Home / Blogs / Bill Smith's blog / Height limits misguided in downtown core
Height limits misguided in downtown core
The debate over tall buildings in downtown Evanston is back in high gear.
Aldermen will hear from the public Monday about the proposed 49-story tower on the Fountain Square block after listening to the developers' presentation this week.
It's a safe bet many speakers will say the planned building is too tall.
The Plan Commission Wednesday started trimming height limits called for in the draft downtown plan and will take another whack at it next month.
This widespread fear of height is misguided. And it endangers Evanston's future.
We do need breathing room around big buildings downtown so that people living in them have an interesting view out their windows.
That can be achieved with setback and floor area ratio rules as described by Plan Commission Chairman James Woods and others.
Greater height combined with slimmer building profiles and greater separation between towers makes it easier to provide the interesting views building residents want. Combine that with retail uses in the base of the buildings and you have an appealing, largely sunny streetscape for everyone in the community.
Recent developments downtown including Sherman Plaza, Optima Views and the Park Evanston provide good illustrations of the principle. They are designs that would still have been successful had they been built even taller.
Shorter, stouter developments -- think Optima Horizons or the much older Carlson Building -- cast far more imposing shadows across their streetscapes.
Evanston has been home to tall buildings for decades now. Walking around downtown it's become clear to me that once heights get beyond three or five stories, the impact of increased height on the street-level pedestrian is vanishingly small, as long as the tall buildings don't form a solid wall looming over the sidewalk.
The downtown plan calls for what's been dubbed a wedding cake approach, ranging from a 42-story limit for the Fountain Square block to a 5-story cap in so-called traditional zones.
But the plan's wedding cake looks like the reception was half over and the cake had huge hunks carved out of it.
Email this page
Bill,
We have both fallen into the trap that the developer is using to draw attention from the basic fact that there are no public benefits in this proposed development by focusing on the revenue issue.
Public benefit under a planned development is something that the developer gives to the city in exchange for violating the existing zoning ordinances. Public benefits are varied. They can be streetscape improvements, providing greenspace, restoring historic structures, etc.
The developer points to the affordable housing fee in lieu of affordable units. That is a requirement by ordinance and cannot be considered something that the developer is giving from his funding. It is not given -- it is required.
The developer talks of restoring the Hanh facade, but wants TIF money! The status of the facade is in good condition, big deal!
Similarly any restoration of Fountain Square is not offered out of his funding, but from money derived from the city.
The developer wants the city to acquire the Rothschild building, demolish it to provide more space for developer commercial uses. Is that a public benefit?
The LEEDS certification could be considered a public benefit, but the offer is so vague that it cannot be quantified at this point.
If you look at new aerial views of the city that have just appeared on the city website, which ironically pops up with Fountain Square, and scan the view you will see shadows from other buildings. Use your imagination and consider the dark shadow that this building will cast on the streetscape. A public benefit?
Is the streetscape or traffic improved by adding entrance and loading docks?
One can go with public benefit issues (and we will) and compare those issues against the steadfast refusal by the developers to compromise on these issues.
The paucity of public benefits, not height and not just revenue are the real issues.
Can you delineate specific public benefits that this proposal offers?
"The developer wants the city to acquire the Rothschild building, demolish it to provide more space for developer commercial uses. Is that a public benefit?"
Yes, it is. Anything involving demolition of the Fountain Square building should be considered a public benefit.
But this really looks like a shakedown. We won't let someone build in Evanston unless they contribute sufficient 'public benefits' ($$$$$). This is why so many countries in the developing world are so poor - you can't do any business there unless you pay off the local government, the unions, the mafia, and others It becomes so expensive to pay off these guys, that nobody wants to invest there. Does anyone want to invest in Bangladesh or Haiti?
Hi Vito,
All you've said is that whatever the developer is offering isn't enough.
Tell us what dollar value you want.
Assume, to make the math simple, that the tower is a $100 million project.
