Home / Blogs / Bill Smith's blog / Do condo dwellers need to get out more?
Do condo dwellers need to get out more?
About 50 people, most residents of Evanston's newest condo tower, crowded into the building's hospitality room Tuesday night to say how much they hate condo towers.
Well, actually it was how much they'd hate having an even taller condo tower across the street from their building.
The cover image from a brochure distributed at the Sherman Plaza meeting.
There wasn't much love in the room for Tim Anderson or Jim Klutznick, the developers of their building, the 25-story Sherman Plaza, who also happen to be the developers behind the plan to build a 49-story tower across the street on the Fountain Square block.
And many told Alderman Cheryl Wollin, 1st Ward, who was on the hot seat for the session, that they don't know of anyone in town who doesn't share their opposition to the new tower.
The substantive arguments were ones you've undoubtedly heard before if you haven't been on an extended vacation out of state for the past year.
But I was struck by how immovable so many residents were in their conviction that all in Evanston share their beliefs.
Some months back, when Evanston Now did a poll about the tower, 58 percent of those responding were in favor of a building that tall.
Now you never know with an online poll how representative the respondents are of the community at large, but I noticed today that respondents to Evanston Now's poll about Tuesday's real estate transfer tax referendum split on the issue in roughly the same proportions as did the people who actually voted in the referendum.
At least on that issue Evanston Now readers are reasonably reflective of the larger community.
So perhaps there actually are a substantial number of folks in Evanston who like high rises.
Maybe if the folks living in the Sherman Plaza tower got out more they'd meet some of them.
Or maybe they just need to be a bit more open to hearing differing views.
Email this page
There seems to be a pattern in the postings to the blogs that have to do with the proposed skyscraper--all those individuals posting who are against building a skyscraper in the heart of Evanston are registered, verified individuals, using their real names. In contrast, the vast majority of those posters who are pro-skyscraper are not registered and are often not even using first names. Makes you wonder...
It doesn't make me wonder. Those who are "pro-skyscraper" are often vilified on this site as being evildoers trying to ruin the city by promoting dangerous structures that will result in crime waves, terrorism and fiery deaths. Not to mention, clogging the city with traffic and creating general mayhem. You think I want the people who think this way to know my last name now that I've been labeled as "pro-skyscraper"? No thanks... I don't want to worry about some psychopath with an ax to grind trying to find out what my address is. Getting attacked verbally on-line is enough abuse for me, so therefore I shall remain relatively anonymous.
I guess that you are just morally superior.
But seriously, folks, some of us just value our privacy and don't like to maintain a large profile on the web, where anyone in the world can see what we have been writing about.
So that's what it is about..privacy and individual rights, like the right to post anonymously and the right of developers to build towers on their property.
While I'm in favor of the tower (probably not 49 stories, but 35 would be fine with me), does Evanston really need more condos for sale? That should be a big concern right now. We have three new construction buildings going up right now in the downtown area and I’m not sure we need a 4th. We have plenty of retail space that has been vacant for some time – but we are creating more? Evanston will feel like a ghost town soon!
Bridgett,
You say that you are in favor of the tower but in the same post you point out some excellent reasons to be against the tower. In addition to building more condos that won't be sold, the tower promises to cost us much more than it will contribute to our tax base. Keep in mind that building more tall buildings, even 36-stories, will require a larger and more sophisticated fire department. We already have a major problem with the pension system. Having to hire more firemen and purchase more equipment will add to, rather than lessen, our problem. I was at Barnes and Noble yesterday and noticed that they have an armed guard in the store! I thought I was in El Salvador (Central America) where most businesses have to have armed security (ok, Anonymous poster in favor of the skyscraper, I didn't really think I was in El Salvador because it's much colder here). I don't ever remember seeing this in Evanston in the past. If we continue to build taller buildings and create greater density we will continue to become more and more like a major urban center, with more pollution, crime, traffic, etc. I don't find this enviable at all. In fact, I doubt that residents in Wilmette, Glencoe, etc, would ever even consider building a "tower" in their communities. We are being taken advantage of by developers who don't live here, stand to make huge profits based on our enviable location (they often make profits even if condos barely sell), and will never have to deal with the effects of their actions. Good luck to us all if we continue down this path.
Peter -
I just wonder, you say that they are " building more condos that won't be sold", yet you also suggest that the tower will bring "pollution" and "traffic". How does this work out? If the condos go unsold, there won't be very much traffic or pollution, will there?
How would a 49 story tower full of unsold condos generate any more, or less, crime traffic and pollution than a 5 story building on the same spot?
Peter,
You seem to continually misunderstand and misinterpret the fire departments comments on tall structures. Our fire department is adequately equipped and trained to fight fires in such a structure. This new building is subject to the exact same fire suppression requirements as several other residential buildings currently occupying space in our downtown area. If our fire fighters can handle responding to a fire in Sherman Plaza, then they are capable of handle the same situation across the street without investing in new equipment.
A private security guard hired by Barnes and Noble to prevent shoplifting is not a city expense, so I'm not sure what relevance that bit of information has to this discussion.
