Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Accommodating Density: Lessons from Chicago. <br /> <br />By Thomas P. Smith and Mary Fishman <br /> <br />Planners struggle with issues of residential density and residential building scale. <br /> <br />We wprked for t~e City of Chicago's plane <br />ning department during the city's latest devel- <br />opment boom. W~obse'rved and participated <br />, in many decisions-about density and scale <br />throughoutthe city. In this article, we discuss <br />lessons learned, and suggest sLiccessful ways <br />qfacconimod~ting higher density in ur\:!an <br /> <br />Most appreciate the benefits of havinga di: <br />verse housing stock. They recognizethat varied <br />households-empty n~sters, young profes,sion- <br />als, families with children, the elderly, and low.' <br />and moderate-income groups-have varied' <br />housing needs. <br />Planners acknowledge the benefits of <br />diversity in local communities and the benefits' '. areas. <br />of allowing people to "age in place," which <br />means permitting diver?e housing options t[1at <br />allow families to move to differenttypes of <br />housing in thesame communityastheirhous- , <br />ingn~eds change. <br />Unfortunately, most of the planning litera- <br />tUre discussing issues of density is theoretical. <br />The neW urbanists, for example, argue for new <br />neighborhood forms-a mixed us~center, strong <br />edges, centralop;enspaces, narrow streetsc> short <br />blocks-:;-but ri19st planners do nothave the oppor- <br />- tunity to plan entire neighborhoods. Development <br />. in urbanlo~ations occurs as marginal change with- <br />in established neighborhoods. Growth takes place;' <br />atinfilllocations as existing land uses change or <br />ineffic,iently used properties are redeveloped. <br />Environmentalists can also seem too the- <br />oretical. Bnilding moredense'neighborhoods <br />does not mean thateveryone will suddenly <br />stop using their cars. The effects of increased <br />density vary wi~hcontext. . <br />Findings, conclusions, and recommenda- <br />. . <br />tionsabout density should be based on case <br />studies.of how cities and towns actually ac- <br />to.mmodate higher density. <br /> <br />THE CHICAGO EXPERIENCE <br />BiKcities'are not so, different than suburbs or <br />smaller jurisdictions. Like otherplaces,ChiCa- <br />go s~ruggled with issues ofresidential density <br />in the 1990S and early 20005. . <br /> <br />84 <br /> <br />..' Theb~gissue in Chicago startIng In the <br />19.90SWaS the tear down of smaller, single-' <br />faiT)ily hoiTIes and two-flats inthe city's mid- <br />d~nsityzoningclassifications, and the replace- <br />mentbfthese buildings with taller and denser <br />tnree-flats.Neighbors within the mid-density <br />districts (R-'-I and R-S'zoning) cOrriplained bit- <br />terly about the lossofth,e neighborhood;smiX <br />of housing types. Theyworried that all ofthe <br />smaller- bLlildingsin the neighborhood would <br />sOOn be replaced by "three-flats on steroid~ <br />a~d they complained that higher density hous- <br />ingthreatened the minimal supply of on-street <br />parking. <br />The alderman and the citfs Department <br />of PlanningaJid Development responded to <br />neighbors'concerns. In the mid- to late-1990s, <br />the City Council adopted special z,oning district <br />. legislation for24 different neighborhoods. <br />The special districts established new height <br />liiT)its for- buildings in the R-4?ndR-s districts, <br />requiredthat new buj[~ings be orient!!dtoward <br />the str~et,andreqyireqthat builders use the <br />alleys fo\ acc~ssCtoparking. .. <br />\:Ioweve;, thesez6ningdisputes did not <br />take place throughoutthe eJitife city. Not all <br />-new development was resisted. Much residen- <br />tial development wasweIcomed and enCOUf- <br />ag:ed. People throughout Chicagotook pride <br />inthe reuse of abandonediridustrialand com- <br />merc;i?l buildings for h:ousing andin the rede- <br /> <br />velopment of old retail streets and abandoned <br />industrial districts. <br />In thisarucle, we focus on the locations <br />where new development was most welcomed and. <br />where the zoning battles were least slgnificill1t. <br /> <br />REZONING MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS <br />In the 1990s,builders and developersidenti- <br />fied a host of older manufacturing- districts <br />where it was easy to convert industrial buil.d- <br />irigs into residential16fts anq to turn va,cant <br />industrial land intqnew town house? and <br />condos. Many ofthe$e areas were converted <br />to residential use without controversy. <br />The firstindustrial corridors!obe conVert- <br />ed-the Bloomingdale Corridor, Paulina Corridor. <br />and portions of the RavensWood C9rridor-were <br />considered close to the city's jobs and to other <br />neighborhoods with lots of restau'rants and enter- <br />tainm~nt. In additioli, these older industrial corri- <br />dors had the following iocatiollaladvantages: <br />. Many were close to publk tr~nsit lines or <br />located along well-~stablished bus routes~ <br />. Mostweresurroundedby residential neigh- <br />borhoods that were. enjoying substantial rede- <br />velopment and reiiwestment. <br />. Many were located in neighborhoods that <br />offered vibrant retail and shoppin~ strips. <br />There was a recognition thatmany in- <br />, dustrial areas did not need to be protected for <br />manufacturing-because they were no longer <br />_ viable locations for modern manufacturing: As <br />the railroa?s and river be~ame l.ess significant <br />to the transport of industrial products, these <br />thin industrial strips became less significant <br />. - . . <br />to maintaining industry; As a result, ,many <br />of these areas were converted to relatively <br />high-density housing witho~t.substantial <br />controversy. <br /> <br />ZONINGPRACTICE 5.09 <br />AMERIcAN PLANNING ASSOClATlONlpage2 <br />