I first moved to an apartment in Oak Park in 1972, to join a roommate while we were in medical training at the U of I and Rush Medical Centers. We knew nothing about Oak Park, except that it would be convenient. The next year the roommate left, I got married and we stayed in that same apartment for four years. During that time we fell in love with Oak Park, started a family, and in 1977 bought our first and only home. We have never left Oak Park because of all it has to offer.
While any area will have issues, during our over 50 years of living here, I see changes that either make no sense at all or address issues that are appropriate, but with solutions that are not well thought out. They often don’t represent the needs of the majority and many times there is little opportunity for the majority’s voice to be heard.
I am speaking about leaf collection, which I have addressed in previous letters, gas leaf blowers, and the Ridgeland Common pool issue which, when put to a referendum, had over 75 percent of the voters against the proposal.
Much time, effort and probably expense was spent to sell the project. It is concerning that those in charge didn’t have a better read of the public’s sentiment. I am also speaking of bike lanes and all that has been done village-wide to enhance the safety of both bikers and pedestrians. This is an issue that deserves everyone’s support, but I and many others have questioned whether the choices made were the best we could do.
I may try to address these areas in a separate letter but for now I would like to comment on the plan to abolish single-family zoning and the thoughts voiced by Josh VanderBerg in his columns, “10 bad arguments against housing reform,” and “The stealth conservatism of Oak Park.”
Mr. VanderBerg suggests we are too conservative and too resistant to change. He speaks against the status quo and historic preservation and in his earlier column, even against community feedback. He says studies tell us what we need to know and he supports eliminating the zoning restriction to redistribute multifamily housing throughout the suburb.
With our longevity here, clearly we are happy. Oak Park offers the beauty of its neighborhoods, its housing mix, its diversity, its character, its architectural significance, its cultural and artistic sensibility, its proximity to the city while still enjoying suburban living, its public transit accessibility, safety, its schools, parks and programs. It is livable, walkable and bikable. Well-thought-out historic preservation is worth protecting and we do. If all this represents the status quo, what justifies change?
Oak Park is not sprawling or spread out. Our homes are mostly on modest lots that are close together. Streets are narrow. Oak Park has a mix of all housing types and the neighborhoods tend to be homogeneous.
It already offers a spectrum from entry-level apartments to grand, estate-like properties. We are built up and landlocked. There are no open areas or dilapidated structures ready to tear down. When other suburbs had tear-downs it has been to replace it with something more expensive but usually homogeneous to the area, rather than replacing a home with multifamily housing. We have already struggled with the acceptance of multi-unit condos and apartment buildings integrating with our commercial districts and many suburbs are further along in this process. Our buildings often attract Oak Parkers who want to downsize and yet remain in Oak Park.
When someone chooses where to live it is based on many factors, including job opportunities, proximity to family and friends, affordability, schools and the character of the area. We cannot be all things to all people and because of the maturity of our suburb, the changes proposed would not occur without major disruption and upheaval and, I believe, would diminish the attractiveness of Oak Park.
I do not believe Mr. VanderBerg’s concepts and goals for Oak Park are well supported or make sense to me and his last column would have been better titled, “Let’s Just Change.” There is a lot for us to continue to work on in Oak Park but I don’t agree with abolishing single-family zoning, change without supporting why, or not allowing for a process of community input to help direct the destiny of what many of us care greatly about.