Oak Park is hot! I have been beating this drum for some time — to my friends, fellow environmentalists, architecture buffs, and WJ readers. So I want to thank Ken Trainor for his column on development in our village [Don’t maximize profit, maximize quality, Viewpoints, July 26].
Oak Park is growing because it’s appealing to developers, young professionals, young families, retirees, and almost anyone (with money). We have F.L. Wright, Hemingway, an emerging downtown, great parks, good schools, diversity, and best of all — fabulous access to downtown Chicago. We’re very attractive now. This is an emerging perception that our community is just beginning to grapple with because for several decades, we felt very differently. There was a prevailing attitude that we were unattractive to developers. We need to get over that illusion. Times have changed.
Ken Trainor is correct in saying that Oak Park needs to “raise the bar” of expectations on developers. We don’t need NIMBY responses to every proposed change, but we do need to ensure that development in our community is high-quality, green architecture, with good urban planning that adds to the beauty and livability in our community. If a developer wants into Oak Park, let’s be definitive about our expectations and see that they are met by every developer. Quoting Trainor’s article, “Oak Park welcomes development, as it should, but we aren’t desperate.”
The Vantage development is a great model for discussion. A demonstration in quality architecture (but not great), it handled the parking garage in a wonderful way. The garage does not front Lake Street, and it is “hidden” behind a high-quality brick façade that looks good. Vantage is a mixed-use development with retail on the ground floor and offices above, topped by the apartments. The mixed uses add to the vitality of our community. It’s also got great access to transit services and the downtown, which reduces the dependency on cars.
Vantage mostly met the criteria for quality development, but it could have been even better. It should have been more “green” in its construction. Geothermal HVAC or solar panels would have been productive and lowered the carbon footprint. It would have been nice if it had been truly great architecture. This should be the standard going forward for future Oak Park developments.
We now have proposals for townhomes on Madison, apartments at Harlem Avenue and South Boulevard, and at Lake and Forest. What’s going to happen with them? Will they be significant additions to the life, vitality, and aesthetics of Oak Park, or some more bland buildings that could just as well be in Norridge?
The Plan Commission and the Village Board of Trustees need to step up for our community and ensure that Oak Park gets the quality developments it deserves. Will they step up and make sufficient demands on the developers coming to Oak Park to add to the vitality and quality of life of our community?
I love Trainor’s recommendations to developers in Oak Park: “Make this building a feather in your cap instead of a notch on your gun.”
‘Nough said.
Terry Grace is a resident of Oak Park.
