by Hugh
"What would you rather have, vacancies or condos on the first floor?" asked Alderman Moore. "You can wish for whatever you want, you don't always get it. Let the market decide."
A surprisingly Republican attitude from a Democratic National Committee member. I wonder if his Washington crowd knows how he talks back in his ward? This from the the guy who wants to decide for us what foods we can buy.
"There will be no Wal-Mart in Rogers Park as long as I am Alderman," the ardent free-marketeer Alderman had boasted earlier. Our City Council is nominally 98% Democratic, but years of a steady diet of campaign contributions from real estate moguls has transformed them into University of Chicago style free market Republicans that would make Milton Freidman and Ronald Reagan proud. It seems you can literally pay them to say anything. Wal-Mart, take note.
"Let the market decide," aped Ms. Heather Campbell, an urban planner with the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC), a group of Chicago's largest real estate developers promoting the density increases that affords them economies of scale. "If you want retail, add people," she posited, which held little solace to the 60,000 residents of Rogers Park who for decades have watched retail slide as the population grew. Depend on MPC to recommend density increases as the solution to everything on resident's wish lists. She went on to explained that the retail vacancies we see are due to the demise of the street car.
"The proposed B2 zoning classification, which is a new zoning classification in Chicago, would still permit commercial development, but leave open the possibility of first floor residential development,"wrote Alderman Moore. Moore's rhetoric tries to make it sound like the POSSIBILITY of retail is in response to community demand for retail, when he should really be explaining how he helped relax the requirement. Also, B2 is not a new zoning classification. See Article 8 Section 8.2-2 in the pre-2004 zoning law. Moore consistently shirks his responsibility to educate his constituents as to their rights and powers under the zoning laws, and instead chooses to take advantage of the public's lack of understanding of zoning to manipulate.
"Can't you do anything about the vacant store fronts?" Our Aldermen recognized the retail vacancies in our neighborhood as political liabilities, and bereft of ideas on how to deal with it, courageously changed our City's laws to absolve themselves from all responsibility. From now on, should we attempt to raise the issue of retail with our Aldermen, we will be told "That has nothing to do with zoning. That has nothing to do with me. It’s due to market forces. Sorry." Of course! Vibrant retail is ALWAYS a function of market forces, but last year we residents lost an important tool for encouraging retail and keeping our elected officials and real estate developers accountable to the public.
"Legally, there's nothing we can do," our Aldermen can now claim. "They can put condos (or a garage) on the first floor by rights." We may see fewer vacancies, but we will NOT see improved retail. The new zoning law does NOTHING to promote retail, and in fact deals retail a very significant blow.
Why have zoning at all? Why not get it over with and turn our City over to the developers? Let the market decide what our neighborhoods will look like.
18 comments:
well, the one thing we can hope is that if we get some (and I hope it's just some) condos on our retail streets that it entices retail investors to come on in.
A la Andersonville-type stores and cafes.
Sometime I would like to hear from the people that visit this site about why exactly they do not like Joe Moore. I hear people say they don't, but I never know exactly why or what pushed them over the edge etc... Maybe it's none of my business, but I'm curious. This probably isn't "p.c." to mention, but oh well.
Maybe Craig can do an open post on it and illicit everyone's comments but maybe that's a dangerous thing- I don't want to be a troublemaker.
I also want to say, I think this blog is getting really great and I really enjoy the lively debate (as Charlie said- if everyone agreed- things would be damn boring) and information we share here. Thanks Craig and all of you.
see you at the Glenview Arts Fest maybe.
Until folks get out of their partisan mindsets we are doomed. Joe Moore isn't a Republican or a Democrat. He's an idiot without a cohesive plan who says whatever points blame at anyone but him. Free markets do accomplish more than politicians or policy. When you have freedom for all -- people and business (business is nothing more than people!) -- then you have robust communities. But free markets, like anything in life, need to be nurtured. LOOK AT ANDERSONVILLE for evidence of such. Joe is no more a free marketer than Chairman Mao and he's no more a socialist than Milton Friedman. Joe is a craven politician who is out for Joe and Joe alone. I could take him if he were a socialist because then at least he'd have a consistent world view. The only thing consistent about Joe is his utter cravenness.
