Having now read the Albion proposal, studied the shadow videos and attended both Plan Commission meetings, I’ve learned that:
The wind problems caused by Vantage’s slab-style wall would not be mitigated, only changed.
The shadowing would cause significant gloom in winter.
The “green features” are not very environmentally helpful.
Some pro-development statements regarding a vibrant downtown make sense.
The problem with building a smaller, shorter mixed-use structure is not the cost of the land, but the cost of building, so we seemingly are stuck with a binary choice: short, vacant eyesore or big, tall apartment complex.
I’ll return to the last item shortly. Though I share the goal of downtown vitality, with greater knowledge of this proposal, the less sense it makes. Not because Albion doesn’t attempt to address community criticisms and incorporate some good ideas. It does. But with the zoning variances granted, the building is just too big, like a slightly squished cardboard box plopped down on too small a shelf.
It will loom large on all sides. Austin Gardens will be diminished, no longer able to fully serve its purpose as a place of natural refreshment for Oak Park residents and visitors. Long after Albion has sold at a profit, the first renters have left, and the money the company has promised to deserving community organizations has been spent, Oak Park residents will be encountering the building’s negative effects.
In short, the zoning criteria in place for the 1000 Lake location are right and reasonable; the proposal should be denied on those grounds alone. And there remain too many unanswered questions regarding overall design, sustainability, green space, shadows and wind.
To return to the aforementioned binary choice: Why? Let’s say Albion is turned down. Are we really stuck with that eyesore? No. Plenty of research confirms that an inclusive process of give and take among stakeholders can yield a third way, often better than the two initial alternatives. In other words, this dilemma could be seen as an opportunity to benefit downtown Oak Park not only economically, but aesthetically and culturally, as well. Staying within zoning constraints could produce very creative solutions. The plethora of homegrown talent in this village could bring some big, bold thinking to bear.
Could a developer or consortium be found to work with all stakeholders to apply asset-based planning and design thinking to the space? Could the existing building be reused, repurposed and augmented? Should there really even be apartments and retail? How about a small-business incubator, with offices and shared conference rooms and workspaces? How about an arts center with a public space for performance and display? How about a cultural museum with restaurant, garden and rentable studio space? What about a maker space? Others could think of much better alternatives, I’m sure.
One regrettable aspect of this whole debate is the seeming divide between parts of the business community and regular citizens. This does not have to be.
There is a better way.