| | 
"Who Can Talk Louder" is a new blog series meant to spark debate about planning issues that shape daily life for residents of metropolitan Chicago. Some topics addressed may be controversial, so please be aware that writings of the bloggers and commenters are their own personal views and are not necessarily shared by CMAP. We present this forum in the belief that open discussion of diverse views can contribute to better planning and a brighter future. "Big Yards"
by Russell Pietrowiak | "Sidewalks"
by Dru Williams-Clark | According to the Census Bureau, Kendall County was the fastest growing county (by percent growth) in the nation between 2000 and 2007 and was the only county among the nation’s top 10 fastest growing county’s not located in the South or West parts of the country.
What does this growth mean? I suggest that it means that quality of life and housing issues are far more important to people than commutes, the price of gas, or access to transportation.
On the surface it might appear that congestion is being exacerbated by all the development in Kendall County. I suggest that what is really happening is that people are voting with their feet and their pocket book that congestion is not their number one concern but other things are; such as schools, crime, housing that they can afford, the yard that they want, etc. In sum people in this region are telling us that these value issues are more important to them then their commute times.
In Chicago and the suburbs there are a number of dense urban areas that offer a variety of mobility options in combination with affordable housing. Suburbs such as Aurora, Elgin, and Joliet all have these options in the areas near their city centers, yet these options have not been nearly as attractive to people as Kendall County is. The argument is that people would be better of if they lived in dense neighborhoods, where public transportation is readily available. I wonder if they say this when they are repeatedly circling the block looking, hoping for that magical parking spot to emerge only to realize that that magical spot that just opened up is only for those with a special permit.
Why is Kendall’s growth numero uno? One needs to look no further than the American dream. Part of that dream is to own your own home, to live in a safe community, to provide quality educational opportunities for your kids, etc. It may not be everyone’s dream but it seems to be appealing to many.
If the region really wants to develop policies that make it attractive for people to live near their work or by transit, or to get out and walk then they need to address the issues that all too often get lip service by and address these quality of life issues. We need to understand the attractiveness of Kendall County. The assumption that it’s all about more house for the money is far too simplistic an answer. Quite simply it appears that Kendall County provides something that many people agree with, a chance to live a part of the American dream.
| Given the low cost of land; recent housing boom; easy access to the third largest city in the nation; and availability of high quality schools, I can’t say that I’m surprised that Kendall County has the fastest growing population in the country. However, as an unabashed urbanite, I must confess that I don’t understand the benefits of living in Kendall County either to the individual or society at large.
In terms of individual benefits, consider housing cost. Young, middle class families will always covet picket fence dreams of large homeownership. The construction boom of the early aughts catered to their desires like never before, leaving a wake of hard-to-sell MacMansions and subprime loans. As we all know, many of those families are having trouble finding the same credit that was available in 2005 (even 2006). Those hoping to downsize will likely find that small, heaven-forbid-multifamily housing is scarce in Kendall County.
Likewise, the Center for Neighborhood Technology has rightly pointed out that a family’s true housing cost includes the cost of transportation to work. According to the CNT analysis, only one block group in all of Kendall County pays less than 40% of its median income on housing and transportation combined. Unfortunately for those hoping to save by using public transit, there are no Metra stations within the county’s boarders. To fuel the fire, the cost of gas has been on a death march toward $4.00 since 2003.
For the sake of conversation, let’s assume that that population growth in Kendall County is somehow magically unfettered by the busted bubble, credit crisis or climbing gas prices. What will be the social impact of this unprecedented growth?
The increase in the region’s median commute time will undoubtedly continue to drive fuel costs  up, but it will also cause an increase in air pollution…for the entire region (and beyond), not just the brave new Kendalians. Similarly, the development explosion necessary to support rapid growth will consume green space and increase impervious surfaces, resulting in increased storm water runoff and reduced groundwater recharge.
To be sure, there are policies and programs that, if implemented, can mitigate the social costs of rapid growth. I make no assumption (positive or negative) as to the willingness of municipal actors to adopt such measures. For me, the ultimate question is why? With the amount of underutilized land within the urban core (Infill Snapshot Report), why risk either the individual or the social costs?
