Hyde Park Urbanist

More Strawman Silliness

On Thursday, Feb 21, Hyde Park Progress took aim at some of the neighborhood volunteers who devote free time to propping up our community institutions.  First, there was a long diatribe against the Co-op board for continuing to exist without a store.  "The Dead Grocers' Society", C-Pop calls us, showing off his flair for employing a turn of phrase in pursuit of nastiness.  If he deigned to investigate, he might come to know that winding up an entity's affairs is neither fun nor quick.  Even after the last checks are cut to our creditors, we'll still need a board to oversee the auditing at the end of the fiscal year and several other details.  The next board election will probably be the last, but it still needs to happen.

And in the second half of his seemingly endless complaints, he attacked the then forthcoming Harper Court survey by mocking the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference thusly: "the HP-K CC assures us that (community imput's) on its way, in the form of a high-tech online survey. Based on the user-friendliness and clever organization of the current HP-K CC website it should be impressive."

Two days later-- and I have to give credit where credit is due-- he recognized immediately that the survey was, in fact, very thoughtfully done.  Well, I assume he recognized that.  He linked to it and suggested folks take it.  He didn't actually take back his mocking or praise the survey, but we can hardly expect him to do something his religion apparently prohibits.

Well, now he's taking the side of the HPKCC and the survey-writers.  Using a letter to the Herald as a launching point, he's complaining that the HPKCC's Development, Preservation and Zoning Committee is undermining the survey and he's appalled.  Except, of course, that he's a little confused.  It's not actually the HPKCC-DPZ committee (how's that for a name?) that he's upset with, but rather a group operating in connection with it.  The Harper Court Visioning group, which includes anyone who wants to come to a meeting, is working with a local architect to promote high standards for Harper Court's replacement.

There's only one problem.  There's no conflict.  The survey deals with the larger issues of the impending development-- it's basic goals, the kinds of businesses it should include, some big picture concerns about the physical impact on the neighborhood, etc.  The visioning process is simply producing an architectural rendering of what a revived Harper Avenue might look like at the current Harper Court site.  The survey and the visioning are not in conflict.   

Now, I have some problems with where the visioning process is going.  I missed the first meeting-- my bad-- so I didn't have the chance to complain about the scope of their project, which has been confined to the Harper Court site instead of including the parking lot.  My sense of where the development is going is that the Harper Court site, east of a revived Harper Avenue, will probably be used for a parking garage.  Cal Audrain and I have both written about our similar visions of the new redevelopment, so I'll just say that the city parking lot is the better spot for the new retail because of its visibility and the entire development should eventually include a couple very tall towers.  The approach to the parking garage should be ostentatious off Lake Park, but the garage itself can be hidden--built where Harper Court now stands.

The contentious issues are likely to be the size of the development (and I favor huge) and the inclusion of a dedicated public space.  That public space shouldn't be where Harper Court now stands, but rather somewhere more visible.  Certainly, the community has a perfect claim to a public space on the parking lot, since it's city-owned land.  I'd argue the community has some claim to the Harper Court site, too, but that's a murkier question.

But even if the visioning group comes up with a product that doesn't really fit into the redevelopment of both parcels, that hardly means the process will be a waste or that it conflicts with the future results of the survey.  The idea is simply that the architecture for Harper Avenue should surpass in quality pic-left, a rendering by the group's architect.  I think that may be very useful.  If a developer tries to put an unadorned parking garage on the east side of Harper, we should say "no", that we want it to look at least as good as this.  Retail should go on the first floor, opening out onto the street, and the structure should be inviting.  That hardly seems like much to ask for.

And let me point out that the visioning group is assuming that all the present Harper Court buildings will be torn down.  There's nothing to preserve here except the concept of a public space, which could be re-sited a bit to the east.