With regards to your comparisons between Evanston and Wilmette/Glencoe:
For decades, Evanston has been a dense, urban center with 80,000 residents, and not a single family community. Glencoe and Wilmette combined have less than half that, population and yet take up nearly 2 square miles of additional space. If Glencoe and Wilmette are what you seek, then why not move there instead?
Phil ( I don't you who you are because you are not verified),
First, initially the Evanston fire chief said that the city did NOT have sufficient first responders to fight a fire in a high-rise. A 49-story building is NOT the same as a 35-story building. If the fire chief has been more cautious recently, I wonder if it has anything to do with the pension problems?
Second, a private, armed security guard suggests concern about crime. If you read my post you will see that I pointed out that more density will lead to the same kinds of problems found in major urban areas.
Third, are you suggesting that Evanston in the year 2000 was the same as the Evanston of today? Many of the arguments for the skyscraper are based on the notion that Evanston was a sleepy place and the new skyscraper and downtown plan will give it more vibrancy. I lived in Evanston in 1993 and it was much more like Wilmette and Highland Park then than it is now.
Telling a concerned resident to move away if they are against a project is cowardly (like not saying who you really are), insulting, and many other things (but I will stop here).
In general, those who are for this skyscraper have tended to spend more time insulting those of us who are concerned about our community than discussing facts. I don't care if the majority of residents in Evanston really do want a skyscraper. I just want to make sure that the decision involves residents (not anonymous, non-residents) and is based on clear and accurate information.
First, Evanston Fire Chief Alan Berkowsky says the city is fully prepared to fight fires in any high-rise building, whether it's 20 or 60 stories tall.
"The tactics and strategies are the same," Berkowsky said. "Practically speaking, beyond eight stories, we treat all fires as a high-rise situation."
Second, Evanston is already a major urban area. Adding a building full of wealthy condo owners will have very little impact on the crime rate in the downtown area.
Third, I am suggesting that Evanston hasn't been a sleepy bedroom community comparable to Wilmette and Glencoe for decades. It has ALWAYS been denser and had taller buildings than either.
Fourth, I've never told anyone they need to move because they oppose any project. I would however suggest moving if you seek a sleepy bedroom community such as Wilmette or Glencoe, however... because Evanston is an urban area and I would expect it to remain that way forever.
Peter -
Phil just pointed out that this was an urban area long before the towers, and long before any of us were even born. There is nothing cowardly about saying that if you don't like that, and if you prefer the low-density setting of Wilmette or Glencoe, you should move there. If you don't like the noise of the CTA trains, or the wind blowing off the lake, college students, or an urban environment, then perhaps you should live somewhere else.
There is no need for name-calling and personal insults.
Sharon
( a coward who does not use her full name)
Phil,
Agreed, Evanston is a diverse urban community, but that does justify it becoming a forest of extended middle fingers showing their disrespect for existing zoning and citizen views.
The supposed justification for the Tower is public benefit, which I do not find given the existing proposals. Don't respond with " tax revenue". With the TIF the General Fund will not see any until 2019, and given the time elapsed from approval, lease expirations, demolition, construction, sale of units, assessment and actual collection of taxes -- you may not see any revenue until 2017! In fact, once 708 is demolished, the property will be only land and lack "improvement" for tax purposes and the developer has a legal right to ask for a lowered assessment -- then the tax revenue will go down!
As for the fire fighter issue, the question is not that we cannot eventually provide an adequate number of fire fighters to handle the fire. The question is are there enough first responders within the first 10 to15 minutes. Firemen from nearby communities cannot be considered first responders. Even Chicago, more staffed, had problems with the recent high rise fire that displaced 700 people.
Some people are cynical and feel that this project is "fixed". Given the pension fiasco, I am becoming more concerned that the City is vying for a Darwin Finance Award. I can't see, given all the negatives (real and not NIMBY) how this project, as it stands, deserves approval on a rational basis.
" The supposed justification for the Tower is public benefit, which I do not find given the existing proposals. Don't respond with " tax revenue". With the TIF the General Fund will not see any until 2019, and given the time elapsed from approval, lease expirations, demolition, construction, sale of units, assessment and actual collection of taxes -- you may not see any revenue until 2017! In fact, once 708 is demolished, the property will be only land and lack "improvement" for tax purposes and the developer has a legal right to ask for a lowered assessment -- then the tax revenue will go down! "
Vito -
If this really is a serious concern, then the city's lawyers could address it before the permit is granted. I think that most of us who support the tower would have no objection to the city requiring that construction start within a certain period, and that no lowering of tax valuation be granted. The lawyers could write it all up, and get insurance and surety bonds and all that stuff. I think it is an attempt to muddy the waters.
As for the issue of 'public benefit' - well, maybe we need to reconsider zoning in general. Why should a developer have to provide 'public benefit' to build a tower in the downtown commercial district? I consider this a shakedown, just like the 'affordable housing' shakedown. I wonder if you saw the recent article in the Tribune about zoning variances in Chicago. It seems that certain developers - who made contributions to aldermen - were granted variances to build larger or taller buildings in certain Chicago neighborhoods. I think that the best way to prevent this sort of corruption is to just get rid of the arbitrary zoning regulations entirely. ( I understand that Houston does this.) Let the developers run wild! If you guys want to keep the land undeveloped, you are welcome to purchase it.