As we get closer to the next aldermanic elections I hope that folks pay more attention to the presented plans by those running than party cheerleading. I would take Alan Keyes if he convinced me that he had a responsible, wholistic view to protecting the lake front, reducing gang activity/crime, invigorating business, and balancing multi-unit and single-family housing to retain the ethnic, social, and diverse nature of RP. Whoever the alderman is -- their views on abortion, war, foie gras, pate, veganism, or even their party affiliation are simply and completely irrelevant. These issues may be important to each of us individually but our alderman's job is not to protest the war, ban foodstuffs, or protect a woman's right to choose. That is the job of our representatives in Congress or even our state reps in Springfield. Unless, of course, one is using the Alderman post as a springboard to something bigger within a party -- in which case I wonder how they can serve the community when they have their eye on a bigger prize.
The job of the alderman is to work with the community to create policy and implement plans that take into consideration the citizenry's views to the extent possible (we're not all going to agree with our alderman all the time because we don't even agree with each other) and/or to present their views -- and plan for attaining such. Talk is cheap. We need to ask those running the specifics of their plans and how they envision attaining objectives. We would do well to get party politics out of the picture and focus on their ability to show evidence that they can work with City Hall to get RP what RP needs and deserves based on our tax base (and don't fool yourselves, it's high). RP has long been the last community to get much of anything out of City Hall yet the residents of RP pay significant Cook County and Chicago city taxes. We pay significant Illinois income taxes (an estimate based on the per capita income of the ward). We contribute more so we should be getting more. And as more people buy here, even those condos folks object to, the tax contribution of RP residents will continue to rise. Where is our attendant rise in city services (such as more police)?
These are the sorts of things we need to focus on in RP rather than silly partisan name-calling which divides and solves nothing.
If we are obsessed with partisan politics next round then I would be happy to wager that we will get Joe or son of Joe once again.
I wanted to give kudos to Pamela for her thoughts. Right on the mark. I post on the 24/7 blog and i will try to advance your thoughts as best I can. thanx
I was at the last zoning meeting and asked about the process of changing the first floor classification of retail to residential.I was told that any owner could wake up one morning and decide if they no longer wanted retail in the first floor of their building, they simply could go down to Buildings , fill out a form and done. No review process, no questions asked.
I asked Joe what the reasoning was behind the proposed changes and he said "to promote retail investment elsewhere, like The Gateway"
Some of the most interesting stores with needed amenities, owned by people who actually live in the community, are on sidestreets just like Paulina. Not everyone can afford Gateway. Not everyone wants to be at Gateway.
No one wants to be on Howard. Shutting down Paulina to small retail is denying all of us NOH, the experience of living in a real neighborhood. And it denies new entrepeneurs the opportunity to help make that happen.
It's a no win situation for us all.
Hugh, what kind of zoning do you think would help retail in the 49th? (I'm not challenging your argument - I am genuinely curious...)
P.S. Pamela and Micheal J. Harrington, I love you!
Maybe I'm missing Pamela's point, but why on earth would we need to go Republican in a Democratic city and ward to get a qualified candidate. That is absurd. Alan Keyes- eeeewww!
I agree we need an Alderman focused on the community issues (and there are many of them) though- of course!
>...what kind of zoning do you think would help retail in the 49th?
The purpose of the zoning laws is to serve as a tool to help implement our desires as residents for the neighborhood we want to live in. One thing that will not help with retail is giving developers free reign. Turning the future of our neighborhood over to market forces is a very bad idea with these people. I guarantee you will not like the neighborhood they come up with. Left to their own devices, they will not install sprinkler systems, they will not build homes that the people in our neighborhood can actually afford, they will build from corner to corner on the lots, etc. We put requirements on our developers all the time, in many different areas. We need a zoning that REQUIRES street-level retail. Our aldermen took it away from us.
Our City Council is so far behind the times, they took so long getting around to revising the zoning laws, that while the rest of the country is recoiling from the disastrous excessive deregulation of the Reagan era, our Aldermen are all rah-rah about deregulating our developers.
>I asked Joe what the reasoning was behind the proposed changes and he said "to promote retail investment elsewhere, like The Gateway"
Yes, we are moving toward an urban landscape where we HAVE to use cars to shop, and we have codified this policy in our zoning law. Drive your SUV to the mall every weekend, ring up the register, load up the back with everything you might need, go home and unload. That's how our aldermen and the real estate developers and the big box retailers and mega grocers would prefer we shop.
At the same time they took away our business districts, they added a new type of district: Pedestrian Streets. See Section 3-0500 of the new zoning law. Here's an excerpt:
"17-3-0500 Pedestrian Streets
17-3-0501 Purpose
The regulations of this section are intended to preserve and enhance the character of streets and intersections that are widely recognized as Chicago's best examples of pedestrian-oriented shopping districts. The regulations are intended to promote transit, economic vitality and pedestrian safety and comfort."
