Let Evanston Progress, not Regress

As a NYC resident (moving to Evanston) I find the choice between development and community to be a false dichotomy. For those that have lived in a large (40+ story) apartment building, a strong community within the building/block is VERY common. A community will form as long as people have a chance to interact. I'm not saying Evanston needs 40 story buildings, I'm just saying that building size does not preclude community.

As with most arguments, the most effective solution is usually the middle road. Development must happen, and unreasonable restrictions can stifle investment. Without investment, a cities dies. Either developers pay for the improvement, or the citizens (the city) do.

I'd urge strong focus at encouraging pedestrian traffic, and make car use a occasional event. Higher population densities are NEEDED to enable a pedestrian-centric, environmentally sensitive, public-transportation-using, vibrant city. More people means more tax revenue, and high density makes city services more efficient to distribute. And mixing zoning between residential and light commercial encourages residents to walk to the supermarket, dry cleaner, and drug store. All this builds community.

I'm not sure how to interpret all the "Save Evanston" talk I've been hearing. If It means save a suburbanized infrastructure dependent on cheap energy and a hugely expensive road infrastructure to support low-density housing, I'm not sure it's worth saving at the expense of evolving. If it's to save a vibrant, progressive community, priding itself in diversity, then that's worth saving. It's why we are moving to Evanston. And that will evolve regardless of how tall the building is. Zoning can address the civic necessities of larger buildings: public space, mandatory set-backs, proximity to public transportation, and street level retail all encourage community development, and benefit all. Tall buildings needn't be soulless monolithic monstrosities, and making a profit is not in itself immoral. Let's make all those developers RICH while at the same time using their development plans to benefit the community. You want a taller building? Then fund the rebuilding of the METRA and El stations. Endow police and fire services. Build rooftop infrastructure to allow wind and solar energy collection.

But it's a question of HOW to develop, not whether or not. Maybe we choose not to allow a building a boring over-scale building, but what if it's a beautiful landmark? What if it requires groundbreaking environmental standards?

What does progress mean for Evanston?

Unfortunately, it is evidently clear that this is a much broader issue for Peter, and perhaps many of the anti tower advocates (ECRD, etc).

Because, I really do not think it is about a tower, or 708 Church Street, or a a random parcel of land.

More - it is about stopping any and all development of any kind in Evanston.

Moreover - it is about unloading a political viewpoint on us, the residents of Evanston. And in this case, as Peter has affirmned- it is the view of the Democrat Party.

Peter - fight for your crusade to "Save Evanston." But leave the politics and political orientation / views out of it!!!!

Peter,
Your attempts to politicize opinions on the 708 Church Street development (or apparently any high-rise development) are disturbing.

In the past, you've tried to suggest that this building will become a terrorist target. You've also suggested that it will be unsafe (by repeatedly mis-interpreting comments from the fire chief) and will result in more crime. The ECRD group has mis-represented the height of the building on their propaganda and has embraced a tag-line that proclaims Evanston needs to be "saved" from this development.

This kind of fear mongering and constant misrepresentation of the facts is very much a Republican party tactic, regardless of your twisted interpretation of what is, and what isn't "progressive".

The term progessive has always been associated more closely with the Democratic party than with the minimalist government views of the Rebublican party.

Really, Peter?

The term progressive was originally associated with the 'Progressive' movement or Robert LaFollette , centered in the Republican heartland of the upper Midwest. As a US Senator, LaFollette and his 'Progressive' allies aligned themselves with the Republican caucus. While they were temporarily expelled for their views, they did return to the Republican fold when the Republicans needed to keep their majority in 1926.

While the Republicans of the day were definitely pro big-business, anti-worker, and all that - it is important to remember that the Democratic party often was equally reactionary, as it was dependent on Southern states and for its support.

While the two parties have to some extent switched places now, the reason I bring this up is to point out that being opposed to big business - whether it be big banks or big developers - is not always the progressive or enlightened thing to do.

Many of the most reactionary, bigoted segregationists opposed big business and big banks because they wanted to protect their 'unique' way of life, and disliked all the 'problems' supposedly caused by urbanization - 'crime', 'density', ethnic and religious 'outsiders,' and all the other things that threatened to 'harm' their charming way of life.