I also looked at the website of the 'responsible development' group, and note their concern that tearing down the current buildings will result in a loss of jobs and offices. Well, I think that the salesmen at Radio Shack will have no trouble finding new jobs - there is another Radio Shack in Skokie . But why don't you guys ever consider the jobs that will be created - construction, plumbers, electricians, not to mention the sales of housewares. Don't those people matter?
And Peter's argument about 'crime' and the guard at Barnes & Noble: I remember before all the new condos, there were homeless guys sleeping on the floor at the entrance of the old B&N during the winter. It's about time that they got some decent security - and I don't think that the residents of Sherman Plaza and the Optimas are causing the crime. It is ridiculous to suggest that tall buildings cause crime. As long as we are easily accessable by the CTA, and neighboring Chicago, we will have our share of crime downtown. Anyway, I feel safer with more people and more development downtown - compare downtown Evanston with Rogers Park or Waukegan, not Wilmette or Glencoe. Empty streets are dangerous places. I suppose we would have less crime, in absolute numbers, if Evanston were totally empty - but does that really make us safer?
And Peter's 'pollution' argument : I suspect that urban condo dwellers cause LESS pollution, on a PER-CAPITA basis, than the single-home dwellers. And development in downtown Evanston, next to the El and Metra, will probably cause less air pollution than the SUV drivers in Glencoe and Wilmette.
Maybe the anti-development crowd just hates people, because more people=more pollution, more crime.
At this point , I favor the tower just because I am annoyed by the arguments against it - and we cannot overemphasize how this is connected to our high taxes. If the aldermen will not stand up to the anti-tower pressure group, they also will not stand up to the pro-library pressure group, or the other forces that stop us from making tough decisions about spending cuts.
I would not look at it as an 'extended middle finger', but more like an obelisk in Egypt or Trafalgar Square, or the Arc de Triomphe , built to commemorate great military victories. This would be a glorious symbol of our victory over the forces of NIMBY and BANANA and high taxes. Vive la revolution!
Z
Have you been to Houston? The zoning was so loose that you could put a gas station next to an existing residence. Move there.
The justification for the Tower/EMF is REVENUE!, desperately needed because of our city's superb financial acumen. Are you implying that we need the Tower as a commemorative symbol to their financial prowess? If it ain't there, then why? If you really want revenue, then do not build residential, build commercial and retail, where the tax revenue to services is much higher.
I certainly agree that our taxes are too high, but that is due to staffing and programs and not to lack of towers.
If Radio Shack closes, do you seriously think that they will double up staff at another store?
From a green point of view, using existing buildings pollutes less than building new ones. Given the upscale nature of these new condos do you seriously think that all their furnishings will be bamboo green? As for the proposed LEED status, it is so vague that it is more mist than substance.
Those new jobs during construction are not necessarily Evanston jobs and they are temporary. How do they help our local economy?
As for the legal protection against the extended lack of revenue, forget it. Do you think that the City, which has walked away from any real legal fight -- except to protect closed door meetings -- will prevail? Besides that revenue stream I described is a common attribute of any new construction. Do you seriously think that the City will receive projected revenue before it is occupied? What about the TIF? What about the developer's request for TIF money for the Hahn building? What about the real estate market?
Dream on...
At the risk of incurring the wrath of either side of this issue, I have a few questions/suggestions:
1: Are there any accurate, however preliminary, designs for the proposed tower? If so, where can they be found? (other than the suspect brochure distributed at the Sherman Plaza meeting...)
2: Are there accurate figures of the number of/percent of unsold condo developments (according to the Sherman Plaza developers website, that property is completely sold...) currently available in Evanston?
3: A Proposal--could 5+ floors of the building be designed as an indoor shopping center (taking a page from Water Tower Place or the Century Mall on Clark)? The city needs a draw, and this would certainly provide it--not to mention much needed sales tax revenues. I know the existing street level shops may potentially take a huge hit, but it would ultimately increase foot traffic for them.
Finally--a comment. I understand the frustration of paying big money for a lakeview with your condo only to have it blocked within a couple of years by another highrise development. If it's that important to you (and presumably you can afford it--having paid for it once already), why not just sell and buy in the new building? Sorry if that offends people, and I'll be the first to admit that I do not understand the economics of the wealthy.
Jason Hays
Hi Jason,
1. A copy of the packet the developers submitted for plan commission review of the project is available at the main branch of the public library. (There have been some changes to the design since then.) Lots of info there.
2. You can check any of several realtor web sites serving the Evanston market to get a pretty good idea of the number of active listings. Today on ZipRealty.com there were 566 condos for sale in Evanston and 198 single-family homes.
To put that in some perspective, there are roughly 10,000 single family homes, 6,000 condos and 14,000 rental apartments in town.