If you were suddenly an alderman, entitled to vote on the issue, would you approve the project if the developer offered additional "public benefits" that cost $1 million .... $5 million ... $10 million? Feel free to say which particular benefits you prefer -- but be sure to attach a realistic dollar cost to each.
Then we can have a reasonable discussion about whether such a project with that additional overhead could be financed.
The developers have outlined a whole string of what they consider to be public benefits of the project and the council under the zoning ordinance appears free to decide either that those are sufficient or that it wants more. Tell us, Aldeman Brugliera, what dollar amount of additional benefits do you want?
-- Bill
Bill, You are still caught in the developer's trap about revenue and costs.
The first task is not what dollar number they should fork over for "public benefit" for this residential development, but to ask a more fundamental question -- what should go there? Should it be residential or some other form? That is the real issue and one in which I think the city has been deficient. Has the Chamber of Commerce done an economic impact study there regarding public benefit, in all its variables, to see what would maximize public benefit? I bet not.
Different development there could provide more public benefit. The benefit should not be to the developer alone. There are ancillary benefits that could accrue to the city, business and citizens, if we take off the blindfolds that limit our vision to just high rise expensive residential development and blind obeisance to developers and their consultants.
Come to the hearing Monday night with an open mind.
As to the anonymous complaint about HUD money going into the 5th and 8th wards, the answer is simple. Evanston is basically landlocked, and land for building is expensive. Short of taking over existing property in other than those wards by government action, the least costly approach (remember it is taxpayer money) is to build in areas that have lower acquisition costs. The 8th, 5th and 2nd wards have that.
This is the same reason that HCVs wind up in those wards, the rents are less, and presumably HUD and the County can get a bigger bang for the buck. If you look at HCVs (at one time there were over 900) they are in those wards. You could buy two or three properties in some sections of those wards for what one would cost in Moran's ward. Most of that is probably R1 anyway. That is why the limousine liberals preach affordable housing, they know it will be built elsewhere, and they can drive by and pat themselves on the back.
Bill would argue that 708 land is expensive, and that is why we have to build expensive high rise condos, otherwise the developer would not have any incentive. Obviously, lower cost housing has no place in that perspective.
Hi Vito,
So, it seems that the answer to my question of how much public benefit you would find appropriate is that no amount of public benefit from a primarily residential project on this site would satisfy you, isn't it?
And were the developer to propose new office construction, I'll bet you'd say that is unacceptable because it would rent at Class A prices and the poor starving office renters in the existing building can only afford Class B rents.
I have to conclude, Vito, that you're really opposed to any new development downtown. You say you're not, but any actual project that's proposed is unredeemably unacceptable to you.
-- Bill
Bill,
You are jumping to conclusions. I am not against development if it makes sense and does provide public benefit. This does not. First of all we have to define public benefit for this project. Just because it is a high rise high end condo development with some sparse retail is not a public benefit.
The developer is not going to fix Fountain Square, he wants money from the TIF for the Hahn building. There is no proposal to find or create space for the displaced Class B tenants other than a vague offer of assistance. The proposed revenue stream has some interesting twists. No one has answered the ominous signs of a continuing real estate bubble. Why have several projects been delayed or changed recently? Or the advantages or disadvantages of chain versus local retail businesses?
Again what are the public benefits?
Again, Vito, how much 'public benefits' are necessary? Bill asked you twice, and still no answer. 'Class B tenants', 'real estate bubble', 'chain vs local retail'...who cares? You are changing the subject.
Enquiring minds want to know, how much should the developers of a tall building be required to pay in extortion fees..um, I mean 'public benefits'..to get permission to build?
{Now violating my own desire to stay on topic: I see nothing magical or special about 'locally owned' businesses. I think that Peet's has the nicest quality, atmosphere, and consistency of any coffee place in town. Argo is a chain, too..I am glad that they are in Evanston. Who cares who owns it? Same with all of those dear departed local pharmacies....I don't miss them one bit, because CVS and Walgreens have better selection, better prices, and clean, well lit environments. }
To all the anonymous "pro-development" (why are you afraid to identify yourselves?) -- you tell me what the developer should provide?
