Considerable complaint is growing about the process and product of Evanston's Comprehensive Plan and zoning makeover to date. The realization is dawning that the feel-good ideals of the planning mask an attempt to dramatically “upzone” almost every Evanston neighborhood, allowing far more height, mass, and density in development than presently, while relaxing lot size and parking rules. Drawing most attention: allowing 35’ three-story apartment or condo buildings of up to 4 units (or more) on all lots in Evanston currently zoned for single-family homes or two-flats; removal of height limits for downtown; and conversion of many business districts, including Central Street’s, to multi-use “corridors” of 65’ or 100’ buildings. What would that really look like?

Let's hone in on just the changes to the R1, R2, and R3 districts that take in a minority of Evanston's housing units but most of its homeowners and resident-owned land. As discussed in a previous post, the proposal is to allow construction of three-story buildings on any or every lot, where, now only 2-1/2 stories or 35’, whichever is less, is allowed. That "1/2 story" makes a difference because a full third story tends to overshadow and crowd most existing houses, and in 2013 hard work was done to fine-tune rules on gables and dormers to prevent stealth evasion of that. If a third story is allowed as of right, economics dictate that what is built will be to a full maximum envelope. In the illustrations here (scroll down to see more), experienced developer and 7th Ward resident Patrick O'Connor did a massing study of what the proposed upzoning would allow in an R1 neighborhood with typical 50' x 150' lots, using building lot coverage to below 35% (not including up to 480 sq. ft. for a garage), total impervious lot coverage under 45%, building height of 35', setbacks of 27' (front), 5' (side), 25' (rear) and 10' (corner lot). For context he included a few typical 2,500-3,000 sq. ft. "existing" homes.

As the renderings show, the impact on a block, and even on one adjoining home, would be significant. The Plan proposals and upzoning refer to "dispersal" of three-story buildings throughout a neighborhood but nothing requires that, and once a home becomes less attractive to buyers as a single-family house, the property becomes ripe for acquisition and redevelopment. A domino effect occurs. We've seen this happen with land use changes in multiple contexts over the decades, perhaps most recently with the teardown craze that was part of the leadup to the 2006-2009 real estate collapse.

Please review and share this article with friends and neighbors so that folks understand what is really being proposed. It's on the drawing board, but so far there were no drawings. Thanks to Mr. O'Connor, now there are.

3D illustration of four multiunit structures allowed under new proposed zoning on a block with three typical-maximum-height existing Evanston homes (actually larger than many Evanston houses):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Illustration of street view of a block with three typical-maximum-height existing Evanston homes flanked by structures allowed under new proposed zoning:

Aerial view illustration of block with three typical-maximum-height existing Evanston homes flanked by structures allowed under new proposed zoning:

 

Aerial "alley-side" view illustration of block with three typical-maximum-height existing Evanston homes flanked by structures allowed under new proposed zoning.

On the evening of Nov. 6, as most of Evanston was distracted watching the national political picture, the City released a draft re-zoning of all Evanston, altering both zone boundaries and the definition of how thousands of homes or businesses, and the land next to or behind yours, is zoned. The change affecting the greatest number of properties in the City would be that all low-rise, single-family and two-family lots (currently designated as R1, R2, or R3), would be redefined, allowing construction of three-story buildings on any or every lot, where, now only 2-1/2 stories or 35’, whichever is less, is allowed. The “purpose” states that such districts would have up to 4-plexes, but the governing “standards” have no minimum unit size, maximum number of units, or occupancy limits. A 35’ 3-story building of indeterminate number of units and inhabitants could replace anywhere where now there is only a bungalow or farmhouse. Buildings could be built on smaller lots, and much smaller s.f. per unit would be permitted.

Besides potentially radically altering architectural character and density on blocks of single-family houses and modest attached homes, the new zoning would abandon much of the thoughtful planning for Central Street and downtown. The Central Street overlay that preserved our walkable, human-scale shopping areas would be repealed. The current charming Central Street business districts, where building median height is now 20’ or less, would be rezoned “multi-use 2” or “multi-use 3,” with allowed heights of 65’ and 100’ (6 to 10 stories), plus whatever other allowances the City Council might grant a developer -- numerous other areas in the City are slotted for such clusters. Apartment and condo buildings up and down Central Street could be replaced with 5-7 story mid-rise structures. Requirements like rear upper-story setbacks, to prevent “looming over” nearby yards, also disappear. So do rules on street-friendly articulation and active storefronts. We’d also lose the step-backs required above lower floors, and the requirement of front pedestrian space, which prevent a "sheer wall" abutting a sidewalk. The proposal would revert to the build-to-lot-line mentality that makes sidewalks unwelcoming and sometimes impassable. In the case of the Crawford-Gross Point intersection, it would increase traffic danger from loss of sight lines.