The realtors' association reports that 616 condos and 369 single family homes sold in Evanston last year. (Both of those numbers are down substantially from 2006.)
So, there's nearly a year's supply of condos on the market now and over a six-month supply of single family homes.
Why a greater supply of condos for sale? It's essentially the only new housing type being built in Evanston. The single-family home market is almost all resales.
This has tended to keep condos more affordable while single family home prices have risen faster.
3. Don't know.
-- Bill
Thanks, Bill--I knew I could count on you for info! I was mostly curious about the sold/unsold percentages of the highrise condos (the new Optima buildings, etc.)
I'll try to look into it...
My wife and I are part of a busy and silent majority that thinks the tower is a good idea. We both work and have two small children and live in northwest Evanston. We are too busy to make the meetings but we read and watch TV to stay abreast of what's happening. And, every now and then, our alderman, Moran, gets an earful in emails (BTW -we are so disgusted with him that we plan to support one of his opponents with money and whatever it takes to get him out). Bill, we couldn't agree with you more. We understand that it's not a professional poll. We know many Evanstonians who like the dynamic development going on in downtown as well as the tower. Again, we support the tower, but we don't think it's such a critical issue where we have to go in front of the Council or Plan Commission every meeting. No, emails work just as well in our busy schedule. I'd love to know if aldermen keep track of emails that support or oppose each issue and what those results are? When it comes to raising taxes, and not cutting services and not listening to the voters (twice now on the transfer tax - will they shoot for 3?) - then we WILL take time to go in front of the Council. And you can damn well bet we will make our voices heard in emails and in the voting booth!!!! Keep up the great work, Bill.
Anonymous Al
Bill claims his poll is representative, despite Chris Ernst's documentation of the problems with it. As a social scientist, I know that ethnographic research can often far more accurately gauge what the public is feeling about various issues. In an informal meeting Alderman Tisdahl was asked if she thought she knew what her constituents were feeling about the proposed skyscraper. She responded that she thought she did, based on her own informal polls over the summer at block parties in her district. She apparently asked everyone she could what they thought about the skyscraper. Her approach drew on classic ethnographic research principles, though she probably did not realize that. Alderman Tisdahl reported that about 80% of the people she polled in this informal way were AGAINST the skyscraper. It is important to note that her district is largely in north and northwest Evanston, an area that does not include residents of skyscrapers whose views will be blocked. It is also important to note that these people are all people with busy lives who are not showing up at official meetings to testify against the skyscraper. Rather than put stock in a flawed web poll on a developer-friendly site, we might be better off accepting Tisdahl's unbiased and informal polling of her constituents as more accurate. Rather than listening to the unfounded claim that "the silent majority in Evanston want the skyscraper," we should be listening to the result of Tisdahl's informal poll: 80% against the skyscraper IS the so-called silent majority. I hope all the aldermen will consider the results of Tisdahl's informal poll when they go to vote. I also hope that they will carefully study the minority report written by the 3 Plan Commission members who voted against the skyscraper. These three of the seven Plan Commission members are the ones with professional training on urban planning and they raise some serious concerns about the proposed skyscraper, concerns that lopping off a few stories will not solve.
"As a social scientist, I know that ethnographic research can often far more accurately gauge what the public is feeling about various issues. In an informal meeting Alderman Tisdahl was asked if she thought she knew what her constituents were feeling about the proposed skyscraper. She responded that she thought she did, based on her own informal polls over the summer at block parties in her district. She apparently asked everyone she could what they thought about the skyscraper. Her approach drew on classic ethnographic research principles, though she probably did not realize that. Alderman Tisdahl reported that about 80% of the people she polled in this informal way were AGAINST the skyscraper. "
Going to block parties and asking people their opinions is a valid research method? And from these data, Alderman Tisdahl concludes that 80% of people she polled are AGAINST the skyscraper? You called this "unbiased"
hmmm....maybe the pro-skyscraper people were busy, so they just didn't have time to attend the block parties, just like they don't have time to attend council meetings. Maybe people who attend block parties have different priorities than people who do not. Maybe the pro-skyscraper people didn't want to go to the block parties because only do-gooding NIMBY's go to block parties.
Maybe, as Phil has pointed out, the pro-skyscraper people just keep quiet because they are afraid of persecution.
And you point out that this is in NW Evanston, so these aren't people whose views would be blocked by the new tower. True, but you are also excluding those of use who live downtown and WELCOME more activity and business in our downtown - that is why we moved here.
This is why social science is not real science.
Your conclusion exposes your real agenda: "lopping off a few stories" won't solve anything...so it isn't about the height - you guys just don't want ANY development. You want downtown Evanston to become like NW Evanston.
Hi Kathleen,
I'm sorry, but I have to call you on your false claim that I said the online poll is "representative." I never said any such thing. Read the article again and you will see that.
The online poll merely illustrate that not "everyone" in Evanston opposes the tower, something that the anecdotal evidence you relay from the alderman also tends to prove.
As a social scientist, I'm sure you understand that 20 percent is greater than zero.