It seems the City is willing to dismantle existing and proposed zoning for what? All that has been presented is a proposal for expensive condos in a fracturing market with no public benefit other than a mandated affordable housing fee and a vague green proposal. Several projects have already been delayed or changed in scope in Evanston because of the market. What do they know that this developer does not? Are we going to have another Block 37 here?
Come to the meeting tonight and see for yourselves what mere citizens can do that our city administration and so-called "expert" consultants have not been able to discern.
" To all the anonymous "pro-development" (why are you afraid to identify yourselves?) -- you tell me what the developer should provide? "
Well, Vito, I really don't think that the developers should be forced to provide anything. I think that the current low-rise zoning downtown is ridiculous, and building a tower should be ENCOURAGED, not penalized.
So, other than a reasonable architectural review, etc., I think that city council should get out of the way.
So my dollar figure on public benefits is : $0.00
But it would be nice if they had one of those revolving restaurants on the top floor. And it was an IHOP. ( Oh no....le Peep might go out of business...can't allow that...)
Anonymous me
Bill - Maybe because you live “closer to downtown” you don’t see the effects of the tall buildings on the horizon as others do. I live a good 6 or so blocks west of Maple Avenue and from my bedroom window, as I lay down to rest, and wake in the morning the last and first thing I see each day is the twinkling of the red lights on top of Sherman Plaza. For me, this is not pleasing and apparently many Evanston residents agree.
What is most interesting to me is that PUD’s seem to be the cause of the problem. Every PUD so far has brought buildings that are way out of scale with the zoning ordinance. I am not yet convinced that Form based zoning is the way to go. Too often aldermen have been wooed by the idea of increased tax revenue by the various large and tall projects in town. Unfortunately, that revenue is nowhere to be seen, though, of course the buildings can be seen for quite some distance.
This discussion is way too focused on what is good for the developers. However, it should be centered on what is good for Evanston. Just because it makes economic sense for developers to build taller on smaller land doesn’t mean that is the best economic plan for taxpayers in town. Certainly when it makes more financial sense to build, say another McDougal Littell type building, which brings a higher commercial rate to the city, with more office workers to spend money in downtown, instead of another tall residential building which could and likely will stand mostly vacant through this housing down turn, why not do that instead? Vito is correct.
It should matter not what is economically viable for developers to make a profit. It should and clearly does not matter what taxpayers want in their town. The simple problem is that developers are dictating what they will build to meet their specs, and the city council is not. We do have a zoning ordinance written in plain English. Why not follow it? Why continue to play the game that you have outlined, which amounts to zoning for sale?
Mimi Peterson
"I live a good 6 or so blocks west of Maple Avenue and from my bedroom window, as I lay down to rest, and wake in the morning the last and first thing I see each day is the twinkling of the red lights on top of Sherman Plaza. For me, this is not pleasing and apparently many Evanston residents agree."
Close the drapes.
Really, I mean that. Or you can move - if a flashing light bothers you so much, perhaps the Chicago metro area is not for you.. There are going to be lights at night, either from a tower, or from the 1:00 a.m. Metra train. There is plenty of inexpensive land near Matton or Carbondale - it is quieter there.
Amen, Bill. The anti-tower agenda exposed and discredited!
And just in time, right before the council meeting!
It really is clear now that opposition to the tower is really opposition to ALL development. It's not about height, or fire safety, or wind, or 'public benefit', or 'historic preservation', or mismanagement of city finances, or pension deficits.
The anti-tower crowd just doesn't want ANY development. They think that we can maintain merry old Evanston and it will be like Glencoe or Wilmette, with a quaint little downtown full of boutiques selling fancy crap. WRONG! It will be like Hyde Park and Rogers Park, were activists, many of whom work in the university/non-profit sector, fight against ANY new development.
The result: decay, crime, no commerce...
