Large-scale private developments are blooming in Chicago. We have heard of proposals for a White Sox stadium in the South Loop and a new Bears stadium at the lakefront. Now, the new large-scale 1901 development on the West Side aims to bring life to the area and adjacent communities.
Such projects are an increasingly popular city-building strategy. They are comprehensively designed with amenities and infrastructure.
City governments around the U.S. are increasingly willing to partner with developers to build large portions of their cities under a uniform design framework. Local governments favor this strategy since portions of these developments aim to replace outdated infrastructure. Developing large sections of cities with mixed-used projects promises to increase tax revenue by adding residents, jobs and entertainment activities in formerly derelict urban landscapes. City dwellers love these developments.
Chicago invests in them through tax increment financing (TIF), relinquishing taxpayer dollars to developers who sometimes do not reciprocate with diligent city building. Over time, their design changes from what the Department of Planning and Development approved; an array of new design iterations is introduced. Projects such as The 78 have issued multiple design iterations since their approval.
I suggest two strategies. First, developers should be made accountable whenever design changes are made. The city invests in the projects to kickstart the construction of approved designs — at the expense of time and human resources needed to assess them.
Second, city funds could be placed directly into infrastructure. This would assist the development’s operations and secure public services for the adjacent and future communities that inhabit the area. That is, funds would go to parks, playgrounds and all public spaces first.
In conclusion, current assessment mechanisms at the Department of Planning and Development for large-scale private developments can improve. Community-oriented processes now take the lead, but more is needed to allocate funds first to public amenities benefiting existing communities. Existing design-based assessment mechanisms at the city planning department for smaller mixed-used projects have been successful.
Comprehensive design-based frameworks for assessing, approving and developing large-scale private projects must be introduced, guaranteeing that what the city invests in these projects will benefit the public and not finance subsequent iterations for these projects.
— Alejandro Saldaña Perales, Chicago
Pitfall for affordable housing
Regarding the editorial on July 24 on the proposed project around the United Center (“United Center development is good news for the West Side. But housing is what is needed most”): The key point is the need for more affordable housing in the city, which this project would attempt to create. While I agree that more affordable housing is a must, how affordable is the housing if the surrounding area isn’t affordable?
Whenever I read about these new construction projects, such as the Obama Presidential Center, Lincoln Yards or The 78, I always wonder if the developers and city planners think about who can afford to patronize the area. Especially those who live in the affordable housing. Where would someone buy food in an area that caters to high-income earners? The idea of creating new neighborhoods with affordable housing sounds like a great idea, but if you can’t afford anything in the neighborhood around you, are you really living in that neighborhood?
Will there be restaurants that cater to someone on the lower end of the middle class? Will there be shopping for people so they don’t have to spend a week’s pay for a pair of jeans or hoodie? Or will they have to leave their neighborhood for a discount clothing retailer in the suburbs or Indiana, which has a lower sales tax rate?
Trying to create these new neighborhoods is a wonderful idea, but people are going to want to feel part of their neighborhood, and that means enjoying their local tavern, restaurants and stores.
Hopefully, developers and city planners remember that there will be people in this neighborhood who aren’t at the high end of the tax bracket — so that everyone can take pride in the neighborhood.
— Victor Wheeler, Flossmoor
Combating speeding on drive
No matter what the outcome of a redesign and rebuilding of North DuSable Lake Shore Drive looks like, one end-result requirement is clear: Daily traffic must be slowed down. Today, hardly any drivers — those driving CTA buses and taxis included — are going at or near the posted 40 mph speed limit. Most drivers are traveling at 50, 60 or 70 mph.
Chicago police speed enforcement is minimal at best. Enforcement of the “no trucks” restriction is nonexistent.
The noise generated by vehicles traveling at these higher speed is a significant quality of life disruption for lakefront users and residents alike.
Looking at the Redefine the Drive project timeline for Phase 1 planning, the approval of a preferred alternative will take another three years. Phase II engineering (contract plans) and right-of-way acquisition would then begin. During this phase, detailed construction plans would be developed, and any necessary land would be acquired for the project. Phase III is the physical construction of the project.
This $4 billion project probably will take 10 years to complete. We are looking at the late 2030s, perhaps into the 2040s, for potential completion.
We can’t wait for the Redefine the Drive improvement project to help bring lower prevailing vehicle speeds to North DuSable Lake Shore Drive. Increased noise levels from vehicles traveling at speeds well above 40 mph are a significant quality-of-life disruption along the drive.
Action needs to be taken now by our state legislators to change the regulations that apply to U.S. 41 and DuSable Lake Shore Drive to allow for speed enforcement using electronic means. Speed enforcement camera technology along the drive would help reduce vehicle speeds and, correspondingly, noise levels. Not to mention, safety too.
— Larry Nutson, Chicago
Honeymooners wowed by city
In all my 44 years on this earth, I have never been to a city as amazing as Chicago. San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington, San Diego, Phoenix, Denver, Minneapolis and Juneau, Alaska, all pale by comparison.
The people of Chicago are nice without being fake, cool without being self-absorbed and smart without being arrogant. Hats off to Chicago. Thank you for hosting my husband and me for our honeymoon. We can’t wait to visit again!
Shout-out to one of Chicago’s locals, Sade, for the pizza recommendation. Aurelio’s Super Six special was one of the best slices I’ve ever had!
— Rhi and Roy Blanke, Hugo, Minnesota
Add fees and lose customers
I just canceled a store credit card I had for 37 years. When the company added a $1.99 fee for paper billing, I thought that I’m not paying them to bill me. Also, my cousin noticed that the number of visitors to the Chicago Botanic Garden has decreased. She thinks it’s because of the high entrance fee plus parking fee for nonmembers. The gardens are a lovely place. Some people make a day of it, including spending money in the restaurant and gift shop. Is the high nonmember cost worth the loss of revenue to those entities, as well as the overall loss of visitors?
Perhaps the people who see adding fees as a way of cutting costs should rethink it and look elsewhere.
— Alice Marcus Solovy, Highland Park
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.