Disturbingly, plan and zoning goals of ensuring light and air, and avoiding crowding, congestion, and excess traffic — historic ideals of almost all U.S. zoning — disappear from this plan, which means such factors couldn’t even be brought up or considered when requests for further changes or exceptions come before future City staff, commissions or Councils. The Plan does nod to open space, sustainability, and affordability, but there's scant evidence that the changes proposed would accomplish that, and evidence that the opposite would occur.

There are other issues with changes to downtown and other neighborhoods, some of whom may be impacted even more dramatically. All of it would transform the look and feel of Evanston, with the idea of enabling population growth of another 7,000 or more inhabitants. Not a single cost or negative consequence of such changes is discussed.

CSNA would like all of Evanston to be aware of all the impacts; there is growing public concern as to both the scope and the speed of the proposals. Cities typically take considerably longer to make changes of lesser magnitude.

What can you do?

1.    Become informed. Look at what is being proposed. Download the drafts and stay up to date.
2.    Communicate. Follow CSNA at this website and/or on Facebook or Twitter. Even better, volunteer to help us out, as the amount of information is too much for a "small group of concerned people" to manage. Talk with your neighbors. Many, many in Evanston are unaware of what is occurring.
3.    Attend or watch the Land Use Commission and City Council proceedings. Instructions on how to watch or to comment on the Plan  -- which can be in writing as well as in person -- are on the LUC site (or just click here).
4.    E-mail the Land Use Commission c/o planner Meagan Jones at mmjones@cityofevanston.org. Please be polite; the LUC are volunteers and staff are public servants.
5.    Write or call Councilmembers and/or the mayor, who will make the ultimate decision.

(adapted from CSNA membership mailing 12/4/2024)

Note: Since this was posted on 12/12/24, subsequent City documents as of 1/14/25 state that there is a contemplated limit of four units on lots in R1 and R2. R3 would be permitted "5+" units.

Documents coming to light through FOIA plus comments by staff show that the “Envision Evanston 2045” planning process has been steered since the bidding phase towards a “Minneapolis model” of rezoning. Proponents claim that Minneapolis has shown that upzoning and increased population density will lower housing costs. Is that true? Research suggests “not really.”

What Did Minneapolis Do?
Minneapolis lowered parking requirements and then, in 2019, eliminated single-family zoning districts, along with other upzoning, ostensibly to increase affordability through more supply. Tens of thousands of units were built, mostly through larger developments. Minneapolis’s upzoning has been called “far and away the largest densification project ever attempted in all of North America.”¹ So its recurrence in City communications, since before any public meeting, is no accident, but amounts to an explicit call for upzoning and density. This is significant, evidencing that a predetermined desired zoning change has shaped the Plan, rather than the logical and normal sequence of letting community-driven planning first occur.

The purpose of this writing, however, is not to dwell, for the moment, on the procedural implications of that, concerning as they are. The purpose of this research was to take a deeper dive into the assertion that Minneapolis's experiment "worked" and provides a template that Evanston can readily adopt with similar results.

Context
The first thing to note that Minneapolis is very different than Evanston. It is 5 to 6 times Evanston’s size. It is the largest city in a less urbanized state. It is bordered by and considered part of the same metropolitan area with another smaller large city, St. Paul. Even so, Minneapolis even after considerable recent construction is still significantly less dense than Evanston, and began with more land per resident on which to build. Minneapolis has only 7,900 people per square mile compared with Evanston’s 9,600-10,000. In order to be “as dense as Minneapolis,” Evanston would have to lose about 15,000 residents, not add another 8,400. Conversely, Minneapolis would have to add a whopping 80,000 residents to be as dense as Evanston.

