Yes, Lakeview Needs More Transit-Oriented Development

IMG_2242 (1)
Brown Line commuters pass by a TOD construction site next to the Paulina station. Photo: John Greenfield

At a panel discussion hosted Wednesday night by the Lakeview Chamber of Commerce and Lake View Citizens’ Council, two local urban planners and a small business owner explained why they’re supporting Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s proposed TOD reform ordinance. The new legislation, which City Council could vote on as early as September 24, would dramatically expand the zones around rapid transit stations in which developers are freed from the city’s usual parking minimums and can build at a higher density. This would make it easier for Chicago to grow its population while maximizing the number of residents who have access to low cost transportation.

At the forum, titled “Does Lakeview Need More TOD?,” Center for Neighborhood Technology planner Kyle Smith told the audience that there are two different ways to define TOD. First, there’s the wonk’s definition of TOD as building higher-density, parking-lite development close to train stations. However, he said a better way to think about TOD is “communities built for people, not for cars, so that you can live your life without having to own a car.”

Peter Skosey, executive vice president at the Metropolitan Planning Council, noted that Chicago lost 200,000 people from 2000 to 2010. “TOD is a great way to provide options in urban places,” he said, adding that it can help Chicago regain its lost population.

Panel member Lisa Santos has owned Southport Grocery at 3552 N. Southport Ave. for 12 years. She said her store and other local businesses need a bigger and more diverse clientele in order to maintain and grow sales. She said that more TOD will help “develop a neighborhood for the next generation.”

Earlier this year, the chamber and CNT produced a report about housing and population changes near the Brown Line’s Southport and Paulina stations in West Lakeview. It found that the number of nearby housing units within a half mile of each ‘L’ stop decreased by 2 percent and 4 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2011. The number of small apartments – studios and one-bedrooms – dropped by 33 percent. “Younger folks choose these apartments,” Smith said, adding that if compact units aren’t available, it’s harder for them to afford living in Lakeview.

Skosey mentioned that Chicago’s population is growing at one-fifth the rate of Minneapolis, “so it’s not the weather” that’s holding Chicago back. Building more housing near train stations is a way Chicago can leverage our relatively robust transit system to encourage growth.

However, at community meetings about proposed TOD projects in Chicago, many neighbors seem to view additional density as a problem. They appear to be more worried about preserving their own access to free on-street parking than reversing our city’s population loss.

“What happens when those renters earn more money and want to buy a car?” one resident asked at the forum. Smith responded that we’re seeing a generational shift toward less car ownership, which he believes will be permanent. Another argument he could have made is that, if tenants eventually opt for car ownership, they may choose to move to a building with parking or to rent an off-street parking space.

Smith pointed out that the rate of car ownership among new residents who move in to parking-lite TOD buildings will probably be lower than that of existing residents. That means that, even though 60 percent of current Lakeview households own cars, it’s unlikely to create a parking crunch if a TOD developer provides less than 60 spaces for a 100-unit building.

He gave the example of the 1611 West Division building, located next to a Blue Line stop in Wicker Park. It features 99 apartments and zero car parking spaces for tenants, but it was almost fully rented within a few months of completion. To reassure neighbors that they wouldn’t have added competition for free parking on side streets, the renters are ineligible for residential parking permits.

Alan Mellis, a Lincoln Park resident who attends many public meetings, said he’s concerned that neighbors would have less input on developments under the revised TOD ordinance. The new law would drop the current requirement for the alderman to sign off on dense, parking-lite developments – when a zoning change is needed – and instead leaving approval up to the city’s zoning administrator. “When you involve the community the development always gets better,” Mellis said.

However, the new approval process, called an “administrative adjustment”, wouldn’t be any more or less problematic than the current piecemeal development process. Currently, the alderman is under pressure to bow to the opinions of the armchair urban planners who show up for community meetings. Under the new legislation, the aldermen would still be able to provide input to the zoning administrator and influence his or her decision.

One person in the audience noted that community members have supported two TOD buildings at the Paulina station, and one at the Southport stop. “Why build more TODs until we understand the impact of the current three?” he asked.

Car traffic counts on Belmont Ave
Car traffic on Belmont Avenue in Lakeview dropped 31 percent from 2010 to 2014. Source: Illinois Dept. of Transportation

Skosey replied that neighborhoods with TOD buildings have absorbed them well. “Many historic rental buildings have had zero parking for 100 years, and we’ve dealt with that,” he said. He added that the number of car trips per day on Belmont Avenue in Lakeview has fallen by 27 percent, eliciting a gasp from the crowd. I looked up traffic counts on Belmont near Southport and found that they fell even further at that location from 2010 to 2014, by 31 percent.

  • A bit of mypoia

    The TOD ordinance suffers from some flaws. It provides a very large benefit to developers (lower parking costs, more units in popular neighborhoods) while not requiring any significant payment by them. This is a one-sided deal unlike current zoning bonuses where developers must provide public benefits. The TOD ordinance also does little to help the many Chicago neighborhoods that don’t need the ordinance because there isn’t enough demand for the units. The 200,000 people Skosey said left Chicago almost all came from poor neighborhoods (inc. a lot of torn down CHA developments). The TOD ordinance will not help those neighborhoods. I have no problem with having high density/low parking in popular neighborhoods with good transit. But TOD will not solve any other issues.

  • The TOD ordinance itself is a minor fix to the flaws in Chicago’s zoning code and map that concentrate the wrong kinds of development near transit (i.e. single family housing).

    What public benefits are those who convert multiple units into one, within a couple blocks of train stations, providing?