Moore claims his map is a "plan," but he recommends NO AREAS OF ROGERS PARK FOR DESIGNATION AS PEDESTRIAN STREETS. Not Morse, not Clark, not Howard, not Paulina. Why not? Too inconvenient for his developer pals. Curb cuts are prohibited on Pedestrian Streets, so you can shop without worrying about getting run over. Moore didn't want to saddle his developer pals with needless regulation. Moore wanted to preserve their god-given right to carve up our sidewalks to use as their driveways, like he did for his pal Coe at Morse and Greenview. Moore endorsed Coe's plan for THREE curb cuts into the same building, and no retail, one block west of the EL. Moore's developer pals are very excited about the dawning of the new era of building all-residential buildings in our former business districts, but what good are they without the curb cuts? This is America, and Americans LOVE THEIR CARS, and Americans want to drive their cars right off the street INTO their homes, particularly in dodgy neighborhoods like ours, don't you know. We can't expect Moore's developer pals to sell luxury condos without secure, covered, street-access parking, can we? Moore and his developer pals have a sort of vision for the street level in our business districts, and it's not retail: it's condos and parking spaces, both for cash sale.
> ... Andersonville-type stores and cafes
The Andersonville Example
People don't like to be made to feel foolish. Every time I visit Andersonville I feel foolish. I feel like I made a big mistake investing my family's life savings in Rogers Park. There's no leadership here, no vision here, just crassness.
I guess I misunderstood her intent not knowing her. I vote straight Democratic- I have yet to see a Republican candidate that fits my values here in IL. I don't see how partisan politics is an issue in this predominantly Democratic ward and city- oh, maybe you mean all the corruption? But the state level has been Republican and look at all that.
Are there any zoning categories that require ground floor retail
(couldn't find it in the zoning docs), or are the pedestrian streets our best chance? Is there anything we can do to make Joe listen?
On more that one occasion I've heard Joe float the "the best solution for Morse would be to make it residential" thing. We are opposed to this - we've told him so - he just starts squirming and looks the other way. How can we expect the people responsible for the Gateway to bring us pedestrian friendly retail?
We would rather not move...it takes surprisingly little improvement to make the difference between barely tolerable and pretty nice...we keep hoping for things to get better...I want to live in a city, and the city to me means walkable retail, services, and entertainment, running into people you know on the street, a variety of places where people like to gather...
This is sort of pathetic, but does anyone have any contact with community organizations in other neighborhoods we think are doing a good job (like Andersonville)...would it be useful to pick their brains? Would they be willing to advise us? Is it too late?
Is anyone out there who can do Joe's job better and wants to run? Please let me know who you are and what you would like to do. I am more than ready to send you a generous check and mark my calendar for the hours I am going to volunteer to your campaign, if you can fix this mess.
Nico's Mom,
I like Andersonville but it doesn't have the same kind of layout we have here. For one thing, they have many more two flat buildings and single family homes than we have. We also have problems with the high number of nursing facilities that have become homes for those with serious mental problems. Some are reputable and some are not. This is also problematic in areas of Uptown especially near Wilson. Also, Clark St. narrows and creates a much more intimate feeling south of Rosehill that is much more appealing. And lastly, the amount of retail business on Broadway is strikingly different once it turns into Sheridan. There are a few stores around Loyola and then lots of first floor apartments in retail spaces. For those retail businesses that are there, many of them are below street level and don't really stand out.
>Are there any zoning categories that require ground floor retail (couldn't find it in the zoning docs)
Thanks for digging in to those scary, scary zoning laws!
The reason you could not find what you were looking for is it's not there. Our Alderman took it out last year.
2004 Zoning Law: Mixed-used, street-level retail eliminated
Zoning districts requiring street-level retail were eliminated by the Chicago City Council in their 2004 revision of our zoning laws. Get any group of Chicago neighbors together and ask them what they would like to see for their neighborhood, and you will hear expressed the strong desire for convenient, vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, street-level retail. Our Aldermen have heard it so much, they got sick and tired of hearing it. They revised our zoning law to accommodate their developer pals and got themselves out of the responsibility for developing retail, turning the issue over to "market forces."
Prior to 2004, our zoning law provided certain zoning districts which neighbors could use to reflect their desire for retail by REQUIRING developers to include store-fronts on the first floor of their projects. Here is the language from the section of the "old" (pre-2004) zoning law which describes mixed-use business (B) districts:
"ARTICLE 8 BUSINESS DISTRICTS
8.1 Use and Bulk Regulations
Dwelling Units and lodging rooms are not permitted below the second floor."
