navigate : features · galleries · writings · discuss · about · contact

 

ESSAYS AND OPINION


Chicago's Ready for Reform
Payton Chung

Question: How does one decide what can, or cannot, be built on every plot of land in a highly diverse city of nearly 3 million people and 228 square miles?

The answer, of course, is very carefully. Especially if you happen to be a member of the Mayor's Zoning Reform Commission, the task force that will overhaul the city's 43-year-old zoning ordinance and map. Make that very, very carefully if you happen to be Alderman William J.P. Banks (36th) or Loop attorney John Schmidt, the co-chairs of the effort.

Then again, the commission is apt to get a lot of help, and not just from the professional consultants being hired by the city to assist with the huge amount of technical detail. Many developers, no doubt, will try to make a case for higher permissible densities. . . or at least against down-zoning. Industrial owners will lobby against residential encroachment and strip mall entrepreneurs will fight higher requirements for off-street parking.

But who's going to stick up for the little guy? You know, the two-flat owner who doesn't want a five-story cinderblock condo in the middle of his or her block, or a curb lined with parked cars belonging to people shopping at the convenience mall around the corner?

Who? The Metropolitan Planning Council, that's who. Tracking, and influencing, the rewrite of Chicago's archaic zoning ordinance will be a major priority for MPC during 2001, and indeed, for however long it takes to get the job done. MPC's Urban Development Committee is on the case and one of our vice-chairs, Lester H. McKeever, Jr., is actually a member of the rewrite commission.

The job won't be easy or brief. Zoning is one of the touchiest issues in any city, much less one as political as Chicago. As Congressman Danny Davis, former chairman of the city council's Zoning Committee, once put it: "The way you zone dictates the character of the entire city, the physical being of the city, the quality of life in the neighborhoods."

Zoning regulates the size, shape, and use of the structures in which we spend 90% of our lives. It shapes the patterns of city life, from daily commutes and evening walks in the park to weekend errand runs and morning greetings. Zoning has the power to keep buildings, and hence their occupants, apart . . .or to bring them together. To be fair, the 1957 code, with its strict separation of uses, arithmetic density formulas and modernist bent, has done a more-than-credible job of protecting residential areas from nuisances and attracting huge investments in the form of downtown office towers.

But times have changed. There are not just new technologies but new lifestyles, new aesthetics, new expectations about creature comforts, convenience and, in general, quality of life.

A new code, for instance, could promote development that strengthens and extends Chicago's existing fabric of transit- and pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. It could encourage mixed uses, compact development and good urban design. It could bring back walk-able neighborhoods: places where residents can easily walk, bike or use mass transit to accomplish their daily tasks.

The new zoning code also could do much to maintain the appearance of Chicago's neighborhoods. A formalized set of design guidelines and an easier-to-understand code would help mediate disputes between developers and neighborhood residents by creating clear expectations for both sides. Establishing a "parks/open space" zoning district, for instance, would protect treasured green spaces from intrusion by schools, government offices and related parking lots. The city could take its downtown zoning bonus system citywide, securing river-walks and other public amenities from developers in exchange for higher densities or relief from certain requirements.

Fortunately, Chicago doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. Several cities, from distant San Diego to nearby Elmhurst, have encouraged walk-able neighborhoods using special zoning districts around transit stations. They've "legalized" the way people live today by zoning for buildings that combine residential and business uses, corner groceries and live-work lofts. Land uses which require lots of space, or which bring in lots of cars (like car washes or vast parking lots) can be positioned so as not to break up walk-able business districts. Appropriate density designations can focus development and activity where the transportation infrastructure can handle it. Well-designed, human-scale buildings can create memorable, attractive urban places without the overcrowding and sterility that many associate with high densities.

The new zoning code can also help to address the city's affordable housing crisis. "Inclusionary zoning" laws, like those in Boston, New York and Montgomery County, Maryland, grant density bonuses or other incentives to developers of mixed-income housing. Seattle recently re-legalized coach houses and mother-in-law apartments in single-family neighborhoods. More permissive siting of transitional shelters and single-residence-occupancy hotels (SROs) could spur attempts to provide for the homeless.

None of these changes will come easily, which is why several previous attempts at a comprehensive rewrite end up as dusty consultant's reports on the planning shelf at City Hall. Indeed, the planning supervisor for Minneapolis recently warned Chicago to "be prepared for an eight to ten year process."

However long it takes, MPC will be there-watching, listening, advocating for higher standards and, of course, looking out for the little guy.

© 2000 Metropolitan Planning Council. Special thanks to John McCarron.

Payton Chung is an activist and urban policy consultant in Chicago.

© 2003 Urbanphoto. No text from this page may be reproduced without explicit written permission from the authors of this site. All photos and graphics are the creation and property of Urbanphoto unless otherwise stated. Photographs may be used electronically without permission so long as proper credit is given. No photographs may be reproduced in print without explicit written permission.