Nor does Minneapolis have a much larger city, analogous to Chicago, next to it, feeding suburban demand as upwardly mobile households seek to move in from neighborhoods like Logan Square, Ravenswood, or Lakeview. Minneapolis is more, itself, the Chicago of Minnesota, only much less dense. Compared to Evanston, Minneapolis has less wealth, and a far lower percentage of students in its population. So it is not a good analogy and, even if its upzoning had been a roaring success, would be limited in its predictive power as to Evanston.²

Curiously, few studies compare Minneapolis with its twin, St. Paul. St. Paul's percentage of black population is like Minneapolis, but white percentage is lower, and St. Paul has a much higher percentage of Asian-Americans. St. Paul has significantly lower population density, a higher percentage of housing units that are single-family-detached, and was later to enact similar zoning changes. However, St. Paul, the less dense of the two, is the city that has lower median home prices, lower median rent prices, and, despite lower per capita income, a higher rate of home ownership.³

Also of interest is that Minneapolis, less dense than Evanston, has a slightly higher black home-ownership rate than Evanston. Density may be negatively correlated with black home ownership rates, at least with respect to single-family homes or small multi-unit buildings. Illinois towns like Olympia Fields, South Holland, Flossmoor, Matteson and Lynwood have dramatically less density than Evanston but some of the highest black home-ownership rates in the country.⁴

Impact on Land Values, Prices, and Rents
Drawing any hard conclusions from the Minneapolis experiment is difficult at best. Fair analyses concede this. As one nonprofit leader who studies Twin Cities housing put it, “Both Minneapolis and St. Paul have many ‘relatively experimental’ housing ordinances in place, making it difficult to disentangle the relationships between the policies, housing supply and prices.”⁵

One complicating factor is the degree to which Minneapolis suffered from the Great Recession. That downturn triggered a construction slowdown that contributed to demand-supply imbalance, but also, because of foreclosures, increasing vacant residential properties on city rolls to having over 1,500. By 2024 that number had been reduced to 311.⁶ Obviously, an inventory of available cheap land facilitates building lower-priced housing, and the return of 1,200 residential lots to residency improves supply in and of itself, separate and apart from any zoning changes.

Two University of Minnesota researchers in 2020 examining impact on rents from new construction in Minneapolis, apart from zoning changes, found that new construction lowered values of higher-priced rentals close to new construction, but increased the price of lower-priced rental housing by 6.6% compared to the comparison group.⁷ Thus, one interpretation of the modest-at-best results in Minneapolis is that rent “reductions” were achieved by lowering the desirability of units where, previously, owners had paid a premium for the lack of density.

This finding of differing impact, facially contradictory but explained by proximity and housing type, is consistent with study of externalities of density and “empirical testing [which] finds that adjacent building height generates substantial negative externalities for surrounding building rents.”⁸ In other words, residents and buyers don’t want to be overshadowed by taller stuff next door, and so development and upzoning hurts value for close neighbors.

The first academic review specific to the Minneapolis 2018 “zoning reforms,” by planner Daniel Kuhlmann, found similar results to the Damiano-Fernier study, in that compared to similar properties in surrounding cities, the plan change was associated with a 3% and 5% increase in the price of affected housing units, with some evidence that this price increase was due to the “new development option” available to landowners. Kuhlmann, like Damiano and Fernier, found that the plan-related price increases were larger in inexpensive neighborhoods and for properties that are small relative to their immediate neighbors.⁹ This is similar to what experienced observers would expect in Evanston as targets for tear-downs responded to speculation.

For that reason, Kuhlmann warned of gentrification from upzoning low-density districts:

Although redeveloping single-family houses into denser 2- and 3-unit structures may do little to directly displace lower income families, if these changes alter patterns of investment and development across the city, they could contribute to larger trends in neighborhood change and, ultimately, displacement of people with low incomes from the city.
“    ….[T]here has been little empirical research on how zoning reforms affect neighborhood change and investment. This is an important question, particularly because some of the most trenchant opposition to upzoning concerns the potential of such changes to lead to displacement of people with low incomes.¹⁰

A more recent review of the literature analyzing the Minneapolis experiment found that housing gains were “modest” at best.¹¹ Census data seems to bear that out. The 2022 census estimate was that median rent in Minneapolis was $1,267. The estimate in July 2023 was $1,328, a one-year increase of 4.8%. Minneapolis news accounts also confirm that after the upzoning, home prices have overall continued to rise.¹² That fact is confirmed by studies,¹³ as shown here:

Even advocates of upzoning/deregulation concede that the results have been nuanced and complicated. For one thing, in 2018, the year before the single-family zoning elimination, “Minneapolis approved a record-breaking 4800 dwelling units, compared to an average of 3000 in the three years prior, and around 3400 in the three years since.”¹⁴ The author of that finding, an Australian upzoning advocate and blogger, cautioned that the Minneapolis results were not necessarily transferable to other jurisdictions, saying “single-family zoning abolition may not be the sole solution for increasing housing supply in areas where multi-unit developments and apartment construction are already prevalent.”¹⁵ Evanston is such a place.