Communities closer to Chicago offer a more diverse housing stock, savings on impact fees and easier access to job centers. While the issue of school quality is a difficult one, recent reports indicate that it isn’t one from which we can escape with any degree of success. |
|
Comments (0)
| | Are we defending consensus, or merely the conventional?by Stephen Ostrander
5.7.08
This week I’ve been reading Karrie Jacobs’ The Perfect $100,000 House: A Trip Across America and Back in Pursuit of a Place to Call Home. Jacobs, today a contributing editor at Metropolis magazine, chronicles her search for a great inexpensive home—a quest that is simple and, in essence, a manifestation of the American Dream. But her narrative reveals a key lesson: those needs which are simple but not conventional are rarely simple to fulfill.
Her needs are “not all that unconventional,” but the conventional home of today is not for her. Jacobs yearns for a small, inexpensive home demonstrating “unadorned pragmatism” and simplicity of form, a wish that is actually unconventional and outside of the mainstream, rendering it expensive. Mark Anderson, a gifted architect responsible for the dwelling that comes closest to Jacobs’ conception of the “perfect house,” points out to her that “The least expensive way of building is the most conventional.” Unfortunately, the inexpensive conventional home, in addition to doubts about its construction, doesn’t suit the preferences of Jacobs (or, let’s face it, many of us).
The Chicago region has a proud heritage of conventional homes that boast lasting craftsmanship and style. The most obvious example is the Chicago Bungalow, currently undergoing a bit of a renaissance, helped by the Historic Chicago Bungalow Initiative. In the early part of the twentieth century, these were extremely conventional homes, built—perhaps we should say replicated—on a massive scale (hence the “Bungalow Belt”). Pragmatic, usually well-built, and quite affordable, they were once considered the perfect house for generations of families, especially those just starting out.
But today, even as the average family size is shrinking (3.14 persons per household in 1970 had declined to 2.59 by 2000), the conventional home is expanding (from an average of 1,400 square feet in 1970 to 2,200 square feet in recent years). Today’s developers probably consider the Chicago Bungalow to be too small, too simple to be built anew, not sufficiently attractive to the typical family, even those just starting out. Convention dictates that larger homes are required, the extra cost covered by building farther-and-farther out, where land is less expensive, encouraging sprawl and its inherent costs.
Where land is more expensive, historic bungalows are threatened by teardowns, in which the modest homes are typically replaced by maximized houses or towering condominiums that fully exploit the profit potential of the site, but disrupt the character of the community—a trend that the Historic Chicago Bungalow Initiative sought to curb.
Chicago’s historic bungalow neighborhoods provoke natural sympathy for their preservation. But when does preservation of a community’s “character,” through an adherence to convention, stand in the way of innovation that might yield solutions for the region’s problems that are simple, yet unconventional? As an urban planner in the post-Jane Jacobs era, I am trained to defend communities from unwanted change, to trust the wisdom of consensus. But another lesson of Jane Jacobs is that urban areas function like natural ecosystems, which is why healthy communities are often “organic, spontaneous, and untidy.” In her search for “the perfect $100,000 house,” Karrie Jacobs (no relation) found that the tyranny of tidy convention minimized the diversity of her options, and rendered her simple needs virtually impossible to fulfill.
As planners, we want to support community consensus while also encouraging diverse options and innovative solutions to our region’s problems. So here’s my question to you: What is the right balance between defending convention and nurturing the unconventional? (For example, if inexpensive “prefab” homes--like this one to the right--could increase the availability of affordable housing in the region, would you be willing to have one as a neighbor?)
|
Comments (3)
| Personally, I wouldn't mind living next to a prefab home but I suppose that is because I like their modern, unconventional look (not that I don't love bungalows too). I think that in the context of a neighborhood it would be important for the prefab unit to pay homage to the existing design characteristics of the neighborhood. For instance, be a similar height, have a similar setback and so on. I like the quirks of neighborhood that make them unique. Incorporating prefab homes in existing neighborhoods could make some places more affordable for everyone.
I wish I could find a 'perfect $100,000 house' in my neighborhood!
Posted by: erin on 05/08/2008 |
| One point…when you say “Today’s developers probably consider the Chicago Bungalow to be too small, too simple to be built anew,” it seems to imply that if one wanted to recreate the classic 1920’s Chicago bungalow to the exact same specs, that it would be affordable. Something tells me that, considering the quality of materials & workmanship that went in to those buildings, it’s final cost would be a lot higher relative to today’s median family income than the same house was in the ‘20’s. No, I don’t have any stats to back that up.
