Home / Blogs / Jonathan Perman's blog / Why the tower is good for Evanston
Why the tower is good for Evanston
Testimony of Jonathan Perman
Executive Director, The Evanston Chamber of Commerce
Before the Evanston Plan Commission
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Thank you Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Evanston Plan Commission.
With your permission Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks, I would like us all to recognize the passing of David Schulz, the founder and executive director of the Northwestern University Infrastructure Institute. David would have loved the discussion we are having tonight about the context of urban development. He was one of nation’s foremost minds on transportation policy, city and regional planning, and civic leadership. David spent many years in Evanston and during that time he was a wise counselor and teacher to The Chamber and to the community. His other notable achievements included stints as the County Executive of Milwaukee and the Budget Director of the City of Chicago. David offered brilliant insights and he was never afraid to speak the truth. He will be missed.
I am Jonathan Perman, executive director of The Evanston Chamber of Commerce. We represent 650 member companies who employee over 25,000 people. Although The Chamber, as an organization, has not taken a formal position on the proposed project at 708 Church Street, I speak as a professional with over 20 years of experience in creating and advocating for urban development public and business policy as well as in labor markets and economic development.
Before we look at the future of Evanston, let’s remember the past. If your frame of reference for comparing Evanston to the past is 15 years ago, then you are comparing the Evanston of today with Evanston’s nadir. An era when Evanston’s downtown deteriorated, when several large employers exited the city as well as landmark retailers like Marshall Fields and Wieboldts.
Evanston responded with a new zoning ordinance in 1993, several worthy public investments, and has benefited from a demand for urban residential living.
And so, for the last 15 years, Evanston has experienced physical growth in its downtown with significant new residential and retail spaces, a new hotel, numerous dining establishments, entertainment venues, and marvelous public spaces.
The looming change to zoning in downtown Evanston is a watershed event that Evanstonians need to oppose with unified vigor. If the city approves the building of a skyscraper, well above the limits of current zoning, we will essentially be opening the floodgates to future projects that will lead to increased pollution, traffic, and demands on city services. Rather than experiencing a windfall in tax revenue, we will experience a dramatic change in Evanston's character. Most of us were attracted to Evanston precisely because it combines the charm of a small, yet vibrant, city with tranquil peaceful neighborhoods. The city produced a well-thought-out downtown development plan in 1989 that combined sensible development with the maintenance of the city's historic downtown character. The current plan to build a skyscraper of unprecedented height, along with the recent construction of tall condos, promises to violate the 1989 plan and to destroy the charm of this city. If the options are either a more congested, taller downtown or a sleepier downtown (as some people pejoratively describe Evanston's past), then I say: give me a sleepier downtown! But such options are limited since Evanston is already quite vibrant. So I want a third option: keep Evanston like it is - vibrant yet livable! Anyone who wants to preserve the beauty and historic architecture of Evanston should become active in an effort to stop this massive, skyscraper project. If we don't, then this process will continue and before too long we will ask ourselves: how on earth did this happen to our lovely small, city?
One of the speakers at the Commission hearing on Wednesday night gave an excellent example of the type of "public benefit" which is properly accorded a municipality in "exchange" for site development allowances (variances) in a planned development, such as additional height, higher F.A.R. or more units.
This speaker said that it would be a true public benefit if the developers would donate several floors of their proposed building to a civic use. I haven't had a chance to visit the library at the American Planning Association in downtown Chicago, but I suspect that historical research would reveal that this "civic use" public benefit was the type of benefit contemplated when PDs became a hot land use topic about 20-25 years ago.
Having attended several meetings on the West Side Plan, I have heard West Side residents are begging for the establishment of a job training center in order to get youth off the streets and into productive activities. Of course, the City does not have the funds to build such a center. What a wonderful thing if some developer would offer to give the City a true public benefit in the form of free or inexpensive space in their development in which to establish a youth training center! Now that is the kind of public benefit that would warrant site development allowances . . . although, of course, not hundreds of extra feet in height over what base zoning allows.
First I want to say - I am against the city selling the current civic center to over develop the site. I want the current building to stay with no additional density added to site. The building should be convert to upscale residential no affordable housing.
I also do not want the city to move into 100,000 square foot facility - the city needs to downsize to a 50,000 square foot facility and eliminate employees and entire departments.
Final the developers do not necessary have to give the city the space - but as a public benefit - maybe the space could go at cost versus cost plus a profit.
It makes sense. If you're unhappy with something, you'll come to meetings and let people know. You'll argue your point, ask questions, and challenge what is being presented.
Conversely, if you are happy with something, you are far less likely to show up to a meeting and say as much. Most people who support something such as this project will not show up at a public meeting and say so. They see the pictures in the paper and read about the proposal and think "I like it, I would be happy if that got built". The unfortunate reality is that most people see the public forums as a means to criticize something, but don't see that same forum as an opportunity to voice support.