Another confound is the overall economy. Interest rates near zero made it easier to build. As interest rates started to rise to combat inflation, and as demand on supply chain dramatically increased costs and other inflationary impacts rippled across the economy, building (or maintaining) any kind of housing, let alone new affordable housing, became more difficult. Most of the affordable housing added to the Twin Cities since the Minneapolis upzoning has been created through preservation, not new construction, and in 2022 and 2023, as costs caught up (and as some inventory was flipped), the rate of total affordable housing produced annually in the Twin Cities has fallen off significantly.¹⁶

Multiple commenters also point out that Minneapolis population has actually declined in the past few years, which would tend to skew the market. That can’t be attributed solely or even primarily to the zoning changes, because the civil unrest in Minneapolis after the death of George Floyd may have been a contributing factor to residents leaving the city. It’s possible that the upzoning was a contributing factor to exodus, because it was highly contested (see Controversy, below at p. 5) and may have soured some residents on living there. Regardless of cause, however, the Census Bureau in 2022 agrees with critics of the Maltman article, estimating that between July 2020 and July 2022 Minneapolis lost almost 5,000 residents; as of July 2023 that number was almost unchanged.¹⁷

Controversy and Litigation
The Minneapolis upzoning plan was opposed by activists of color, environmental groups, and smart growth advocates. The smart growth advocates labeled it “irresponsible planning.”¹⁸ Nekima Levy Armstrong, a black activist, said “Residents of color already face significant barriers to home ownership, which would have been exacerbated under the plan as a result of reduced access to and availability of single family properties.”¹⁹ Environmental criticism was that “by deregulating development, it puts the environment directly at risk through cumulative harm” from density-related impacts, a conclusion bolstered by an Initial Environmental Analysis conducted by an environmental engineering firm.²⁰

The coalition opposed to the plan sued. The trial court agreed with them, finding that the plan conflicted with environmental goals, holding, “Increased population density is an affirmative feature of the residential portions of the 2040 Plan, a feature that has not been present in any previous comprehensive plan.” The ruling was hailed by environmentalists.²¹ The injunction by the trial court was reversed by an appellate court in May, 2024, not on its merits, but because of limits on the trial court’s power.²² However, it should be noted, the litigation continued for years after the plan’s adoption.

Conclusion
It would be a planning mistake to draw hard conclusions as to ultimate impact of Minneapolis upzoning on affordability, let alone to assume that it represents a good template for Evanston.

In Minneapolis, the many more units built produced gains in housing supply affordability that are modest at best and whose stickiness is not certain. Rents and home prices continue to rise. The confounds of pre-existing housing vacancies, pre-existing incremental measures, and population loss in Minneapolis over the last four years prevent any conclusive finding as to even those modest benefits, or environmental costs. Explanation of why less dense, more single-family-oriented St. Paul was (and remains) more affordable is lacking. The applicability of a scheme in Minnesota’s largest city to an already denser and more affluent inner-ring Chicago suburb like Evanston has inherent questions.

Even if the modest alleged benefits are possibly replicable, weighing against those are the likelihood of gentrification and displacement suggested by research and common sense, with “affordability” gains occurring primarily as some more desirable residences become less so due to crowding. Evanston is expensive because it is desirable. Increasing affordability by reducing desirability and home value, whether in relatively scattered instances impacting surprised individual property owners, or on entire blocks or in existing multi-unit buildings, is something no Evanstonians have asked for, and would be contrary to stated goals of all other planning Evanston has ever done. A commitment to environmental sustainability also requires taking the environmental objections to upzoning raised by the groups in Minneapolis seriously.

Given that the Minneapolis experiment in upzoning and densification yields no firm evidence of a successful model that can be applied to Evanston, the greatest significance of its recurring reference in Envision Evanston 2045 discussion is to suggest that the “solution” was determined before the planning. If so, the planning process has largely been cover to achieve the rezoning desired by certain interests, which is a major procedural problem, requiring remedy. -- JPS

 

