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.

Comments

[AF]

You express concern about "centralized, secretive, fast, top-down planning and development," and I agree with your concern. Hyde Park, especially in the urban-renewal years of the mid-20th century, has seen way too much of that. However, your views of development expressed in part 1 require "centralized, ... top-down planning and development," though it need not be secretive or fast.

You envision a government entity controlling development all along 53rd Street--this, of course, is what zoning is: centralized and top-down. Zoning can be useful in shaping development to the needs of the community, but when zoning does not also respond to the desires of developers, it can strangle development.

Hyde Park is desperately in need of new development. It is unrealistically optimistic to think that development will flourish no matter what the zoning restrictions--for example, if zoning bars all buildings on 53rd Street, save those near the Metra, from exceeding 5 stories. A developer may see insufficient incentive to turn a 2-storey building into a 5-storey building--and this is a real concern for everyone in the community. Even if the community prefers 5-storey buildings to 10-storey buildings (which I doubt, and I address below), it may still prefer 10-storey buildings to no new development. Also, a mix of tall new buildings and small old buildings satisfies your desire in part 2 for "diversity of buildings" better than only 3 to 5-storey buildings.

Your concern about an 8 to 10-storey building flooding the market and saturating demand is seriously misplaced. I don't mean to say that this won't happen--indeed, it is a real concern. But the person who will feel the pain of this the most is the developer. It's the developer's money on the line, and if the market is flooded, the developer will be less able to recoup the cost of the building. This idea that the government, via zoning, should protect developers from market forces is naive. A developer is much better situated than the government to assess whether an 8 to 10-storey building will flood the market. If it will, and prices will be depressed, then the developer will not even attempt to construct the building.

Finally, you say that "tall buildings are a danger elsewhere -- they cause more congestion than they are worth." Of course, this is your opinion, but from what I've heard, it is not the opinion of those people who attended the 53rd Street Vision Workshop. And since you want the development of 53rd Street to reflect the needs and desires of the community, you should defer to the community's views, as expressed at the Workshop.

In my opinion, 8 to 10-storey buildings don't come even close to causing more congestion than they're worth. Though I'm not sure of its exact height, I believe the building at 5719 S. Kenwood is in the 8 to 10-storey range. I walk past it almost every day and it's usually like walking past an empty lot. I have never seen any congestion at all, at any time of day--I've rarely ever seen anyone entering or exiting the building (I saw someone entering the other day and I was surprised). Obviously the residents do enter and exit, but I don't think that "congestion" ever describes the sidewalk and road situation around the building. Hyde Park Produce generates much more traffic and congestion than any 8 to 10-storey primarily-residential building would, and I (and I'm guessing you too) love Hyde Park Produce.

[withrow]

AF: Jack's "views of development expressed in part 1 require 'centralized, ... top-down planning and development,' though it need not be secretive or fast. (Jack) envisions a government entity controlling development all along 53rd Street".

You're jumping the gun here, reading some things into Jack's piece IMO. A better complaint IMO is that he hasn't fleshed out the process he seeks; it's a bit vague-- so far. But Jack's capable of providing more details and I'm hoping it will appear here sometime soon.

That said, a government entity is always going to have the final word on development. I don't see alternative to that.

AF, I'm with you on the 8-10 story buildings. I've talked positively about 5719 Kenwood in my snow-shoveling article. It fits the street well because it interacts with the sidewalk in a respectful manner.

I agree with Jack that it's worth the effort to bring neighbors of developing projects into the negotiations. It's important to understand their concerns. And often it seems that neighbors are less concerned about the specific project on the table than they are about the precedent it will set for future projects.

I've never heard of zoning regulations written that address that concern. It would be helpful for the McMobil project if the zoning prohibited another large project on that block for another ten years, something like that.

[AF]

All I mean is that zoning is necessarily "centralized ... top-down planning." It's the government imposing, albeit sometimes at the community's request, restrictions on development. Houston does not have any zoning, and thus, in Houston, "a government entity" does not "have the final word on development."

I'm not advocating that we abandon zoning, but I don't see the reason in being nearly as restrictive as either Jack or you suggest. Why would we want zoning to prohibit another big project for ten years after the McMobil project is built? If there is demand enough for another big one, barring it for 10 years would simply extinguish the spark of redevelopment and renewal. When such a spark happens of its own accord, the government ought to get out of the way. More often, the government tries to ignite redevelopment (ala urban renewal) only to fail miserably. If we barred another large development from appearing on 53rd, we might find in 10 years that no one wants to develop any more.