For your convenience, a copy of the old zoning law is available online:
http://www.forum49.org/docs/Pre2004ZoningLaw/section1.html
Various editions of the zoning law are also available in book form at most branches of the Chicago Public Library (although NOT Rogers Park).
The whole point of B districts was to reflect the keen desire of residents for pedestrian-friendly retail. These districts also serve our community as distributed small business incubators and paths out of poverty. B districts were the tool provided by law for us neighbors to insist on convenient shopping. On behalf of their real estate developer pals who fund their political campaigns, our Alderman took this tool away from us.
This very significant change is nowhere reflected in the text of the new zoning law. It is buried in a "use table."
With NO MAP CHANGES, by instead changing the zoning TEXT, the Alderman made a sweeping change to all B districts in Chicago. With little or no public comment, the Aldermen passed a change to our zoning law which will have a profound impact on our neighborhoods.
The new definition of B is more like R (residential) than the old B. We are left with one zoning (R) where retail is prohibited, and one zoning (B) where retail is optional, and NO zoning where retail is required.
The whole idea behind B districts was retail on the first floor, and (optionally) residential above. In the old zoning law the retail on the first floor was REQUIRED, residential on the first floor was PROHIBITED, and the residential above was OPTIONAL. The new zoning law allows residential on the first floor and makes the retail on the first floor OPTIONAL, at the discretion of the developer.
Real estate developers want to get in and out of their projects as quickly as possible. The old requirement for street-level retail was a major hassle for them. Before they could tap out of a project, they either had to try to sell commercial condos on the first floor, or else they had to hang on to partial ownership of the building and maintain an ongoing commercial leasing role. Given a choice, few if any developers will choose to build street-level retail. The developers would really much prefer:
1. to carve curb cuts through the sidewalks of our former business districts, and sell parking spaces on the first floor for tens of thousands of dollars each, or
2. to build condos on the first floor, sell them for hundreds of thousands of dollars each, walk away, and move on to the next project.
Hugh, this is the information I was hoping to get from you all along - I guess I just didn't ask the right question!
My second thought is - we're screwed.
Is this information the basis of your argument that downzoning will help retail? What about those pedestrian streets in the new zoning laws? Help me understand this.
I'm sorry if I am not being clear. I am not arguing that downzoning will help retail.
In our residential areas, downzoning (reducing the maximum allowable density) is crucial to cooling the tear-down mania and preserving the unique character of our neighborhoods.
In our business districts, I tend to agree with your assessment. Our village elders took away our tool. The new Pedestrian Districts are not really a substitute, they are an "overlay." Even the new Pedestrian Districts do not require retail. The fix was in long before the recent round of public meetings was called.
Our main problem as citizens at the national level is the same as our main problem at the local level: business interests are purchasing influence and determining policy. We don't have big oil or pharmaceutical companies or defense contractors in Rogers Park, but we do have real estate developers.
I see. We're screwed.
Would the right change in leadership in the near-ish term change any of this? What should this new leadership do differently?Are there any other ways to fix it you can think of? (Hope springs...)
Or are we just permanently screwed?
hugh-thanx for being so tireless in pursuit of the zoning changes.
it's not my forte', but i'm sure glad it's yours.
ok. let me get this straight.
ald. moore is a democrat, who has secretly changed the zoning laws so that his developer billpayers can build bigger in rogers park and those buildings will allow parking spaces to be sold thereby adding more cars at a time when enrgy conservation is one of THE issues right now and for the forseeable future. sounds like a traditional democratic platform to me.
red state, blue stae, it doesn.t matter anymore. whoever pays the bills gets their message out.
i've tried to shine a little light on this "let the market decide"
smokescreen over on 24/7. i don't mean to sound like a shameless self promoter, i,m just trying to add another voice.
nicos mom, i feel your pain.
Moore proposes major density increases for our business districts. Our neighbors to the south developed a proposal to DECREASE density in their business districts. They resisted the temptation to fall into pro-developer rhetoric like "if you want retail, add people." Their report is an excellent example of the kind of study that is not being done in Rogers Park.