Notes

¹ Smart Growth Minneapolis, “The Problem,” https://smartgrowthminneapolis.org/our-work/problem/
² Minneapolis does not plan to do that, it projects that it still needs to add housing for its existing population. But note, mathematically, any city that is adding population at the same time that it is building housing is making it more difficult to reach its goals. The target moves. That is one reason why it is difficult to build one’s way to sustainability or affordability.
³ “Minneapolis, MN vs St. Paul, MN,” https://www.city-data.com/compare/Minneapolis-MN-vs-St_-Paul-MN
⁴ Ted Slowik, “South suburbs contain 5 communities with nation’s top black homeownership rates,” Daily Southtown (Dec. 13, 2018), https://www.chicagotribune.com/2018/08/26/south-suburbs-contain-5-commun...
⁵ Madison McVan, “Twin Cities met new housing targets in recent years, but growth slowed in 2023,” Minnesota Reformner (Jan. 16, 2024), https://minnesotareformer.com/2024/01/16/twin-cities-met-new-housing-tar... (quoting Dan Hylton of HousingLink).
⁶ Elliot Hughes, “Vacant Since the ‘90s? Minneapolis pushes to reduce number of long-empty buildings,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune (July 18, 2024), https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-proposal-would-mandate-annual-fi...
⁷ Anthony Damiano and Chris Frenier, “Build Baby Build?: Housing Submarkets and the Effects of New Construction on Existing Rents,” Ctr. for Urban and Reg’l Affairs (Oct. 16, 2020), https://www.tonydamiano.com/project/new-con/bbb-wp.pdf. Note CURA has an earlier draft online.
⁸ Chuanhao Lin, “Do households value lower density: Theory, evidence, and implications from Washington, DC,” 108 Regional Sci. & Urban Econ. (2024), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2024.104023, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046224000474. Lin found that the data suggested that externality costs depend on both height and building separation of adjacent buildings.
⁹ Daniel Kuhlmann, “Upzoning and Single-Family Housing Prices: A (Very) Early Analysis of the Minneapolis 2040 Plan,” 87 J. Am. Planning Ass’n 383-395 (online: 16 Feb 2021), https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2020.1852101
¹⁰ Kuhlmann, id., at n.5.
¹¹ April Towery, “Minneapolis Abolished Single-Family Zoning But is That The Answer to More Affordable Housing?” https://candysdirt.com/2024/01/01/minneapolis-abolished-single-family-zo... (Quoting Governing.com journalist Jake Blumgart, at https://www.governing.com/jakeblumgart).
¹² Greta Kaul, “Why home prices in the Twin Cities keep going up,” MinnPost (Apr. 7, 2022), https://www.minnpost.com/economy/2022/04/why-home-prices-in-the-twin-cit...
¹³ “All-Transactions House Price Index for Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI (MSA),” Fed. Res. Bk. of St. Louis (Nov. 26, 2024), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ATNHPIUS33460Q; “S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller MN-Minneapolis Home Price Index,” Fed. Res. Bk. of St. Louis (Oct. 2024), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MNXRSA#. Graphs are shown above.
¹⁴ Matthew Maltman, “A Detailed Look at the Outcomes of Minneapolis’ Housing Reforms,” One Final Effort.com (Apr. 17, 2023), https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-detailed-look-at-minneapolis-housing-s....
¹⁵ Id. (emphasis supplied)
¹⁶ Housing Link, “Housing Counts,” https://www.housinglink.org/Research/Counts; see also “Twin Cities met new housing targets in recent years, but growth slowed in 2023,” supra n.5.
¹⁷ U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts | Minneapolis city, Minnesota,
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/minneapoliscityminnesota. The 2024 results have not been published. A .pdf of the 2022 estimates no longer appears at the foregoing link is available on request.
¹⁸ Smart Growth, supra n.1.
¹⁹ Susan Du, “Minneapolis cannot proceed with 2040 Plan, court rules,” Minneapolis Star-Tribune (Sept. 5, 2023), https://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-cannot-proceed-with-2040-plan-co...
²⁰ Smart Growth, supra n.1. See generally Kirsten Pauly, et al., Sunde Engineering, “Environmental Analysis: Minneapolis 2040 Plan” (Nov. 2018), https://smartgrowthminneapolis.org/wp-content/uploads/Sunde-Environmenta.... The review found that environmental impacts on residents would include increased noise impacts,  increased pedestrian traffic, increased vehicle traffic, increased vehicle congestion and idling, decreased air quality, increased parking constraints, negative impacts to existing viewsheds (landmark buildings, open spaces, water
bodies), longer hours of activity, reductions in privacy, increased light and glare from buildings, greater impacts from construction if construction of larger buildings than previously permitted increases the duration of construction activity, decreased access to light for surrounding properties, shadowing of adjacent properties; and impacts to existing solar panels on neighboring structures. Id. at 10-11.
²¹ Kevin Reuther, “Op-ed: Court got it right on 2040 plan: Minnesota Environmental Rights Act provides essential protection,” Minn. Reformer, (Feb. 10, 2023) https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/02/10/court-got-it-right-on-2040-plan....
²² Christopher Ingraham, “Minneapolis 2040 plan can once again go forward, appeals court rules,” Minn. Reformer (May 13, 2024), https://minnesotareformer.com/briefs/minneapolis-2040-plan-can-once-agai...

