=node/185
http://centralstreetneighbors.com/?q=node/220

I have not heard CSNA or any other advocacy group take any position on density, or take an outright anti-development stand.

On the contrary. People simply have an appetite for balance and fairness. It looks to me like Jeff Smith has that buffet line open and serving.

Wow Bill, when did your site become a place to start personal attacks toward other members of our community? I have read, and I must say several times, what Jeff wrote (http://centralstreetneighbors.com/?q=node/220) and cannot understand how you could interpret it to mean what you wrote.

First and foremost, I will state that I am a board member of CSNA and live in Northeast Evanston. I take personal offense to your comment that we are “density-phobic” and “status-conscious” neighbors. Since when did living in a small 1927 farm house or bungalow near the tracks become a status symbol? I have lived in Evanston since 1989 and was lucky enough to purchase my home years ago before prices escalated. I doubt many of us living here could afford to purchase the same today, and I like many in my surrounding neighborhood wonder how our children will be able to afford a home, much less the taxes, in our community should they choose to.

Second, my take on what Jeff posted was that he was questioning, and opening debate on how dense Evanston should be. Clearly Jeff and a lot of citizens have continually requested that the leaders of Evanston, staff, participants on planning, zoning boards and commissioners all provide some answer to this question especially prior to approving a downtown plan or any new planned developments such as Fountain Square. As a matter of fact Jeff asked this exact question while going through the planning process for Central Street, which does allow for further development. This is not an unreasonable request and in fact makes logical sense.

I was pretty astounded to read that out of the “US Census study from 2000” (http://www.demographia.com/db-2000city50kdens.htm) Evanston is ranked 47 of 601 cities as the most dense. Remember this census is from 2000, where do we stand today? So to Jeff’s point, and I do not know how any reasonable thinking person could disagree, this fact deserves to be discussed and debated at all levels. What are the advantages and disadvantages of becoming denser? Is it more taxes and if so how much? What are the costs to the city if we become denser? We already are denser than 8 years ago and citizens continually question if all that development has helped the city increase tax revenues and offset expenses. When have any of these questions been weighed, balanced or discussed? By you just saying “there’s no reason to fear more of a good thing” whether you mean for downtown or Central St. is extremely shortsighted and can only be a disservice to the entire community and the planning process currently taking place. Furthermore, I believe most experienced and respected planners would insist that this question be answered before engaging in any modifications to the city’s zoning laws.

Attributing base motives to other citizens is not a legitimate way to promote website traffic or moderate a public discussion. While you may disagree with what Jeff Smith has written and discussed, for sure he has always been fair and respectful whether speaking in public or posting issues for discussion on the website. His piece on density was no different, and for you to characterize it otherwise came across as mean spirited.

PS: if we are “density-phobic” – a rather ugly term since it implies some mental disorder – why did we move here.

Because this post personalizes the discussion rather than discussing issues objectively, it warrants rebuttal.

Your post relies on name-calling and divisive labeling in what must be an attempt to generate emotional responses. Such tactics are counterproductive and distract from the points.

Rather than a fair discussion of issues, your post appears to be an attack on the Central Street Neighbors Association and Jeff Smith, in particular. I read your post and then Mr. Smith's original post on Evanston's population and housing density. Then I read some of Jeff Smith's other writings on the Central Street website.

The attack on Mr. Smith is uncalled for, and distorts both his views and his group's. Jeff Smith did not say anything negative about any other town. His posts, over and over, are thoughtful and balanced. He shows a passion for his community. His only bias seems to be for planning, and for considering really big-picture consequences. It also looks like the Central Street plan he and his group worked on does allow for both further development and density, in moderation. Since it was passed unanimously by both the Plan Commission and the City Council, calling his group "density-phobes" seems pretty extreme.

Evanston, and political discussion in general, could use a little less name-calling, and some more leadership like that shown by Jeff Smith.

Why in the world would Bill Smith take what appears to be righteous delight in making sweeping generalizations about all Northwest and North East Evanston residents, or for that matter any it seems, any resident who lives in a singe family neighborhood, or in may be anyone who ask questions and demands answers as to what direction the city of Evanston is going in terms of density and planning.

It seems that that Bill thinks it is ok to say things like “density-phobic neighbors” or” status-conscious neighbors” to infer that the residents are somehow neurotic or shallow. Maybe he thinks using these techniques will marginalize those residents who dare to ask the critical questions as to where we are going and why.

It seems to me that Jeff Smith was comparing sizes and density of other Midwest cities and asking how dense does Evanston want to be

I am not sure if Bill took the time to read the article before putting forth his own value judgments and trying to pass them off as someone else’s.

That Bill Smith would say “It’s easy to see that Jeff's status-conscious neighbors wouldn't want to emulate such low-rent towns as Cicero or Harwood Heights. Heck, I wouldn't either” If he has a problem with Harwood Heights that’s his problem not Jeff Smiths.

Jeff never said anything regarding high rent or low rent. This is our city hopefully one of the values we still maintain and encourage is citizen involvement.

Our taxes pay for the services and we all have a voice which should be heard and considered. I wonder if he understood how he was blanketing everyone with his statements. It would seem that Bill should think a little before making divisive, incorrect, and what would appear to be statements with the intent to insult. But he does have the right to his opinion