“No more towers!” Wait. What?
Let’s focus on the community benefits of a thriving downtown
Although I haven’t been obsessed with the details of the Albion development, most of the arguments I’ve heard against it are pretty familiar: too tall, bad design, too much traffic. I just don’t find them very persuasive. Even with some trade-offs, projects like this contribute to a thriving downtown, which benefits the entire community.
First off, let’s talk about height. A tall building can be a better solution to a site, more functional and aesthetically pleasing than a squat, blocky structure that may be allowed within the confines of a zoning envelope. As local architect Antony Wood pointed out in a recent One View, we are missing the mark by focusing on height. “The reality,” he wrote, “is that our cities — and our suburbs — do need to ‘densify’ to accommodate population in a more sustainable way.” How many mid-rise buildings are too many in Oak Park? I don’t know, but I do know they contribute to making downtown a more vibrant place. Will this one cast too much shade on Austin Gardens? From what I’ve seen, it’s doubtful, and anyway, an urban park should be able to adapt to changing commercial spaces around it. I look forward to more people actually using Austin Gardens.
Second, let’s talk about design. The aforementioned Mr. Wood and I part company on this point, as he calls most of our recent modern development “a gross embarrassment.” The Albion proposal does “not even come close to accurately being described as architecture,” he claims. I mean, really? Has anyone taken a look at the building the Albion project would replace? It has to be the worst eyesore in the entire village. Here’s a picture of it:
And does anyone remember the old building across the street and the crumbling Village-owned parking garage that the Vantage project replaced? On our very first visit to Oak Park in 1994, we parked there before touring the Frank Lloyd Wright Historical District. We were stunned at how derelict the corner of Lake and Forest looked back then, in contrast with Austin Gardens, the 19th Century club and the houses we wanted to see on north Forest Avenue. Some gateway. What we have there today and what will be there once the northwest corner of Lake and Forest is redeveloped will be a massive improvement on what was there before.
I’ve also spent a lot of time driving throughout the suburbs over the past six years (the joys of being a travel sports parent) and honestly not seen better commercial buildings anywhere else. That may be a low bar for us to clear, but I think it says that within the constraints of suburban commercial development, ours is definitely not a “gross embarrassment”.
And anyway, it is naive to suggest that we can somehow demand great commercial architecture. Mr. Wood suggests an architecture quality committee, but we already have a community design commission that does a good job suggesting design improvements without having the power to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on a project. Had some kind of architectural board of elders been in place during the Victorian era, who knows if it would have recognized Wright’s designs as innovative? Who is to say what is great architecture?
Hiring great architects or giving others the means to aspire to greatness costs a lot of money. Frank Lloyd Wright notoriously overspent his budget, but worked for patrons who wanted to pay for his innovative design. We don’t have a public patron to finance great commercial architecture in Oak Park. Nor do we have public funds to do so. Forcing developers to finance “great” architecture themselves would drive up their costs, and therefore make projects more expensive for condo buyers or renters or businesses. That developers typically don’t propose to spend more on that front suggests that they don’t think Oak Park renters/condo buyers/businesses could support more expensive buildings.
Then finally, what about all that traffic? I sometimes wonder if locals who are so worried about Lake Street traffic have ever actually been in real-life traffic. Those who want to live in downtown Oak Park near mass transit drive less and have fewer cars. They can walk places. They want to walk places. It’s the rest of us who like to hop into our cars and drive to downtown Oak Park rather than walk, bike, or take the El for a stop or two. Besides, traffic along Lake Street can be easily avoided with a little foresight (hint: use North and South Blvds, or Chicago to Marian). Traffic in Oak Park is just not that big of a deal compared to virtually anywhere outside of Oak Park in Chicagoland.
In the end, projects like this one contribute to a thriving downtown, which is good for our entire community and for the entire region. Downtown Oak Park is far different today than it was a dozen years ago, before any of the recent development was completed and the deadening Marion Street mall was reopened to traffic. There is a greater vibrancy to it today, more restaurants, brew pubs, shops and a vintage theater that can stay in business because of all that’s going on around it. Having more people living downtown helps local businesses, in an era when many of us do more of our shopping on-line rather than drive to brick-and-mortar stores. And having a vibrant downtown is attractive to residents both existing and prospective (at least to those who can stand the traffic!). All this activity broadens our tax base. It’s also good for the region, because we’re supporting the movement from the periphery back towards the city center and encouraging the use of mass transit, two important pillars in the building of a more sustainable urban region.