--Bill
No, it was not concern to me because I did not live here. But, that is obvious don't you think?
I am not an idiot. I understand that views can be blocked. But, when you are thinking about the reasons why you are considering purchasing a place, that is something that comes up. If they are angry about that, then let them be. It is not up to you, me, or anyone else to stifle their frustration or lack thereof.
By the way, you are completely wrong about the separate entrances to the parking garage. Owners can enter into the garage from inside Sherman Plaza, should they desire. So, sometimes sales reps do get it right!
Bill,
As a resident of Evanston and in Sherman Plaza, I take offense to your comment that those who live in Sherman Plaza should "get out more"! I have been involved in all of the public comment at all of the meetings, as well as participating in all of the down town plan meetings during the summer. I have spoken to hundreds of Evanstonians who DON'T live in our building, and they are opposed to this proposal as much as we are. In addition, as I attended the meeting with Alderwoman Wollin on Monday evening, I can state that there were more than 50 people at that meeting, and that many of them were from the first ward, who DO NOT live in Sherman Plaza!
Bill, if you are going to write an article, please get your facts straight!
Hi Hank,
I counted. There were 35 people in the room when the meeting started and several more came in after it got underway. The great majority of those who spoke identified themselves as living in the building.
And you're still claiming that everyone in Evanston is opposed to the tower after talking to hundreds of people? What have you got, radar that automatically repels anyone you disagree with?
I spend a lot of time listening to people around town, and somewhat less time expressing my own views. And I can assure you with utmost confidence that not everybody in town is opposed to the tower.
If you want to claim that "most" people in Evanston oppose the tower, I don't think anyone could prove you wrong (or right) at this point. But to claim that "everyone" or "almost everyone" in Evanston opposes it is foolish.
-- Bill
Bill,
I don't live in the tower or anywhere near it. I have no problem with it. I also don't have time to go to meetings and speak like the rest of these people who claim they speak for me.
I'm more concerned with the budget, and with the crime problem outside downtown (not that downtown doesn't have it's fair share as well).
Get over it people. Time to focus on the real problems that plague Evanston as a whole. Many of us out there in the "rest" of Evanston are sick of hearing you whine about your view of the lake. If a view of the lake is that important to you, then move into the new building. Stop wasting time and resources for your own selfish interests. There are critical issues that the city needs to be spending it's time on instead.
" Personally, I’m sick and tired of hearing about the “silent majority” of Evanstonians who LOVE and support a 49-story building. I’m also sick and tired of citizens being insulted by a few members of the Plan Commission and City Council who claim that the "reason we don’t hear from people who like the tower is that those people lead busy lives" and can’t take the time to express their views at a meeting. I’m not making this up, comments like this are actually in the transcripts of City meetings. "
Well, Chris, I am not on the Plan Commission or City Council. I am one of those people who are busy with their jobs and other stuff, and I don't have time to make a lot of noise. Why would I go out and protest if the Plan Commission and City Council seems to understand the situation?
You want to meet this "majority"? Well, we tend to show up only when we get mad - like when people try to raise our taxes. ( See election results).
So I think that Bill was correct with his assessment of the situation. I also like the way he posted the brochure, showing the 49-story tower as 10 times the height of everything else...it exposes the lack of truthfulness, and lack of proportion, of the anti-development people.
But Bill - one thing is not fair: You cannot assume that ALL condo residents are hypocritical NIMBY's. Just as these people are not representative of all Evanston residents, they are also not representative of all condo residents. So 50 residents of Sherman Plaza came to this meeting...are they representative of ALL Sherman Plaza residents, or ALL downtown condo residents? No.
Also, Bill , you suggest that they get out more. That won't help - they will just go out and meet other like-minded people, and form a "grass-roots" organization, like "Condo Residents United to Stop the tower, save the elm trees, save the obsolete civic center, stop the Central St. condos, stop the Kendall redevelopment, and keep Evanston the way it was during the Eisenhower years".
I would like these people to stay inside.
Z
Z, I am one of those supposedly "few angry citizens" who has been involved in Fair Share, Saving the Civic Center, defending a Council member over a free speech issue and nominating oversight of the Council on the pension fund debacle for a Darwin Finance Award.
Why do I oppose the Tower? Aside from the fact that it is tall, not iconic, violates all current zoning codes, has fire safety issues and was illegally conceived by a non-existent imaginary pipeline that will be the beginning of a forest of extended middle fingers posing as buildings -- I can't find any supposed public benefit.
The Council, faced with a mounting financial disaster is desperate for "development" revenue and is grasping at anything without really examining the economic variables in their decisions. The pension fund oversight, years if not decades in the making, is a classic demonstration of the financial acumen of the Council and staff. The Civic Center is not "obsolete" -- the City has neglected maintenance for a decade after getting a lousy contractor for the roof and pining for a new Civic Center as a monument to that lack of responsible diligence. Will they recognize that a phased rehab over several years costing $10 to $15 million is wiser than spending $50 to $70 million for a new monument, that they do not have?