A reccomendation to elimate all R1 zoning deserves many questions as to why he and 4 other council members made this recommendation back in July 2024. What are the pros and cons and as important what are the unintended conseques of property owners. Who is driving the massive change? The draft comprehensive plan was just released about a week ago 4 months after the referral and while the public is still in the process of providing imput. Below is one letter in the Evanston Roundtable:

Letter to the editor: City should keep single-family zoning

Serious danger for single-family R-1 property owners lurks within the Envision Evanston 2045 proposed comprehensive plan and revised zoning ordinance. R-1 property owners must be aware of and understand the drastic effect on their R-1 properties that will result from the city’s planned zoning changes.

R-1 properties (which “provide for single-family development at the lowest density within the city,” according to the current zoning code) constitute large areas of single-family homeownership in the city. The proposed zoning changes will destabilize R-1 districts. They will alter the nature and character of R-1 property and the relationship of neighboring homes to one another, the neighborhood and the city.

City staff presented a preview of Envision Evanston 2045 at the Oct. 29 Sixth Ward forum. While reluctant to discuss specifics, staff members admitted the city’s plan is to entirely abolish R-1 single-family zoning. The plan is to allow multi-family structures containing up to four dwelling units to be built on what is now an R-1 single-family zoning lot.

Staff referred to a study projecting that 8,000 potential new residents will seek to reside in Evanston by 2045. Ignoring the fact that the city is already fully built out, has had a stable population for at least the past 60 years and has no land available for residential development, the plan is to increase density by “upzoning” all R-1 properties. Upzoning means altering a zoning code to allow new capacity for development. This would provide “new” raw land for multi-family development, where none exists, apparently to accommodate a potential population surge. The residents at the Sixth Ward forum were told that this is going to happen and is the way it is going to be.

Abolition of R-1 zoning was not requested by R-1 homeowners, is unwelcome and amounts to a government intrusion into residents’ control over their private property and their right to peaceful and stable enjoyment of it. City staff “assured” residents that this would happen “over time” and not “right away,” as if that makes it more palatable. Such an assurance is cold comfort to those R-1 property owners who have no wish to spend even one minute next to a four-plex development rising five feet away from a common lot line, whether it is now or 10 years from now.

A number of residents’ questions regarding this upzoning scheme were not addressed by staff at the forum. These include:

1. What are the demographic facts underlying the projected 8,000-person population growth?
2. Why is the city planning for future density by manipulating R-1 zoning to permit multi-family housing?
3. The drastic and negative environmental consequences of increased density by eliminating or reducing open/green space now provided in R-1 by front and back yards, reducing permeable soil and stormwater absorption and increasing carbon footprint and emissions by replacing one single-family dwelling with four dwelling units.
4. Disruption to R-1 property owners who have owned and maintained their properties over the years relying on stable zoning rules.
5. Exacerbating already over capacity street parking in residential areas and the city’s continual waivers or reductions for off-street parking requirements for multi-unit developments.
6. Increased pressure on city services, fire, police, etc., as well as increased demands on utilities (sewer, water, gas, electricity, telephone, cable, etc.)
7. The negative effect of upzoning on R-1 property values in relation to the system of assessed property valuation and real estate taxation.
8. The fallacy of transit-oriented developments (and the diminishment of required off-street parking) when fewer and fewer people work in places served by transit routes, and need to use a car to get to work.

Staff also indicated that reduced lot size requirements below the current R-1 minimums, increased structure height over that currently allowed in R-1 and reduced setbacks are also under consideration. None of these changes have a positive effect on neighboring existing R-1 properties and will negatively affect the nature and character of the neighborhoods in every R-1 district. Zoning changes such as those proposed can form the basis for a type of legal action known as inverse condemnation, allowing property owners to seek compensation when a government action damages or decreases the value of their property.