The whole idea of an enlivened Harper Avenue, designed with New Urbanist principles in mind, would probably appeal to the folks at Hyde Park Progress if they gave it a chance.  They can't, though.  No, the visioning group, you see, is led by Jack Spicer and they believe that Jack is a man of enormous power and prestige, worshiped by the NIMBY strawmen HPP continues to reinvent time and time again.  No one is more important to HPP than Jack; their website nearly revolves around him.  Ok, I exaggerate, but it's obvious that HPP is antagonistic toward Jack personally, not on the plain of ideas, but simply because they hate him.   

The truth is that Jack's a fun guy to have a beer with and he knows a great deal about both the man-made and natural landscapes of Hyde Park.  He has a great ability to lead groups toward a consensus that takes in many viewpoints and he understands how to organize to be politically effective.  When HPP sticks to discussing ideas, they're worth a read.  But their habitual snideness is usually directed toward volunteers in the neighborhood and is unhelpful in building community.  And when they get personal about Jack, they tend to devolve into silliness.

Security Around the New Press Building

Some of the employees at the New Press Building are asking that more bus routes stop in front of their building.  There were a couple of robberies between the building and the bus stops at Stony Island this winter.  Much of what they're asking for seems pretty reasonable and, since most of these CTA routes are paid for by the University, I'd expect them to get what they're asking for sooner or later.

The employees could catch most of the buses by walking a couple blocks west, but let's look at the path they have to take to get to Stony Island.  First, they exit their building, which mostly stands alone.  A building is under construction to the south, but the lawn on the west is empty and the Midway sits, almost always unused, to the north.  On the east is the Metra viaduct, which is the pic on the right.

The columns under the viaduct have been recently painted white and there is some lighting underneath.  There used to be an entrance for Metra here, but that's all boarded up now.  These pics were taken during the day, so there's a little more sunlight than there would be at 5:30pm during the winter.  Plus, about halfway, there's that little cubbyhole that a pedestrian can't see into until you're right there, which is a little scary.

And then once you get out from under the viaduct, you walk along this charming parking lot until you come to the intersection where your bus stops.

Now, Metra should fence off that cubbyhole and the University should ask the CTA to have their buses stop at the New Press Building.  In the near future, it may even be possible for folks to wait in the lobby until a light signal tells them, via GPA technology, that their bus is approaching.  All those things would make these employees feel more secure.

However, the biggest problem, in my opinion, is how little foot traffic is generated at this corner of campus.  The University may feel that the corner of 60th and Stony Island is a relative Siberia, far from the action.  A better way to look at this corner is that this is where the campus meets the neighborhood.  Plus, along with 55th at Cottage Grove, this is a great spot for retail because Stony is a high traffic avenue with plenty of transit.  A Walgreens, at the very least, would probably do great there and generate a little more foot traffic.

Even better than that would be a large mixed use facility.  That parking lot is a decent size parcel of land.  If you want to dream a little, you might even imagine a large building spanning the Metra tracks, taking advantage of its air rights.  (Pic-left shows the unused space on the west side of the viaduct.)  There might be some retail on the first floor, parking on the next couple levels, maybe some office space and then residences above.  Non-student residences at this corner would make it safer because the area would have the feel of eyes on the street 24-7.  Even the possibility that there might be eyes on the street is often enough to deter crime.

In short, this is a wonderful location, but folks feel unsafe here because there are too few people around.

Internet Survey on Harper Court

A note from the President of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference:

OK, folks, the survey on Harper Court priorities is now live. PLEASE take the (average) 6 minutes to answer the questions. And then forward the link to ANY and EVERY one you think might have an opinion. www.hydepark.org/survey. That's it.

The more opinions that are gathered, the more valid this format will be. So please take the time. Skip any questions you don't want to answer, mark low priorities as such, and GIVE US YOUR OPINION. Then send the link to any one else who has ideas about Harper Court (and the adjacent parking lot). Hyde Park can do development well--it just needs community input.