There are many reasons to doubt the "benefits" of this endeavor. First of all the state of the real estate market, demonstrated by the delay of four current real estate developments in the "pipeline". What about the 40% rented condos in Sherman Plaza? Next where is the money for the supposed public benefit? If this is to augment the general fund, we wont see anything until 2019 because any incremental tax revenue will go into the TIF. Leases in the building run into 2012, if they are not vacated, you won't see any demolition until then. Demolition, construction, and sale of units will take several years. They may not get financing released until they sell a certain number of units (remember Sherman Plaza vying to be Evanston's Block 37). During that lull, the current tax revenue will go down, since there will be only land and no improvement. Assuming it is built, by the time it is assessed and tax bills sent out, will take additional time. We may not see any incremental tax revenue until 2017! Do that NPV!
What about the loss of 50% of the class B offices? There isn't anything downtown or anywhere else that will fill that need.
Do the schools benefit? Nope, unless there are special considerations the TIF stays downtown.
What about fire safety issues? The first responder situation would make me uncomfortable living in any building higher than eight stories.
There are other issues: traffic, wind tunnel effects, etc. but I won't dwell on those lest I arouse the silent majority out of their sleep.
What about the Final Minority Report of the Plan Commission? I have not seen any response to that. The majority members have not made a detailed response to deflect the objections of the "angry few".
So Z, we "angry few" are not trying to maintain the Ike years, we just want a viable city and do not want to repeat San Diego's experience.
Oh will you stop with the 'fire safety issues' please! Other's can agree/disagree with the rest of your issues, but on this, you are incorrect. The fire department has stated plainly that this building will not require any additional equipment or manpower. Just because the project is applying for a zoning variance does not mean that it can get away with shortcutting the high-rise code.
If there's a tall building in Evanston to have fire anxiety over, it would be either the Chase bank office building or the Sherman Plaza.
An office tower has a much higher average daily population than a residential building, It is filled with occupants who may not be as readily familiar with their surroundings as a condo resident, and has much more combustible fuel than a residence. The Sherman Plaza tower has a bigger floor plan with more units per floor than the proposed tower on Church, and it has two long corridor wings and more stair towers than the compact footprint of the Church Street project.
Please note: none of these buildings are actually, or in any way, at risk of a fire. I bring them up to try and deflate some of the hyperbole describing the building as unsafe for the occupants or the city.
Vito -
You have repeated a few of the lame anti-tower arguments. One that really stands out is your apparent concern about the loss of precious "Class B" office space. I really don't understand why preserving "Class B" office space should be considered a priority for the city. If there is a shortage of office space in the city, the market will take of this: rents will go up, or new offices will be constructed (assuming the NIMBY's on this board don't object), or buildings can be converted to offices. I really don't understand why this issue is brought up all the time. I think that the market can take care of the 'Class B office' issue. Is there really currently 100% occupancy in 1603 Orrington, Rotary, and the other downtown buildings? More importantly, should government be regulating this kind of stuff?
As for financing, etc....whatever...certainly the city could require that the current buildings not be knocked down until financing is in place for the new project, and the city could make sure that it is protected. That isn't your real concern - it is a distraction. If Bill Gates, Oprah, and the Sultan of Brunei all personally guaranteed financing for the project, you guys still wouldn't want the tower. Like your supposed concern for 'Class B' space, that is a distraction. And really, if the housing market doesn't work out, and this terrible 'Class B' office shortage exists, then the council should just allow the developer to make some of the tower available for office space. Again, the market can take care of this.
Now this 'traffic' issue, if the tower is built. Again, this seems bogus. Many of these tower residents will likely take CTA or Metra , or walk, to their jobs.
Probably the most dishonest anti-tower argument, on the anti-tower website, is the 'affordable housing' argument. The anti-tower crowd claims that the tower will not help contributed to 'affordable housing' in Evanston, yet they also claim that the tower will contribute to an oversupply of condos in Evanston. I guess that they just don't understand, that "Oversupply of housing" = "Affordable Housing".
{ Being anti-market, they think that a 'shortage' of housing can only be cured by heavy handed government action, not by private developers building more houses. }
Why does the "Final Minority Report" require a response? I assume that there was a "Final Majority Report"? That was where the majority of the commission made their statement...they don't have to respond to every dissenter after they have made their decision.
Second, the Civic Center.... why is this building worth preserving? The layout isn't desirable for a municipal building, stairs are hard to navigate, and old buildings are expensive. Shouldn't the Civic Center be centrally located, like downtown? ( Or do the NIMBY's all live up north?) Maybe we should let the developers add a few more stories to their tower, with the lower floors being reserved for precious 'Class B' offices and municipal offices. {How about this? City of Evanston sells Civic Center to private developer. City moves into new tower downtown . Private developer converts former Civic Center into 'Class B' offices! Affordable housing, in form of high-density housing, built on former Kendall site. }
And where did this stuff about San Diego come from? I thought that the danger was that this town would become a 'miny Chicago'. Now we are worried about becoming the next San Diego?
Z
Zachary,
In rank order.