Broadway Zoning & Marketing Study
This report was undertaken to assist community members and property owners in evaluating the impacts of potential change in the zoning from B3-3 ("-3") to B3-2 ("-2") along the Broadway Study Area. For purposes of Report, the Broadway Study Area comprises the parcels along Broadway, from Foster Ave to Devon Ave, from parcels along Berwyn, Bryn Mawr, Hollywood, Thorndale & Granville Avenues, near the intersections with Broadway (the "Study Area"). The implications of a potential study change are discussed from a planning and zoning perspective as well as a market and economic point of view.
This Report is funded by the State of Illinois and is a joint project of State Representative Harry Osterman, State Senator Carol Ronen, City of Chicago Alderman Mary Ann Smith, Loyola University of Chicago, Edgewater Chamber of Commerce, Edgewater Community Council, Edgewater Development Corporation, the Organization of the NorthEast, Edgewater Uptown Builders Association, Block Clubs of Edgewater, and the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity. ...
Retail Demand
Leakage - Within the three community areas surrounding the Study Area, 57% of the potential retail spending by the residents is spent outside the communities. If the Study Area could capture 10 - 30% of this leakage, it would support approximately 494,000 - 1.5 million square feet of retail. ...
The lack of supply of modern retail space within the Study Area results in the following outcomes:
* Shoppers leave the area to shop, including shopping trips to the Loop, Near North Side, Evanston, Lincolnwood and Skokie/Old Orchard.
* People reduce their consumption and do not purchase items that they otherwise would purchase of more retail space was available.
Thanks very much for sharing this interesting report Hugh...it is just the kind of thing I've been hounding you for during the past weeks (sorry about that!)
There is a strip of store fronts down Rogers and Damen in need of attention, among others. The challenge is that you need businesses that will attract across ward boundaries. Some businesses cannot survive without an incentive like an enterprise zone, among other opportunities.
Roberts Cycle had a second location, but it could not survive because the landlord and Robert had a dispute after a car crashed through his storefront at Touhy and Ridge. The business consolidated at its Clark location, even though many bikers route down Ridge.
Moore, his staff and other Alderman need to focus on maintaining signature businesses in Rogers Park that are in need of some attention w/r/t surroundings like Gateway Bar and Grill (formerly "My Place for. . . ", Gullivers, Heartland Cafe, Glenwood Theater, etc.
Some businesses, if more strategically placed can reep benefits, but there is no one at City Planning working with Cosgrove and Land, so that 49 can implement changes. City Planning can be contacted and with the right planning brought on board.
In addition, there are quite a few former residents who want to see Rogers Park continue to improve. The fact is that it has in the last eight years. I laugh when people call it Pot Park, because it has changed quite a bit. I walk down Rogers without having to dress down.
No one bothers anyone; you don't have the shooting that was an embarrassment to the community in the early 90s.
Now, all you need is someone to recognize it and actually take advantage of all of those empty store fronts near the new townhomes. Unfortunately, the landlord has done little to clean up his act over there, so that someone actually thinks that the store fronts are usable.
The CTA Hub really needs to get that additional face lift that is six month late on breaking ground. However, who is handling leasing on the store fronts? I mean what a joke! They really don't appreciate that giving enough of an incentive to set up shop may be worth a bit more in the long run. I wonder whether the guy is really approaching potential tenants in a reasonably aggressive manner given the occupancy rates.
>The CTA Hub really needs to get that additional face lift that is six month late on breaking ground.
6 months late? Try 17 years. The Tax Increment Financing (TIF) plan, passed by the Chicago City Council, October 14, 1988, called for a new Howard EL Station, and even budgeted $9M. Once the plan was approved, Moore pal Jay Johnson decided to drop the new EL station idea and that he would really much prefer to gut the Howard Theater and sell commercial condos on the ground floor. We are sneaking up on the expiration of the Howard TIF, but we are no closer to a new Howard EL station. Although the station is a transportation hub for the far north side of the city and near north suburbs, the trains are inaccessible to the handicapped. The one escalator (no elevator) goes up, when it works.
Excerpts from
Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan for Howard-Paulina Redevelopment TIF Project
Redevelopment Plan And Project Objectives
3. By providing public improvements which may include:
(e) transit-related structures
Redevelopment Activities
3. Provision of Public Improvements and Facilities
Adequate public improvements and facilities will be provided to service the entire Redevelopment Project Area. Public improvements and facilities may include, but are not limited to:
(f) Provision of a new transit station ... Rehabilitation of the Howard Theatre building to provide a new entrance to C.T.A. buses and trains.
Estimated Redevelopment Project Costs
6. Transit Station and Support Facilities
Estimated Cost: $8,500,000 to $9,000,000
Post a Comment