Anonymous me
I couldn't agree with you more, Bill. BTW - in case people forget, not all developers interested in Evanston hang in there. Case in point, Optima had an option to buy property on Chicago and Davis in 2006. They wanted to build a luxury high-end highrise (something Evanston does not have) but the planning commission asked too much so Optima, which has already built 3 highrises in Evanston, simply walked away. So, that property remains a one-story storefront when it could have been much more and brought added tax revenue to the city. Consider the developer who wants to build the tower on Church - even if they get city permission they have to land a certain amount of anchor tenants even before they can get the financing to build. So, if it happens, that highrise probably won't get built until 5-10 years from now. Based on the current economic conditions, if the city demands too much such as restricting height, then that developer could conceivably walk away. And we all lose. The highest and best use even now in many locations in downtown Evanston calls for more highrises. Demand is still there, though supply is up.
Anonymous Al
The real issue in this City is this: low-income individuals and families are being warehoused in very specific locations in this city.
Look at the HUD money that the City of Evanston, through the City Council, hands out. Why does the 8th Ward deserve yet another low-income multi-unit building? And why did the City give a for-profit developer more than $1 million for a building in the 8th Ward (three units of which will be for low-income individuals and families) when there are already many empty low-income units available for purchase on the market?
Ask your alderman why only the 8th Ward keeps getting more than its share (how about even more than double its share) of low-income housing. Or is that the way that many residents like it -- keep "those people" down there where most of the residents of Evanston don't need to deal with the crime and other anti-social behavior that is prevalent in the 8th Ward.
Here in the 8th Ward, we have the worst school in the District. Why do you suppose that is? Could it be that many low income families don't have the time to be involved with their children's education? Countless studies have shown that lack of parental involvement frequently harms children's achievement in school.
So many alderman (think: Alderman Moran) and residents pat themselves on the back for this wonderfully diverse community. But if you don't live in the 5th or 8th Wards, ask yourself how many low-income individuals and families live within 4 blocks of your house?
If low-income housing is a priority for this City, it needs to be a priority for all wards, not just those wards that the City Council has decided "deserve" to be warehouses for everyone who is low income.
How about Alderman Moran -- the next low-income project goes in your ward or, better yet, on your block? Time to put the City's HUD money where your mouth and your house are. Is that why Alderman Moran has the highest voter turnout of any alderman -- he makes certain that those low-income projects go somewhere else?
The b-log entry has some good points about the subjective experience of height. However, I am not convinced that set backs reduce the burden of height, especially when lower levels are barely disguised parking garages. I will admit however, that in say 3 or 4 years or so, I or anyone might change our mind and admit that greater height is in fact after all good, no matter what the trade off. Who knows? any subjective impression can change over time. I would instead want to bank on a consensus as developed through the City ordinance. What we have now are draft plans and ideas. We have no petition to amend the zoning ordinance and zoning map. If we did, those within 500' of the proposed changes could petition the City Clerk, and if correctly petitioned could force the Council to a super majority to approve the changes. If the Council then voted for the changes, I would admit that the process in place had worked. Upward closer to the sky we go. However, until such formal processes have occurred, there is no real downtown “plan,” there is no zoning ordinance or map amendment proposed. At the very least, every owner within 500’ of the proposed changes would need to be sent written notice of the public hearings, with exact details of the proposed changes as petitioned. I wonder what the Plan Commission thinks it is hearing at this point. And if it hears it, how will the actual, formal hearings that would be necessary in the future for a ordinance and map amendment, take place fairly? What should we do with City processes that have done a “dry run” of an ssue, indicated an opinion, and then later come and ask the community to participate in actual hearings on ordinance and map amendments?
Bill,
You are not listening, it is not the height per se. It is the City maiming, if not destroying, what is left of the shambles of our zoning code, appealing to a fictional "pipeline" in the hope of gaining revenue for their Darwin Award Financial mess. That is what the developer is feeding them, and they are taking the Kool-Aid as fervent believers. It would be very helpful if some of that fabulous TIF revenue (that can't pay for the Sherman garage) could be used for a financial tutorial for our esteemed Council, some of whom believe that delaying pension fund payments would be a good move after ignoring the problem for over a decade, despite numerous signs that something was amiss. A city administration that believes in the wisdom of deferred maintenance, as Fountain Square and the Civic Center ably demonstrate.