First of all where is the public benefit? It supposedly is tax revenue, but where is it? First of all, any incremental tax revenue goes into the TIF and not the general fund. Thus the biggest fiscal obligation, the general fund/pension funds, see nothing until 2019 - nor do the schools, except for incremental students. The last student census indicated that all the new condos had generated 13 students. Assuming worst case, nothing happens until 2012 when the leases run out. Then demolition, and then building -- at least two to three years, then sale of condos (I will be generous and assume they have financing, which usually isn't there until they sell a certain number). After all the condos are sold, then the County assesses and finally by 2016 or 2017 we see some TIF revenue. Big deal! BTW once the building is demolished the property is just land and has no improvement and I bet the developers will want a downward reassessment.
NB the pension funds payment is estimated to grow by an incremental $500,000/yr so by them it will be $2 million more in addition to the $12 million now.
Class B offices serve a need for professionals, and those people who do business with them do other business here. So they go elsewhere where the market provides them affordable rent.
Ah yes, the Civic Center. Do you have a mere $50 to $60 million to give to the City for a new building? The existing building can be rehabbed in phases for $10 to $15 million. Considering the financial morass we are in, I think even our Darwin Finance Award officials would think that a more prudent way to go. Old buildings are expensive if you ignore maintenance for a decade and choose lousy contractors. To throw a little "green" into the discussion, the greenest building ecologically is a rehabbed rather than new building.
FYI San Diego is legally bankrupt. They could not meet their pension and other obligations.
The Final Minority Report just happens to be made by three professionals in city planning, preservation and finance and not just the majority who are architects, some of whom are compromised by business relationships with the developer and architect. The majority have not made a detailed report. In fact they have not delineated some of the questions they wanted from the developer. That their fellow commission members gave issues that opposed their views I would think deserves a response other than lifting bafflegab from the developer literature and uttering praise such as "iconic" (it is just tall).
Interesting that you do not mention that they have removed a level of retail, thus making it less attractive as a shopping destination. Besides second level retail does not do well anyway.
I said nothing about affordable housing. Anyway the money the developer is providing in lieu of affordable units is required by ordinance and thus is not an incremental public benefit. The affordable housing issue is another topic. Given the financial situation of the city, and that we have had as many as 982 HCV/section 8 tenants here, is not going to be solved by "development".
The real estate market is not exactly bubbling here. Even though prices have not dropped, sales have dropped considerably in volume. At least four condo projects have been put on hold or proposed to be changed to rental and hotel developments. 40% of the Sherman Plaza condos are rented. Not exactly a steaming market.
Last but not least, I resent the NIMBY argument. We are not against the tower because it is tall. That is something that the developers and proponents are trying to impose on dissenters, along with being the "angry few". We are against the Tower because it provides NO appreciable public benefit for the variances they are asking. Worse yet, the entire process is compromised by complete disregard for existing zoning, and the lame excuse of "being in the pipeline" to exclude it from pending zoning changes. A pipeline that is legally non-existent.
Bill,
I appreciate the “viewpoint” graphic. I wish more online publishers were upfront about what was pure fact and what articles included opinion. That being said, I have a “viewpoint” of my own.
You hit the nail right on the head when you said “you never know with an online poll how representative the respondents are of the community at large.” How true! First of all, online poll results are not scientific – probably why Tribune polls add a disclaimer to the results. Unlike other polling methods, results of online polls tend to gain more credibility when there are a significantly large number of respondents.
There are many reasons for online results being skewed in one direction or another. I don’t pretend to know your demographics or number of “unique” visitors to EvanstonNow. However, I do know that site visitors can vote more than once. Unlike a referendum or telephone poll, there are no built in safeguards to prevent multiple online votes. How do I know? Because my online vote on the RETT was recorded at least three times. When I visited the site from home without being logged in, I got a vote; when I visited the site from my work computer I got another vote; and when I visited the site from a different web browser I got a third vote. The fact that the proportion of RETT votes was similar to your poll was amazing, but hardly scientific.
My second point is about your comment that “if the folks living in the Sherman Plaza tower got out more they'd meet some of them” implies that the opinions of residents who attended the meeting don’t count because of who they are or where they live. If I lived in Sherman Plaza, I might take some offense at that line of thinking.
Finally, I don’t think saying that the “substantive arguments were ones you’ve undoubtedly heard before” helps anyone. In particular, a good deal of the conversation at the meeting dealt with the economics of the proposal and NOT the height of the building. People expressed concern that the Council was so mesmerized by the thought of the minimal tax revenue that they hadn’t truly analyzed the real costs to the City (e.g., loss of established retail and businesses to the city, loss of affordable class B office space, increased cost of City services without contribution until more than a decade from now, the non-measurable costs of changing the character of the City, etc.)
Personally, I’m sick and tired of hearing about the “silent majority” of Evanstonians who LOVE and support a 49-story building. I’m also sick and tired of citizens being insulted by a few members of the Plan Commission and City Council who claim that the "reason we don’t hear from people who like the tower is that those people lead busy lives" and can’t take the time to express their views at a meeting. I’m not making this up, comments like this are actually in the transcripts of City meetings.