Why is this being done on the backs of R-1 residents at the expense of their quality of life and property value? Staff said that the city is pushing to get this R-1 upzoning done quickly. This would be well before the municipal elections in April 2025. What’s the rush? This is a 20-year plan, after all. Each candidate on the ballot in the April 2025 election must face voters and answer these questions. R-1 residents have the right to know if this upzoning proposal aligns with each candidate’s vision of development over the entire city and in each impacted ward. These zoning changes must not be considered until after the municipal elections, if at all, to permit residents to vet their elected officials and the taxpayer-funded consultants who devised this ill-advised scheme.

Join the Conversation

 6 Comments

1. Another reason to keep zoning for single-family homes is that as open space on a lot is reduced, less of it is really suitable for either native perennials or home food gardens, both of which can be challenged by shade from buildings and maybe too much rain runoff from roofs. Sometimes the best use is to pave these spaces, not always with permeable pavers. A good zoning/building code should encourage open spaces well-situated and placed for native plants and/or home food gardens.

2. Dear Joan and John,

   Thank you for illuminating the 800 lb. zoning gorilla in the room that our Mayor and City staff want you to think is nothing but a cute little hedgehog.

   In your opening sentence, I’d like to expand that danger to every resident in our fair City be they a renter or homeowner… this kind of proposed density endangers the quality of life of the whole community! The City of Evanston comprises 7.8 sq/mi… and adding 8000 more residents (~12% more density) to our small boundaries will surely affect the tranquility of the other 75,000 currently enjoy… it’s why we choose to live here.

   I have lived in Evanston all my life and I am stunned at the kinds of development that are being proposed by this administration and City staff and the skullduggery and back room dealing to accomplish the agenda of some, at the expense of many. The next parcel on the chopping block is likely our 7 acre Civic Center Campus, just imagine several hundreds more dwelling units in what is now a park-like campus for the peoples business.

   Your friend and neighbor, Brian G. Becharas (9th Ward)

3. This is classic NIMBY fear of change and the future that needs to stop. Reactionary politics. The best neighborhoods I’ve lived in here in Evanston have been mixed between single family and multi family housing. If you want the big house large lot suburban experience there are plenty of bland and copy/pasted suburban developments out there for you. Evanston has always been, is, and will be better than that.

4. Thank you for emphasizing the importance of this potential change. The perceived need for speed with the proposal is reminiscent of the new boondoggle school developments.
   What’s the rush??

5. Excellent letter to the editor! Evanston residents are in the middle of participating in a planning process for an updated comprehensive plan and zoning code. The public does not yet know what proposed changes are being made or had discussion of good or bad the consequences of those changes could be. Shame on those who claim to value public input but then ignore that input and the process. Mayor Biss, as the sponsor of this referral, needs to answer to the public as to why he is rushing these zoning changes through. Slow this process down and allow the next council to deliberate and truly listen to the public.

   Reply

6. I agree too fast; set limits. Also isn’t this in direct opposition to the tree conservation rules recently set?

   Reply

While focus in ongoing "Envision Evanston 2045"  debate has been on the proposed upzoning of current lower-height residential districts (R1, R2, and R3), eliminating all single-family, 2-flat, or 3-flat zoning to allow 3-story, 4-unit buildings as of right everywhere, all business districts are also quietly targeted for dramatic upzoning to turn our streets into "corridors." What would this look like?

This enormous potential change would undo two decades of walkable business district planning. Currently, the small shops and human scale of many Evanston business districts are protected by B1 and B1a zoning, deliberately low-rise areas that allow residences above retail, the long-established "mom & pop store" model. Central Street (right, looking east from the 2100 block) also is graced with the award-winning Central Street Master Plan zoning which was Evanston's first form-based zoning, limiting height and front and rear massing. Taller redevelopment, capped at 35' in the 2000-2200 and 2800 block business districts, requires upper-floor stepbacks, active storefronts on the street-facing side, wide pedestrian space, and other features designed to preserve the beloved eclectic small-town feel of Central Street and its indie shops in vintage buildings.

However, the proposed EE45 mixed-use M2 and M3 rezoning would eliminate all that and allow 65’ buildings of sheer wall, up to lot line, as of right on Central, and 100’ tall on Green Bay. At approximately 9'-10' per story, 65' works out to 6-7 stories, and 100' is 10 or 11 stories. The image here (right), overlaying typical modern midrise stylings on a familiar block of Central Street, shows how this would change the look and feel. Two existing shops are preserved in this "after" pic for context, but bear in mind that such redevelopment usually brings higher rents. That, combined with the closure of stores during construction, often means longstanding businesses are lost forever, often replaced by franchises with corporate backing.