The so called "angry few", who are a lot more numerous than officials want us to believe, are some of the same who pointed out the folly of a new Civic Center, given our financial predicament, and 83% of those voting agreeing.
It is not about the height of the tall, not iconic, proposed development, it is about the supposed benefits
Hi Vito,
It would be much easier to carry on a sensible discussion with you if you would leave the pension mess and the supposed financial incompetence of the aldermen out of a discussion about the shape of buildings allowed downtown. Those issues are irrelevant.
The existing zoning code and what aldermen have or have not done to it is of only tangential relevance, because I'm focusing on what a NEW zoning code should permit.
Here are the truly relevant questions:
1. Does population growth downtown benefit the city?
If you want to argue that increasing the number of financially-self-sufficient people who live downtown is not beneficial to the city, I wish you would provide some actual evidence rather than just harrumphing that you don't think TIFs work.
I did a story about the tax increment financing districts' performance a few months back, and as far as I can tell, it appears the Downtown II TIF has been a major success.
If growth is undesirable, then we should probably forbid construction of any new buildings downtown -- short or tall. But if growth is desirable, then we need to decide:
2. What building shapes best achieve the goal of growth while also meeting other goals like having a pleasing pedestrian environment?
Since I'm convinced that population growth in downtown Evanston is desirable, I tend to prefer building designs that will be most effective in achieving growth while maintaining an attractive environment for residents, shoppers and workers in the downtown area.
I believe that well-designed tall buildings with appropriate setbacks and ground floor retail are among the most effective ways to achieve the balance of growth and attractiveness I believe the community needs.
And that’s why I think we should not limit height in the downtown core.
Therefore I think your focus on penalizing developers for seeking greater height by trying to extract huge "public benefits" from them is misguided.
We might better penalize developers who refuse to build tall -- who won't fully develop their land.
I think your actual goal in demanding more and more "public benefits" is to so overload any tall building proposal that the financing won't work and the developer will walk away.
That way you can avoid seeing tall buildings built while still claiming to not be opposed to height.
-- Bill
Bill -
Your editorial was excellent and to the point. But your response to Vito really got to the point, about the motives of the anti-development crowd, and how they keep interjecting distractions, like 'fiscal incompetency' or 'fire safety', 'public benefit', 'congestion' into this debate. They just don't like the tower - or some of them want to preserve the current buildings because they are renting space in them.
I also question Vito's repeated 'extended middle finger' analogy. I was driving around downtown yesterday, and realized that in most parts of downtown, you can't even see the Sherman Plaza - it is blocked by shorter buildings. ( This is basic trigonometry..a 50 ft. building immediately in front of you will block out a 500 ft building that is behind it.). Really, in Chicago the only time I see the Sears Tower is when I am directly underneath it, or when I am coming down the Edens and see the skyline on the horizon. This "extended middle finger" on S Wacker is barely noticeable when I am walking up Michigan Ave. So it is with this proposed tower. If it is built, most of us downtown will barely notice it, if it has sufficient setbacks, just like Optima Views doesn't bother me now.
The only people who really will notice it are those who live on Central St., or Wilmette, or Glencoe - who will see the majestic skyline of Evanston when they look out their windows to the south - or when they are in their back yards, which is where NIMBY's spend most of their time.
Anonymous me
Bill - What I see in alot of the development going on here is the developers are getting a quick buck and not really helping the tax base as you might believe.
That is they are all claiming they can not build underground because of cost - therefore the limit the retail space on the first floor of their buildings - The condos built on Central street are good examples - thus the city in the end loses the tax revenue and it actually is hurting the new residents in the downtown.
This limits the types of business and places business that generate less foot traffic due to size limts on retail space.The council members have no clue as to this effect.