Thanks! George (HPKCC)

The survey took me 4 minutes with a couple more minutes writing some comments.  And don't forget to bookmark www.hydepark.org.  It's a great place to find out when meetings are taking place and what issues are bugging the neighborhood.  While the website is generally text-heavy and can be a little overwhelming to browse, it's also an amazing resource for the history of community discussions.  Sometimes, I come across remarkable stories and photos tucked into the nooks and crannies.

Evolution of Hyde Park Center

The worldwide headquarters of the Hyde Park Historical Society will be filled with local urbanists at 1pm on March 1.  Jack Spicer promises a presentation and David Schalliol will be exhibiting photos.  At 3pm, it's on to the Neighborhood Club for a coffee reception and brief talk, with a walking tour of central Hyde Park to follow.

Entitled "The Evolution of Hyde Park Center", this extravaganza holds much promise.  I, however, will  have to take great pains to suspend disbelief since I don't believe in evolution.  It's obvious that Hyde Park has existed pretty much as it is for 6,000 years, which is just the way God created it.  And I'd suggest those Hyde Park Progress folks watch what they say because their strawman NIMBYs may be the only ones going to neighborhood heaven.  Anyway, folks will have a chance to make up their own minds on March 1.

Audrain Answers: Listen to Skosey

(by Cal Audrain)
Anyone concerned about development in Hyde Park in general, should read the "Point of View" column, by Peter Skosey, of the Metropolitan Planning Council, in the February 6 Chicago Tribune.  In the article, prompted by the recent Tribune report on zoning change abuses, Skosey suggests

Aldermen ... can lead residents, business owners and other local stakeholders in a visioning process to create a plan for local growth that all subsequent development decisions will follow.

...disputes (often borne of misinformation and uncertainty) could be avoided with a community plan that lays the groundwork for change by recognizing and responding to what residents want and where they want it. A vision plan evaluates a neighborhood's basic elements as they exist today -- its housing stock, transportation options, economic base and open space. It also assesses strengths and opportunities, which local stakeholders can then use to avoid pitfalls and plot next steps. Perhaps most important, a vision helps local residents draw logical connections between what they have and what they want, focusing people on common goals needed to make their ideal community a reality.

Jane Jacobs on Import Replacement

Lately, Jack Spicer's been carrying around a copy of Jane Jacobs's The Economy of Cities, as if it were the Bible.  Years ago, I'd read her deservedly acclaimed The Life and Death of Great American Cities and when Jack mentioned that she'd used the concept of “import substitution”, which I talked about here, I figured I ought to take a look at Spicer's bible.  After all, if Jacobs was stealing my ideas, I needed to know about it.  At first, it looked like this was worse than I thought.  Jacobs wrote The Economy of Cities in 1969, when I was seven years old.  Stealing ideas from a child is a low crime, indeed.*  But it turns out there are some key differences.

Jack wasn't the only one drawing this connection, by the way.  In a Feb 9 comment on this blog JPhilip writes:

I think the idea of import replacement is a bit misplaced here. Part of the problem is that import replacement is usually used in reference to manufacturing. Moving a clothing store to Hyde Park or any other store for that matter is more equivalent to transplanting industry. The bookstores that are already here and so wonderful began by selling to the Hyde Park neighborhood. 
Taiwan actually developed on the model of import replacement, and here I would suggest reading Jane Jacobs, Cities and the Wealth of Nations, pages 99-101.

Ok, ok, I read it already.  Now let me provide a bit of context here.  The Economy of Cities was written a bit before import substitution, as a national economic policy in Latin America and India, had been allowed to run its course. And, in fact, she knowingly changes the term to import replacement as a way of differentiating her theory from theirs.  Her theory is concisely summarized here:

The missing process-- the engine Jacobs finds for all economic life-- is import replacement. She illustrates this with the beginnings of industrial life in Japan. Starting in the late 1800s, Japan imported bicycles. Repair shops sprang up in Tokyo, at first cannibalizing broken bicycles for parts. When enough of these existed, workshops started producing some of the most-used parts locally. More and more parts were made, until ultimately Tokyo could produce its own bicycles and export them to other Japanese cities. (pp. 63-4)