Would I personally object to having a mod-style prefab home next to mine? Not really. Do these buildings live up to the code requirements in a city such as Chicago? I noticed that all of the LV examples are in rural settings, where there aren’t so many zoning restrictions. Also, part of the in-expense of those homes is due to the minimalist design, which works for a second home in [insert your favorite semi-rural weekend destination here], but as a primary residence for a family of four or five? You need a kit house more like one of these:
http://www.searsarchives.com/homes/1921-1926.htm
Posted by: David C. on 05/08/2008 |
| Unfortunately, the wisdom of consensus has often resulted in trampling the rights of individuals. What is lost in this discussion is that housing must be safe and healthy, and not put the residents or neighbors in danger of injury or physical damage. Contrary to popular perception, there is no right to protection from viewing architectural styles you don't prefer. I love modern housing, and pre-fab construction has become very high quality and efficient to assemble. Modern pre-fab homes are faster to construct and often built to higher standards than current stick-built homes. Take a look at Dwell magazine! Victorian homes are lovely, bungalows are too...ranch homes, split levels, two flats, town homes. These are only conventional because we're used to seeing them. At conception, they were each unconventional. Thank goodness we didn't stop architectural development at any point along the way. Human nature is prone to react with dislike to things we aren't used to seeing. Thank goodness for the intrepid few who are willing to do something new. I would welcome with envy a modern house right next door to me. It would make it easy for visitors to find my house, being located next to a new landmark!
Posted by: dear.love@sbcglobal.net on 05/08/2008 |
| | Navigating the Futureby Ingrid Ruttendjie
Executive Director, Fox Waterway Agency
As a little girl growing up on the north side of Chicago in the 1970’s, in the days of lemonade stands, my biggest competitor was another little girl—the daughter of an immigrant family—who was selling water from a giant glass bowl with a serving spoon! How stupid, I thought back then. Today, she’s probably the CEO of a major water bottling company.  Life comes at you quickly, as that commercial goes, and I am pleased to see environmental water issues finally taking a front seat on the general population’s radar. However, the “recreational and quality of life” issues regarding water are getting lost and I think we’re missing the boat—literally!
Water is life. No one can deny the importance of water--we began our existences swirling around in it, we drink it and bathe in it everyday, and wait for the heavens to open to bring life and color to our world with vibrant greenery. Protecting water for health and survival is important. But we need to acknowledge that as humans, we are drawn to water-bodies like moths to a flame. I have been moved by sunsets over Grass Lake in Antioch, soothed by the sounds of trickling water over the rocks of Nippersink Creek, exhilarated by the spray in our faces as we cut our boat through waves on Pistakee Lake in McHenry, and awed by the sheer vastness of Lake Michigan as we cut the engines and dangled our legs off the back of the boat to watch the sunset fizzle into the never-ending west. This is real. This is what speaks to our hearts and souls.
In all of our planning, the recreational and quality of life issues regarding water and water-bodies need to be considered. There are very few soul-moving experiences standing at the edge of a detention basin or a drainage ditch. We need to incorporate the veins and arteries of our region--the creeks, rivers, streams, wetlands and lakes—into our plans. “They’re not making any more land” is true, but even truer is that “they’re not making any more lakes and rivers.” Click HERE to watch the Winner of the Go To 2040 "Bold Ideas" contest at Whitney Young High School—Best Video: "Dry Earth" by Jake Saner and Jake Wiener. |
Comments (0)
| | Middle Class Identityby Diana Torres
4.29.08 The McCormick Tribune Foundation recently hosted a conference entitled “Economic Inequality and the Hourglass Economy: The Decline of the Middle Class—the End of the American Dream?” For two days, I listened to numerous speakers and engaged in discussions with diverse groups of economists, sociologists, and members of national and  regional social and economic organizations. All of the invited speakers highlighted and emphasized the increasing economic differences between and among the United States general public, thus contributing to a decreasing representation of members in the “middle” class.
This is an interesting conclusion when coupled with an even more recent Chicago Tribune article indicating how the term “middle class” is actually an ever-popular and all-encompassing socioeconomic identity. The Tribune authors show how individuals and families who vary in income and number of family members (as low as $30,000 for a family of five and as high as $160,000 for a family of two), ALL considered themselves members of the middle class. In addition, the authors cited an increasing feeling of financial insecurity about the future. This sentiment is understandable considering recent patterns of layoffs, high rates of home foreclosures, and the constant promises from the Presidential hopefuls to ‘improve the economy.’