Many of these new buildings are just plain cheap and poorly designed - the streetscapes has been screwed up with poor sidewalk design- the city is not maintaining the trees and other maintenance. There is a lack of proper set backs. By the way at several public meeting that the community foundation had I suggest we use Urban design several years back- I should have know the city would screw it up - after going to a few meetings on Central street I saw the special interest in the city were pushing the consultant and the neighbors were not being heard.
As for the TIFs the council appears to continuely be going to the TIFs for additional funding- of other pet projects - also I never got a good answer what happen on the Sherman Ave garage - as far as why the auditor stated their were issues. I also remember staff covering up the 3 million dollar over run claiming it was material cost which was alot of nonsense - also the price of the garage went up way beyond the estimates. I would like to know how the garage will tie into the new development?
The tall tower will have a large effect on the sky line of Evanston - the already tall buildings can be seen from a distance they have impacted the sky line already - I do not see a great deal of public benifit here in terms of retail or other benifit to the city at the moment.
The agruement by some that any new building that adds to the tax base is good, then why don't we eliminate the zoning all together? That is let anyone build anything they want. Why not let someone build a fast food establishment in a historic district next to a million dollar home? Or have off track betting in the 5th ward next to the Mayor's house? Or allow adult book stores along Central street. Clearly we have a zoning ordinance for a reason, and it is not about being a NIMBY, it is to preserve the build enviroment, our city council members lack the vision to proper drive the development here, they continue to hire consultants and waste time on affordable housing and giving our tax dollars to affordable housing programs, and support groups that support criminals the list goes on -
Monday night should be interesting.
.
Hi Junad,
The discussion I tried to start was about building height in the core of Evanston's downtown. If you want to have off-track betting parlors next to the mayor's house, you make that argument.
I don't see what's wrong with having tall buildings visible on the skyline, but if you can explain what's so bad about it, why don't you tell us.
I live a lot closer to downtown than you do, and it bothers me not at all to see tall buildings on the horizon. To me it means I live in a vibrant, urban community.
-- Bill
Bill - after listening tonight to the meeting - I am not too impressed we are getting much - it also appears we may have less retail after the project is complete than before? I am not as interested in the height issue or the fact the developer wants to add more condos ( that is his business) but the issue of what I will have to pay for this as a taxpayer. The city is in the habit of just plain wasting money. The developer stated they would assist with fountain square by providing design support - what about paying for it? The city has already screwed up with 100% cost over run above the estimate. No doubt it will be more if we ever even fix foutain square!
Don't worry if the alderperson get involved in this the cost will go up more - and we tax payers will foot the bill.
There are a variety of issues here.
First of all the city is paying good money to consultants to develop a new downtown plan and zoning, and the first thing the Council does is exempt this proposed development from that by using an imaginary pipeline.
The real motive for the city is revenue, as our recent tax increases demonstrate only too well. That the City needs revenue is in good part due to bad financial decisions. How do we know that their view of this development is not subject to that lack of financial acumen?
Now let us get to the real issue for this development, which is public benefit, which I find lacking. The revenue stream, when net present valued is too low compared to what we receive now, so the near term revenue stream is not a benefit, since the city needs money now, not five-ten years downstream.
In addition the revenue stream, there are other public benefits as well, particularly when the variables of residential, commercial and retail are considered. The residential concentration here is a loser compared to other possible configurations. This is especially germane given the flux in the building market, which can deteriorate much further.
The developer is steadfast in opposing any considerations that can add to public benefit. I do not think that we are "loading" or stacking the deck against the developer, just trying to do well for the citizens. You may say I am harping on it, but the City's past demonstrated financial acumen has not impressed me, nor have the questions arising from the pension fund alleviated that concern.
Growth for growth's sake is not the issue. Nor is it just height or building shape. It is my tax (and others) money, I want the city to maximize the common benefit as much as possible. This proposal sure as hell ain't it. Tune in Monday night.
Post new comment