It is refreshing and encouraging to know that someone like Jonathan Perman is willing to show up before the Evanston Plan Commission and voice support for a project like this, even though he was likely surrounded by people who disagreed with his viewpoint. He seems to have a solid knowledge of where Evanston once was, and where it should be headed, and provided some valuable insight and historical context. I applaud his comments and am thankful that he took the time to formulate a reasonable and well thought out response to some of the common criticism directed at this, and all proposed developments in the downtown area.
In all fairness, Mr. Perman has the right to his opinion. And I am grateful that he did not mis-represent himself by claiming he was speaking on behalf of the Chamber. He correctly stated that the Chamber of Commerce has not taken a position on 708 Church. I have a feeling if all "650 member companies" the Chamber claims to represent were to be asked their opinion on the proposed development, a majority would probably give a thumbs down. Note, I did say that this was my opinion.
Anyway, let me shed some light on a couple of paragraphs of his testimony last night and give my views:
Mr. Perman states that:
"The proposed project at the north end of the Fountain Square triangle meets a key objective of a planned development – and that is to encourage quality."
Wrong. Planned Developments are a mechanism to allow minor variances or allowances, when a project exceeds the zoning ordinances. The key to Planned Developments is that there MUST be significant and measurable public benefits that outweigh the variances requested. These benefits and standards are written into the zoning ordinances. The developer hasn't come close to offering anything that resembles such benefits. Remember, the BENEFIT must meet or exceed the allowances requested. A "tall" order in this case. In the best case, Planned Developments can be used to encourage development of "blighted" areas. I hardly think that 708 Church is a "blighted" structure.
"The height of the building is not a primary element impacting pedestrians. The environment of those who walk by will be characterized by the low-rise podium and a streetscape that will essentially be the same as it is now."
When was the last time you walked by a 49 story structure that is over twice the height of any building within miles and didn't look UP? I think the structure will "dominate" the streetscape and impose itself on every bit of character of Evanston. If the streetscape will be the same, why are we in such a hurry to change it before the Downtown Planning Process is complete?
"The walkway frames large windowed retail spaces, allowing passersby glimpses of activity within. And the facade defines a traditional street pattern, while introducing broad sidewalks and ground level planting bringing an urban quality to this part of downtown."
Why don't we use some of the existing TIF money to make the existing retail more "inviting". Why do we want to bring more of an "urban quality" to a tiny piece of downtown that tends to bring balance to the neighboring buildings?
"The project offers opportunities without any tax incentives to bring more customers to Evanston and, in fact, helps projects that ironically did get taxpayer assistance."
No tax incentives? The developers have already testified that they will need some TIF funds to help them "protect the Hahn building" -- which currently doesn't need protecting as it already has landmark status. Not to mention the additional city services the building would require without contributing because the funds belong in the TIF.
"So please don’t look at this project in isolation but also how it contributes to other buildings in Evanston."
It doesn't "contribute" to other buildings in Evanston. What it contributes to is the private "vision" of the developers. That "vision" does involve some sort of profit.
I don't buy the arguments. Just my opinion, but I bet there are some other taxpayers in this town who agree.
Jonathan Perman stated the following "With respect to parking, the existing property at 708 Church Street generates a need for 182 daily parking spaces yet provides none of them. The new development, by comparison, will generate a demand for 393 parking spaces and provide 271 of those spaces. The result is a net gain for the downtown of 90 spaces.
Also, there are plenty of spaces across the street in the Sherman Plaza Garage to handle any parking overflow. That garage was built for future capacity needs like this project."
I think the math here is very poor from a taxpayer perspective. The project is short 122 spaces - but Jonathan's analysis tells us there is a net gain. 122 space would cost the developer maybe 4 million dollars plus to build. Beyond the fact we are losing property tax on this, he suggest there is space across the street. The Recent city audit showed the Sherman ave garage to have been a problem. I recall cost over runs in the 3-4 million range if not more. Who paid for the Sherman ave Garage we taxpayers and we are still paying. I do not want to give the developer any freebies so to speak. He needs to build all the parking period. Why should we taxpayer subsidize him with free parking in our garage? Public official need to stop ripping us off. Ofcourse most of them have other useless personel agenda to waste our tax dollars!
I am not against more residents in the downtown nor the building. But I am not too impress with the building so I think it needs alot more discussion. I think it needs to be a real jewel if the city allows it to go way beyond the current height limits. That is a true architectural landmark.
I also think the developers needs to provide more public benifit - the $900,000 to the affordable housing fund needs to go to renovate fountain square - and maybe more.
I realize most dislike the height, but since the height will change the downtown - the developer will need show a great deal more public benifit to the city in some why beyond just building a building which at this point appears not to be happening.
Post new comment