Based on the above, it seems many folks are claiming the “middle class” identity even though they share no common economic ranges or family sizes. And yet according to Hourglass conference I attended, the middle class is quickly disappearing. While these two conclusions may not be compatible or even complimentary, what is clear is that many of us are contextualizing our economic statuses as personalized and individualized experiences. As the Tribune suggested, being middle class is, above all, a state of mind.
As more people identify as ‘middle class,’ the more they indicate that they want to be a part of something bigger, a larger, more-inclusive group that can accommodate various occupations and lifestyles. In many ways, the GO TO 2040 campaign seeks to do the same: as an agency engaged in the planning process for a brighter future in our region, CMAP needs the various experiences, concerns, and aspirations of all the region’s residents.
The participants with whom I interacted in previous community conversations (Yorkville, Aurora, and Minooka) have all shown a range of economic and social differences. But despite all these differences, what stood out most was the personal and individual concern these participants demonstrated for the future of the region.
This is the work we do in outreach: to help people realize and understand the ways in which they are already connected to the planning world. We have to make our issues apply to the everyday lives of our region’s residents. The GO TO 2040 campaign provides a wonderful opportunity for everyone, regardless of our walks of life, to become educated and participate in a planning process that will affect our collective futures—whether or not you are a member of the middle class. |
Comments (1)
| I think in terms of community planning, engagement is key. For many people who are working class or part of the mega group middle class planning a luxury and the products of which are not often recognized. The immediacy of everyday life, problems and small and not so small catastrophes always seem to win over planning and long-term viability. Some ways our needs and wants play out are exemplified by the issues Americans face around debit and the subprime loan crisis.. The latter of course was fueled by predatory and racist practices but in general immediate satisfaction is part of our culture. So what does this mean? Planning has to be sold and marketed to the masses with the recognition that we like things “now.” What is the immediate reward? Or on the other hand you could just change cultural norms……
Posted by: Diana D. on 04/29/2008 |
| |  Tear Down that House! Or not...
by Lindsay Banks
4.24.08 Last Saturday, the Chicago Architecture Foundation hosted a symposium on the topic of teardowns—the practice of purchasing a single-family home, demolishing it, and building a larger single-family home in its place. (Photo by Erica Benson)
The general argument is between those who see teardowns as a threat to the environment and neighborhood character, and those who believe that anyone who owns the lot has the right to do whatever they want with it. The practice seems to be growing in popularity as traffic congestion intensifies and the idea of living far from the center city is replaced by the desire to live closer, often in built-out inner-ring suburbs. Increasingly, developers are looking toward older communities with high land-value and inexpensive housing.
Like many controversial issues, the driving force here is money. On a cost-per-square foot basis, teardowns can be more cost effective for the buyer than rehabbing or adding on. Owners of small, older homes are thrilled to see their value increase; communities enjoy increases to the tax base; and some aging, ugly houses come down. There are even websites dedicated to making the teardown process smoother.
While many in the anti-McMansionization camp focus on the aesthetics, there are more serious side effects as well. The most pressing are environmental—larger homes create increased impervious surface area, which leads to more flooding and erosion. Often, toxic substances, like lead and asbestos, are released into the atmosphere during demolition. And a heap of garbage goes into a landfill! And while putting up new, more energy efficient homes is touted as a “green alternative”, it will generally take a new energy-efficient building 65 years to conserve the amount of energy lost in demolishing and replacing an existing building according to the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
While homeowners and developers reap the financial profits, we're all paying for it--in my personal opinion. Trees and green space are lost when building footprints expand; affordable housing stock diminishes when proximate property values spike; historic architecture is forsaken in some communities, construction traffic destroys roadways; and we may end up with new ugly houses – just larger and more imposing than their predecessors.
What does "highest and best use" of land mean to you? Should teardowns be regulated? If so, how would it be done? Tightened zoning regulations, citizen advocacy, and recycling building materials are a few ways that some communities across the region are addressing teardowns. We cannot (and do not want to) say “no” to all teardowns, but cities like Lake Forest have taken steps to make the process more considerate of neighbors and other tax payers.
What’s your opinion on teardowns in your neighborhood? Read our recently released Strategy Paper on Teardowns and add your comments there! |
Comments (8)
| I am not for teardowns that are not in scale and in character with the surrounding community. What I haven't seen mentioned here or in the Strategy Paper you reference is that if a property owner is not able to realize the full economic potential of their property, because of zoning regulations or permit disqualifications, does that represent a "taking" (in eminent domain terms) of (part of) the property by the local muncipality? If it does, does that make the local municipality liable for reimbursing that property owner for that lost value (5th amendment)?