The taller building in the distance represents the even taller 100' heights proposed for Green Bay Road.

Note, finally, that draft planning also contemplates eliminating parking requirements for all the additional residences in projects such as illustrated here, despite data showing that multi-unit development increases the number of vehicles in a neighborhood.

 

 

---

URGENT! The public has never called for the elimination of R1 zoning. Why are some elected officials doing just that, and pushing zoning and comprehensive plan updates before the public process is completed? What is the rush? These changes impact everyone—renters, homeowners, landlords, developers—and the public needs to discuss the pros, cons, and unintended consequences. Who is behind this rush? It is up to us to slow it down.

Let your friends and neighbors know that while we are supposed to be in the middle of a public process and discussion to update the zoning code and comprehensive plan, in July 2024, Mayor Biss, Eleanor Revelle, Jonathan Nieuwsma, and Devon Reed submitted a referral to the council for the elimination of all R1 zoning, reduced lot sizes, and the elimination of parking requirements. Meanwhile, a draft plan was not even public, and the public is still not yet up to speed on what the out-of-state consultants proposed.

Thank you to those who are writing letters and submitting comments to the Roundtable. You can speak at council meetings and write to the Mayor and your council members.

Here is a link to one of the letters I have seen. Please share your thoughts:
https://evanstonroundtable.com/2024/11/13/letter-to-the-editor-city-should-keep-single-family-zoning/

The following documents relating to the Evanston, Illinois "Envision Evanston 2045" Comprehensive Plan and the zoning to implement that plan should be publicly downloadable. Please advise us of any broken links.

Draft Comprehensive Plan (11-6-2024)
Draft Zoning Map (11-19-2024)
Draft Zoning Text (11-19-2024)
Current Evanston, Illinois Zoning map
Current Comprehensive Plan (2000)

 

 

You are specially invited to an early-stage planning session for what may lead to a new Comprehensive Plan for Evanston. This is your last opportunity to chime in for what has been called Phase I:

Envision Evanston 2045 Input Session
Tuesday, May 7
7:30 pm
2715 Hurd Ave. (the former church)

Share the event on our Facebook page:

 

What’s a Comprehensive Plan? Under Illinois law, many Illinois towns of Evanston’s size periodically craft longer-range plans both to set goals and as touchstones against which to evaluate development proposals and requests for variance from zoning and code. Evanston’s current plan, adopted in 2000, was the work of a large citizen committee chaired by an Evanston architect and including many with planning and community involvement.

What’s up with our plan? Although Evanston’s layout, transit lines, and total population have not changed greatly since 2000, the City has started a process designed to result in a new Comprehensive Plan, and hired an engineering firm to manage the process, called Envision Evanston 2045. The first phase is some broad input sessions to gather general thinking about Evanston. However, behind scenes some are lobbying for dramatic amendment to existing zoning that supports and protects family housing and the cosmopolitan suburban conditions for which people move to Evanston.

A few weeks ago, Councilmembers Suffredin and Revelle arranged for a joint Envision Evanston session for the 6th and 7th wards they represent. CSNA thanks them for that initiative. However, the session was held in the 5th Ward, at the Civic Center, and the process's online participation option, held out as an alternative to in-person, reportedly had glitches. CSNA believes it's important to have an input session actually held in the 6th or 7th Wards, where nearly 1 in 4 Evanstonians reside. So we're hosting our own, and thank the planners for affording this chance.

Please come Tuesday evening and bring your best ideas about Evanston!

Mark your calendar, and in the meantime feel free to take the Envision Evanston survey.
 

The following was from an e-mail blast put out by 6th Ward Councilmember Tom Suffredin:

Reminder: 6th and 7th Virtual Ward Meeting: Envision Evanston 2045 Meeting, December 12

The first draft of Evanston’s new comprehensive plan has been released and is available for your review and feedback. We will discuss the plan at a virtual 6th/7th Ward meeting on Thursday, Dec. 12, 7 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Join virtually via Zoom
Join via Phone: 312-626-6799
Meeting ID: 842 7963 4501
Passcode: 208910

You may also share your feedback through the survey links below:

• English survey

• Spanish survey

At our ward meeting on December 12, Community Development staff will begin with an overview of the draft comprehensive plan. Please send me questions that you would like staff to be sure to address in their presentation. We will have time for more questions after the presentation.