Note a couple things about this story.  Jacobs goes out of her way to point out that this process had to be economically feasible.  That is, bicycles assembled in Japan had to be less expensive than imported models.  Note also that Jacobs leaves out any mention of government subsidies for this measure of import replacement.  Nor, does she credit some large entity, like a bank or manufacturer, with developing this strategy.  Jacobs was not an academic so she doesn't source this story.  Someone, somewhere may have looked into this to see if a large entity actually did coordinate this process.   But the point is that Jacobs was consistently leery of large entities, especially the government, and especially when they meddled in the marketplace.  Her illustrations of economic success revolve around competitive small businesses growing organically, not some single monopolistic enterprise with powerful friends.

I'd assert here that Jacobs would have no trouble applying import replacement/substitution to retail.  She's very clear at the end of the book that she foresees services replacing manufacturing in importance. And I'd also assert that Jacobs would be suspicious of the idea that a large entity like the university or the city should meddle much with the market just to attract a specific type of retail.  If, for example, a clothing retailer wanted to locate in Hyde Park, no one should stand in its way.  But, subsidizing a single monopolistic retailer would generally be a bad idea.

Import replacement is an important concept and I intend to write again concerning how we might think about it as it affects Hyde Park. But it shouldn't be seen regarded as a goal uber alles.  If the city or university get involved, there are both opportunities and traps.

*Note to wonks: I'm totally kidding about the idea-stealing

Spicer Speaks: Density, Diversity and Decision-Making on 53rs Street (Part 2)

(Part 1 of this Jack Spicer article is here.)

There are three important ideas that were not articulated at the 53rd Street Vision Workshop but that I believe could reassure the community that the changes being discussed are thoughtful, respectful and hopeful:

1)  Generally, low-rise (3-4-5 story) development is the best way to increase density on a street like 53rd without increasing congestion and grimness.  The many 1- and 2-story buildings could be redeveloped to 3, 4 and 5's, and new mid-rise (8-10 story) buildings could go near (2 blocks) the Metra and the buses at Lake Park.  This increases density all along the street but concentrates it where the most traffic already is and where the majority of new residents would have easy access to public transit and be able to moderate their automobile needs. 

Tall buildings are a danger elsewhere -- they cause more congestion than they are worth (to the community, not the developer) and can kill the "walkability" of a pedestrian street.  But the biggest danger of misplaced tall buildings (more than two blocks from transit) is that they would seriously distort what could be a steady, evenly distributed private development process on 53rd Street.  A tall building would suddenly saturate the residential market (rental and condo), sucking up all the demand all at once.  This strangles what could be steadily increasing development pressure on the small 1- and 2-story buildings away from Lake Park that could be redeveloped into 3, 4 and 5's in an orderly development market.  We'd be left with one or two new tall buildings and the same old little buildings.  Limiting, by zoning, the new buildings west of Harper Avenue to 4- and 5-stories wouldn't limit total development -- it would increase the total number of new residential units and spread them out gracefully along the street.    

2)  Smaller (in terms of covered land area) developments are better than big ones because they integrate gracefully into the existing neighborhood.  Large-scale (land area) developments dominate and deaden the streetscape even if they are low-rise.  This is because diversity of buildings (type, age, scale, use, style, residential and commercial rental cost) and diversity of people (age, race, class, gender) go together and are both essential for an urban (lively, complex) neighborhood.

3)  Broad, open, meaningful, and on-going participation by the community is necessary to create a complex, but clear, set of development guidelines.  Centralized, secretive, fast, top-down planning and development almost never work.  Nobody is smart enough to figure it all out by themselves.  And, more importantly, good citizens and good developers don't like to be manipulated.  Good citizens want genuine participation in the process and good developers want clear rules and guidelines that apply to everybody without favoritism.  If the governmental officials work with the community to create clear, consistent and enforceable development guidelines and then get out of the way, I believe the best developers will come to Hyde Park and will help us create the kind of increased density that would enrich Hyde Park's city life.  Democracy and the market often turn out a pretty good dinner when the political chefs help set the menu and then get out of the kitchen.