Posted by: Justin Tiempo on 04/25/2008 |
| I think teardowns should be regulated. What's just as important, is the enforcement of the laws and any possible variances. It only takes one slip up by the permit office to dilute any tightened zoning regulations!
Posted by: Sarah Tonon on 04/25/2008 |
| If I had to choose to live in one of the two houses in the photo, I'd sure choose the one on the left. New plumbing, new wiring, enough electrical outlets and good insulation. I live in an inner ring suburb of single family homes. When one of the old residents died, a person came to put up a 5-unit condo where her house stood. Those condo units are more affordable than the detached houses around it. My neighbors were highly agitated about the prospect of a 3 story condo building in the middle of the block but to tell you the truth, it is an improvement over the tumble-down home that was there. It has become a part of the community. In fact, it is now a part of our neighborhood character. If I could afford it, I'd tear my WWII era home down and replace it too. Houses weren't made to last forever and there comes a time when the economics favor replacement over repair -- just like any capital . I've invested a lot of money in this old house over the last 10 years, and it still isn't all that great. Live and let live, I say. If you want to replace your home and can afford to do it then the neighbors mind their own business.
Posted by: Ginger V. on 05/02/2008 |
| Replacement of a single-family home with a 5-unit condo would not be considered a teardown in our sense of the word, only one-to-one replacements are being addressed in this blog and in the report. An increase in density is actually better for the environment.
From the Strategy Report: "In this report, teardowns have been defined as one-to-one replacements of housing stock – essentially, tearing down an existing house and constructing another larger house in its place."
Posted by: Lindsay Banks on 05/06/2008 |
| Who is the "our" who defines what the word means? How about the region's residents' sense of the word? I think the inhabitants of all those towns and villages, not the Kenilworths, Highland Parks and Lake Forests of the region -- of which there are very few-- would disagree with you. Replacing a structure with a new larger structure has all physical impacts on the neighborhood whether it is a single family home or not. Are you saying that if they were buying and tearing down homes in Kennilworth and replacing them with condo buildings, it wouldn't be a tear-down issue?
Posted by: dear.love@sbcglobal.net on 05/06/2008 |
| Yes, that is precisely what I am saying. I am not proposing that condos be built in those areas, but the environmental benefits of higher density living far outweigh the addition of 5 new homes built on the "fringe." The only type of "teardowns" that we are addressing in the blog and in the report is a ONE-to-ONE replacement of single-family homes. (When I say "our" and "we" it is because I am the author of the blog and "we" refers to me and the authors of the report.)
Posted by: Lindsay Banks on 05/07/2008 |
| Hmm..better check with your blogger Steven Ostrander who says "Where land is more expensive, historic bungalows are threatened by teardowns, in which the modest homes are typically replaced by maximized houses or towering condominiums that fully exploit the profit potential of the site..."
You are not considering replacement with a multi-family building a tear down because the environmental benefits of a 5-unit condo far outweigh 5 new homes on the fringe. Are you saying that building the replacement home in a dense area doesn't have environmental benefits outweighing the environmental cost of building a new home of the same size, or potentially larger, on the fringe? How is this measured anyway? Consider that there are "environmental" costs and benefits of tearing down and building a condo building vs. a house. There are also the "neighborhood impact" costs and benefits of building a house vs. a condo. It sounds like you're saying that to tear down a house and build a condo building is, on balance, good, while to tear down a house and replace it with a larger house is, on balance, bad. Given a choice between the two options, I don't know how many of my neighbors would agree with that.
Posted by: "Anonymous" on 05/07/2008 |
| Historic bungalows are threatened by teardowns--by the teardowns that we address in the blog and in the report and also by replacement with higher density development. We have no debate on that issue.
There are many types of teardowns, but the only ones that we are addressing in this blog and in the strategy report are the one-to-one replacement of single family homes. We are not discussing people tearing down their garages, we are not talking about old shopping malls coming down, and we are not debating higher density condos...only one-to-one replacement of single family homes.
On the environmental side, I'm sure that a lot of people have no idea how bad it is to teardown a house. Hopefully, increasing awareness will spark debates like this and we can see what the priorities are for the region.
What do other people see as "threats" to the community? What should CMAP's priorities be in addressing various "threats"--be they environmental, cultural, or aesthetic?
Posted by: Lindsay Banks on 05/08/2008 |
|