I’d love to meet this “majority” of Evanstonians who support the tower. However, I refuse to believe that they even exist until I actually see them speak on the issue – not through some anonymous posting online. I’ve been to every Plan Commission meeting on the 708 Church proposal and I could count the number of people testifying in favor of the proposal on one hand (not including those on the development team).
Regardless of whether they like or dislike the architecture of the tower, I would urge your readers to do some research on what the true costs of the proposed skyscraper are to the City of Evanston, and not just what the for-profit developers are pitching as a cash-cow for the City. Transcripts of the Plan Commission are available on the City of Evanston Website, the proposal will be introduced to Planning & Development beginning this coming Monday, and there is a wealth of information online (including the Minority Report from the Plan Commission hearings) from the Evanston Coalition for Responsible Development website (http://www.evanstoncrd.org).
Hi Chris,
The polling software is designed to impose some limits on multiple voting by allowing only one anonymous vote per internet protocol or IP address plus one vote per registered user. But, as you discovered, if you visit from different machines with different IP addresses, you will be able to vote anonymously once from each machine.
That, of course, is a "feature" which is equally available to persons on all sides of an issue.
I'd like to be able to assure that people could only vote once while also keeping it very easy for people to vote, but I know of no technical means to achieve that goal.
You're a web guy, Chris. If you know of a way to do it, give me a call and we can talk about it. (I doubt that the rest of the readers would be interested in the technical discussion.)
-- Bill
I am actually bothered by your opinion piece. First, you don't live in this building nor were you told that by the sales reps that the residents would have lake views if they bought on a certain floor. Those people should be angry; it's their right. Also, we will have to live next to all of that dust and noise from the construction. Last I checked, we have the right as Americans, to state our beliefs and concerns. Are there a different set of laws here in Evanston?
Also, you forget that there are a fair number of people who have lived in Evanston for a number of years, are now downsizing to a condo, and are very concerned about the massive change the structure will bring to the city they love. They happened to spend a lot more time in houses, stores, and restaurants through their lifespan than they have in the condo they currently own. According to your comments, however, they should get out more.
Many people asked Wollin, what were some of the reasons why people supported that tower? One lady even asked to speak to this people so that they could have a debate. I even proposed one potential reason for why some people would want the tower across the street: a potential increase in condo value.
Also, why would you cite as an example of Evanston opinion, your survey? The numbers and types of people who access that survey is hardly representative of the overall demographic. When you poll someone online, you immediately bias the poll to people who are technically savvy and/or potentially younger than the average population. Given how the baby boomers are rapidly adapting, this will change in the next 3-5 years, but that is the future, not today. The numbers of people who attended the polls yesterday are a much better cross section of Evanston people than most web based surveys. The two, in their current state, cannot be compared.
I suggested that given the controversial nature of this tower and the great cross section of people attending the polls, that topic should have been added as a referendum. As you'll remember, since you were there, I was told that referendums such as that are not added to the ballot. So, although the city council had the opportunity to gauge public opinion, they decided not to do that.
Given that you are in the information business, a positive way to push this process forward is for you to identify and document people’s reasons for supporting this tower. Perhaps that can be one of the springboards for opening up dialogue between the two camps. I think that would be a better and more positive approach than slamming the residents of Sherman Plaza.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your comment, but I think you need to reread the piece. Nowhere in it did I suggest that people aren't entitled to have their views -- favorable or unfavorable -- about the tower.
I am suggesting that it is a sign of insularity and "group-think" for tower opponents to claim that "everyone" shares their views.
First, the statement is demonstrably false.
Second, it strongly suggests that the speaker has failed to test his own views against contrary arguments -- because the speaker is only "hearing" people who agree with him.
Third, even if "everyone" did favor a particular course of action, it doesn't necessarily make it right. Didn't your mother ever ask you what you would do if "everyone" was jumping off a cliff?
Shifting to other issues you raised in your comment ...
Why do you imagine that the city should be bound by what some condo sales rep may have told you? The city was not a party to that conversation. And you should know that zoning is always subject to change. Fight the zoning change all you want, but don't claim you are legally entitled to a view to the horizon -- eliminating everyone else's opportunity to develop their property -- because of something a sales rep told you.
To test your assumptions about the demographic distribution of Evanston Now users, I invite you to take a look at the data about Evanston Now on the web traffic measurement site Quantcast. You'll discover that baby-boomers (and I count myself in that demographic), are quite well represented.
Evanston Now has covered the tower debate heavily since it began, and we'll have much more coverage as the debate continues. If you'd like, you can find many of the previous stories here.
-- Bill
You'll have to live with the dust of that place? Not sure if you remember or not but your building itself created quite a bit of dust for a lot of people too! But that probably wasn't a concern to you because you weren't living across the street.
It will block your lake views? This is what happens in real estate - buildings get built. When I looked at that building the sales rep told me the owners and public would have completely separate entrances to the parking garage - I just assumed that would never happen, which it didnt. You probably should have realized that a sales rep cannot tell you what's going to happen on land they don't own (yet).
Post new comment