Audrain Answers: Harper Court, the Near Future

(In this article, Cal Audrain responds to an earlier Hyde Park Urbanist post.  Hopefully, Cal will grace this blog with his wisdom from time to time.)

I agree with James that both the Harper Court parcel and the parking lot should be looked at.  In fact to do best by the combined site, it would probably be beneficial if a couple of adjoining properties could be acquired and included.  And the visioning effort by the community should cover other developable sites in the community.

I don't see the issue as being whether the Harper site or the parking lot site should be developed for retail, but rather, how to lay out the entire site for a good mix of retail, parking, office, studios, housing and public space.

I think a focus on an open space on Harper does make sense.  You don't want it on Lake Park precisely because that is where the buses, cars and trucks are.  And you don't want it all indoors.  In spite of what James wrote, outdoor spaces are important for a variety of reasons and there are ways their use can be extended into the shoulder seasons of spring and fall and even events in the winter season.   This is part of place making.  I envision the open space being about the size of the present area, but pushed East to allow the street to open up and placed at grade, as suggested by Aaron Cook,  so the usable area is larger and so it can flow onto the sidewalks and across the street as needed.  And to allow easier handicapped access.  I hope to see more than one restaurant opening onto the space designed with outdoor seating and with the kind of winterizing they use in Paris for their sidewalk cafes, with awnings, canvas sides (or movable glass panels that seldom get moved) and heating units.  They work in all but the worst weather.

I think the area can, in time, support a large enough development that it will be multi story and there will be pedestrian access at the first and second level.  Ideally, service would be put below grade to separate it from the pedestrians and allow a central loading dock arrangement for the entire complex.

Lake Park has the greatest visibility to the site, but I would put the major retail entrance at the Northwest corner of 53rd and Lake Park, hopefully in a high rise structure that would twin with the bank building to become a landmark entry to the entire shopping area.

The parking deck, of whatever number of levels is necessary, would be entered off Lake Park from the middle of the block, and North-South pedestrian flow would be on Harper and on an extension of old Lake Park running through the new development.

I would like to see the entire first level devoted to retail and restaurants, with services, like phone companies, moved to a second level.  The upper floors of the various buildings in the complex could be a mix of more retail, offices, artist studios, and housing.  Maybe a boutique hotel would fit in.

An overall development of this size could take a variety of building heights, possibly including 2 or 3 high rise structures. There is no reason to limit any of it to 3 or 4 stories.  Again, as Aaron Cook noted, the buildings to the West and North of Harper Court are 5 stories, to the East is a railroad embankment.  5 stories around the open space with perhaps one taller structure for accent, with a couple of buildings of 12 or more stories at the Lake Park edge could be very attractive.  As pointed out at the workshop on December 8, the location, along Lake Park and adjacent to a Metra stop is ideal for higher density.

This is a lot of development, especially combined with the pending redevelopment of the Harper Theater and the Village Center site.  The community and the market probably could not absorb it all  right now. So a plan is needed that would allow it to be phased, with different architects and different developers doing separate parcels.  However, it is necessary to look at the big picture and to look beyond the current market.  Don't fill up too much with one use, just because it is a hot commodity right now.  Be patient.  Save space for other uses that will come along later.

Improving Retail for Hyde Parkers

There are two important ideas that the University and the rest of Hyde Park should consider when developing a plan for improving our retail options.