    The main public benefit is that more units are being built instead of fewer, which means more shoppers for business owners, and contributions to schools, parks, and general improvements (provided it’s not within a TIF).

  • I have another way to respond:

    The Chicago municipal code doesn’t have any way to require a developer to provide anything other than what the building code says (which covers things for the tenants).

    When these TOD developments reach a certain unit count or density level they enter the “planned development” process, which is a negotiation with the city’s planners and zoning administrator. This, and threatening to disapprove any zoning change, is where the alderman has the most say in asking for public benefits.

    (This doesn’t consider the affordable housing requirements.)

  • Pat

    I liked the idea of renters being ineligible for parking permits, which I think is a great way to sell TOD to wary residents.

    I know its unlikely but how what limiting permits to one per unit in existing buildings as well.

  • Pat

    Just because the most of the 200,000 people who left were from poorer neighborhoods doesn’t mean we shouldn’t foster population growth in ones that are highly desired. The city as a whole needs to increase its tax base.

  • Jeremy

    It would help to know if there are non-TOD buildings near public transit that currently have a large amount of available parking. Are there buildings that are 100% unit occupied, but only 50% of available parking is claimed? Do residential buildings in the Loop sell/rent out all of their available parking?

    If there are many examples of this, that could potentially quiet the anti-TOD crowd by showing there are people willing to not own cars.

  • Bernard Finucane

    The whole concept of tying parking lots to individual developments is nuts anyway. The city should plan and mandate parking lot counts for a neighborhood, not for a single private property.

    Also “customer only” parking should be done away with completely.

  • 1976boy

    It’s a hopeful sign that the city would provide a methodology to build for a more urban character around transit, which is exactly where it should be. There is no shortage of places elsewhere in the city where cars are better accommodated, so why not have both?

  • This is my position as well.
    Parking is not an issue needing a 1 to 1 solution. It’s a shared problem and it should have a shared solution. There’s no “my” parking, either.

  • Allan Mellis

    It was apparent at the meeting, that people were generally in favor of TOD, if it was done correctly. Since the impact is significant and needs a thorough discussion, a TOD designation process should be the same as a zoning change, which would include input from neighbors, community associations, and the local Alderman. The current proposed ordinance leaves the approval up to the Zoning Administrator as an “Administrative Adjustment”.

  • what_eva

    Paulina doesn’t currently have permits (discounting Cubs Night Game), so that would be forcing permits on a neighborhood that may not want them solely due to TOD

  • Pat

    I think you misinterpreted my statement, I was speaking about areas that are already permitted limiting the permits to 1 per unit. Or create some sort of sliding scale where each extra permit cost more.

    If Paulina wants to create a permit zone, it would follow the same process that already exists, but they could also have the option on instituting a 1 permit per unit limit.

  • Mustache_Cat

    I agree that it makes sense to make existing transit easier to access by having more housing nearby. What I don’t like is that local businesses are getting pushed out as the new developments go up. I believe that Galleria Liquors and Rise Sushi on Southport, for example, won’t necessarily be able to get back into their existing addresses if or when that development at Roscoe is completed.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Dense Thinking: CNT Staffers Discuss the TOD Reform Ordinance

|
[This piece also appears in Checkerboard City, John’s column in Newcity magazine, which hits the streets on Wednesday evenings.] Believe it or not, back in the early nineties, ex-mayor Richard M. Daley was planning to tear out an entire branch of the El system. “The Lake Street branch of what’s now the Green Line had terrible slow […]

Policies and Politics, Not TODs, Are to Blame for Affordable Housing Crunch

|
Yesterday the Tribune’s Mary Wisniewski further explored a topic Streetsblog’s John Greenfield covered two weeks ago for the Reader. Virtually all of Chicago’s new transit-oriented development projects are upscale buildings in affluent or gentrifying neighborhoods. TOD advocates argue that adding housing in these communities will take pressure off the rental market. But some Logan Square residents […]

New TOD Ordinance Will Bring Parking-Lite Development to More of Chicago

|
Last Thursday, the Chicago City Council passed a transit-oriented development reform ordinance that dramatically more than doubles the distance around train stations where dense development can be built, and virtually eliminates the car parking minimums within these districts. The new legislation amends the city’s original TOD ordinance, which passed in 2013 and has been highly successful in […]

Like TOD Ordinance, Less Restrictive Zoning Can Help Lakeview Businesses

|
The Lakeview Chamber of Commerce is concerned that restrictive zoning, car parking requirements, and changing household types may hinder growth in the high-demand neighborhood and negatively affect local businesses. The chamber, along with Special Service Area #27 (map), published a report this week [PDF] that shows that not only is Lakeview’s housing supply failing to keep […]

Lakeview Developer First to Use TOD Ordinance to Reduce Parking

|
New rental housing planned next to the Paulina Brown Line station in West Lakeview at Lincoln Avenue and Roscoe Street is the first known development to take advantage of the transit-oriented development ordinance passed in 2013 that reduces parking minimums for buildings near transit stations. Centrum Partners is proposing a four- to seven-story building abutting […]

Emanuel’s Proposed Ordinance Would Dramatically Enlarge TOD Districts

|
Last week, the Metropolitan Planning Council launched the “Grow Chicago” campaign to promoted transit-oriented development. The city’s current TOD ordinance, passed in 2013, reduces the minimum parking requirement and allows additional density for new and renovated buildings located within 600 feet of a rapid transit stop, 1,200 on a designated Pedestrian Street. Among other recommendations, the […]