Unfortunately, Hyde Park is very good at throttling development. I think it would be better simply to allow 8-10 story buildings all along 53rd. We're not talking about the Sears Tower--if the whole street was lined in 10-story buildings full of people and businesses, I think Hyde Park would be a much more lively and safe neighborhood.

[withrow]

Well, if the city enforces zoning in the manner the neighborhood requests, why would you call that "centralized... top-down planning"?

Your third paragraph is the type of talk that scares our neighbors into being against all developments. They look at a ten-story proposal on 53rd St, along with comments like yours, and immediately worry that the community they've helped build is about to change too dramatically. Then they oppose all development.

Note that I was only talking about banning another large project for a while on_that_block-- not all of 53rd St. And seven years might make more sense than ten. The point is to build density gradually.

Urban Renewal was a failure because it was based on the notion that everyone would drive everywhere they went-- suburbanization of an urban neighborhood. But it was also a failure because it was done so quickly, without time to pause, process second thoughts and correct mistakes.

If 53rd St had transit, I'd be more likely to agree with you about the wisdom of tall buildings along it. But even if it were on a bus route, I'd still prefer to see it become a street lined with 10-story buildings gradually, over the next 50 or 70 years.

[AF]

Democratic support does not turn a centralized, top-down government program into a decentralized, bottom-up one. Socialism and communism are centralized and top-down. Yet these economic/government forms may have popular support and may be put in place as a result of citizens' desires. Just because we may all want universal health insurance does not make it decentralized or bottom-up. It's the difference between a competitive market and a government monopoly.

But what it really comes down to, in my view, is not just a question of what's ideal, but also what is likely. I don't particularly want to see 53rd Street immediately become a string of 10-story buildings. Gradual change is definitely preferable. Even more, I'm not sure if I ever want to see only 10-story buildings on 53rd. But I also don't want to see abandoned buildings and empty lots. And I do want to see more people and more development. So maybe I have to suffer a few more tall buildings than I'd prefer.

It's the problem of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Too often it seems that zoning tries to make perfect neighborhoods and in the process prevent improvements that would make the neighborhood better, though not perfect.

Also, I don't understand why we are in a position to say that a 10-story building at, for example, 53rd and Woodlawn is a bad idea because there's no transit. If a developer wants to build it, it's because the developer perceives a demand. And if people move in, who are we to tell them that they shouldn't be living there?

Furthermore, CTA will not build a transit line on 53rd St because there aren't enough people living there. But if it were lined in 10-story buildings, it would be more likely (still pretty improbable). The point is only that we may have to invert our thinking from what Jack advocates: build housing first, then transit will follow.

On an unrelated note, I think the Gray Line or Gray Line Lite proposals are excellent. I think there is a huge psychological difference between Metra and CTA. In the case of Metra, I never consider riding without planning first (looking at the schedule). But in the case of the L, I often just wait, knowing that a train will arrive soon. I think people would switch from the #6 and other buses to the Gray Line so that it would replace both Metra and some bus service. The Gray Line should be part of the Olympic proposal, especially since it would go right under the Olympic village. Now how would someone go about making this happen?

[withrow]

"The Gray Line should be part of the Olympic proposal, especially since it would go right under the Olympic village. Now how would someone go about making this happen?"

I was hoping you'd tell me.

From talking to various people in the neighborhood about the Gray Line proposal, I don't think the transit agencies will take this seriously until our politicians advocate for it and I don't think our politicians will advocate for it until the University endorses it. Of the two people at the University that I've brought this up with-- the key players really-- one has simply been patronizing and the other rejected it out of hand. Someone, somewhere there may have studied up on the idea, but, if so, they've kept that secret from me.

OTOH the University has looked very seriously into buying CTA passes for all their students, something that would likely help our neighborhood transit situation quite a bit. On that issue, the CTA is being stubborn.

The CTA folks I've approached on the Gray Line issue, though, actually tend to agree that it's worth taking seriously. Enacting a Gray Line proposal is far more of a political problem than it is a financial one.

[AF]

I'm surprised the University is not more interested in the idea. Having an L line run to Hyde Park would be a big draw for students, which would help U of C in competing with other schools. Even Northwestern sort of has one, and they're in a suburb. CTA passes for all students might be a positive development, but buses just don't cut it. When I was living in NY prior to HP, I almost never even considered getting on a bus. And when I worked in the Loop this summer, I stopped riding the #6 when, on the Monday preceding Taste, we got stuck in traffic at something like 35th St.

What exactly is the political problem? Why do you think that the University people you spoke with were so dismissive? Everyone that I've ever mentioned it to (just friends, no one with political power) has responded extremely positively.