The first is that if you make it quicker to take public transportation somewhere, it has the same effect as moving that location closer to you.  For instance, from 57th Street to Michigan @ Wacker takes about 40 minutes on the #6 bus.  On the Metra, that trip takes about 25 minutes.  It's as if the trip just became 5 miles instead of 8 miles.  Plus, trains are more likely to be on schedule and they're more comfortable.  If the Metra ran every ten minutes from 7am to 11pm and you could transfer to CTA vehicles for the price of a CTA transfer, we'd have the functional equivalent of an el line.  The added daytime, evening and weekend service would mean that you could easily use Metra for shopping.  Executing a Gray Line-lite plan as I've outlined here would put us 25 minutes away from the best retail shopping in the Midwest.

Improved transit would also, practically speaking, make all the other neighborhoods along the South Chicago line closer to Hyde Park.  Gray Line-lite would make retail in Hyde Park more convenient for all those potential shoppers in southeast Chicago.  A lot of folks live within a 5-minute walk of the Bryn Mawr stop about 15 minutes away from the HP stops.   

And that brings me to the second most important point about our retail options.  I don't think I could argue the point any better than C-Pop at Hyde Park Progress has:

The key to Hyde Park improving its nightlife is to make it interesting to OUTSIDERS. Neighborhoods with nightlife (or buzzing retail districts) are where you visit from someplace else. Right now, with its particular demographic mix, and particular cultural characteristics, HP doesn't support this kind of thing on its own.

In the neighborhoods I've lived in that were hopping past midnight, this was always the case -- night life is driven by people COMING TO YOU FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. Unless you want to be a rather functional neighborhood that gets unsafe after midnight, you need those extra bodies.

Exactly.  It's counterintuitive, but the first big step we Hyde Parkers should take to improve retail in our neighborhood is to stop trying to shape retail to fit our own needs.  Replacing a trip to the Loop for socks with a single clothing store in Hyde Park is similar to the discarded economic model of "import substitution", which I've explained in more detail here.

Instead of addressing our own retail needs, we should be having a completely different discussion.  We should be asking ourselves, "What type of commerce would we want folks from outside our neighborhood coming to Hyde Park to engage in?"  and  "How can we make it more desirable for those outsiders to shop here."

The Harper Court discussion should revolve around those questions.  We're concentrating on the present site instead of thinking about the city parking lot, which is a much more obvious retail location.  Thousands of potential consumers stream by Hyde Park on the Metra everyday.  What do they see?  Does Harper Court look inviting?  You can barely see it from the train.  But what if retail offerings were obvious.

If we concentrate on fulfilling the desires of shoppers from outside our neighborhood, not only will the destination retail be better but other retail will crop up around it.  By thinking of others, our own needs will be better met.

I Endorse Representative Currie

Barbara Flynn Currie was slogging thru the slush on Saturday and I happened to pass her on my jaunt for snow-pics.  I stopped and chatted with her a couple minutes, thanking her for her fine work on behalf of Hyde Park and the State of Illinois.  I specifically commended her on two things.

I'm sure everybody remembers the debacle at the Co-op in late summer 2007.  A squirrel chewed on some power lines and, while Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Arkansas) wasn't around to make hors d'oeuvres out of it, the typical Co-op tragedy ensued with a decades-old server dying.  Our front end registers scanned no more.  While everyone knows that the Co-op was the most responsible party in this debacle, it was also true that the power went down not once but twice and the second shock killed the computer.  Com-Ed told us they were not liable, so we appealed to Rep. Currie to write a letter and she did.  Com-Ed suddenly decided that maybe it was a little to blame and they sent us a check for a small portion of the damages.  Having your state representative be the majority leader of the House is quite an asset for your neighborhood.

We can't expect our leaders to be experts on every subject, so I always pay close attention to the folks politicians choose to team up with.  I'm overjoyed that Rep. Currie and Speaker Madigan have chosen to rely on Rep. Julie Hamos (D-Evanston) as their point person on transit funding.  Rep. Hamos exhibited the patience of a saint throughout the CTA funding crisis and without her diligence we might still be awaiting a solution.

I'm sure that Rep. Currie would not endorse everything on this blog, but I endorse everything about her work.  I hope you'll join me in voting for her on Tuesday, February 5.