December 9, 2005

Joseph R. Trendl

941 West Winona Street, 1W

Chicago, Illinois 60640

Alderman Mary Ann Smith

5533 North Broadway Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60640

Alderman Smith:

The Carmen-Winona Block Club’s zoning committee eagerly awaits an appointment with you to discuss our objections and concerns to the redevelopment of the Admiral. We have been working with Greg Harris over the past few weeks to schedule this appointment. We hope you will understand the importance of this project to your Ward and our Block Club and assist him in finding time in your schedule for a face to face conversation with us.

We are following up on our letter to you dated November 1, 2005. As the Admiral continues to meet with other neighborhood constituents and further its redevelopment plans, we regret not having already had the opportunity to provide further detail to our objections and concerns. In the interest of time, we would like to outline for you the specific topics we will discuss at our appointment with you. We will provide further clarity and supporting research at our appointment.

In particular, we find the following aspects of the Admiral’s plan objectionable:

1. We object to a skilled care facility with public offices being placed on Winona with attendant curb cuts and emergency vehicles being routed along Winona because of its size, institutional character and the congestion it will create.

• Winona Street is not zoned for such a commercial development and we believe our existing zoning to be both appropriate and purposeful. We wish to see the lot at 900-910 West Winona Street remain residential in use and not allow the skilled care facility to be built in its place so as to not allow the facility to in effect take over our residential street and have the adverse effect of Winona Street becoming essentially an ancillary aspect of the Admiral’s gated community.

• A large, institutional facility in the midst of our tree-lined, family-friendly street of mostly low-profile vintage small buildings and walk-ups with pleasant yards and parkways would rend the fabric of our neighborhood.

• The increased traffic along Winona from emergency vehicles, staff, and visitors will disrupt our peaceful, residential atmosphere. We object to any loss of the speed bumps on Winona and Carmen and any other actions taken to facilitate easier access for emergency vehicles. The neighborhood fought long and hard for these and other traffic calming initiatives and they have improved our quality of life.

• The current lack of adequate parking for the neighborhood’s residents frequently leads to double-parked cars and delivery trucks along Winona, which will hinder necessary access for emergency vehicles. Also, moving trucks have to park on Winona and there is not enough room for an ambulance to pass them.

• Signage and lighting: Round-the-clock lighting of such a building and neighborhood signage to attract and direct visitors and staff will be intrusive to and detract from the beauty of our residential block.

• Argyle and Lawrence, east of Sheridan, both provide insight into how the introduction of health care facilities blights residential neighborhoods. These blocks have lost their once residential feel, impacting property values and quality of life. Our neighborhood will not abide by; as others have; those facilities that commonly line up infirm residents/patients in wheelchairs on the sidewalk, seemingly on display on nice days. Whereas we recognize all have a right to be outdoors, it seems to us to be disrespectful of those wheelchair-bound residents.

2. We object to a high-rise tower, especially one which is located west of the old Admiral Hotel building.

• Please see Exhibits A, B, and C near the end of this letter.

• Exhibit A shows the existing massing of buildings along Winona and the Admiral property. Notice how the existing Admiral properties fit with the scale of the existing zoning and neighboring buildings along Winona. The taller old Admiral Hotel building is located off Marine, relatively in-line with the other higher-rise buildings along Marine, while the other Admiral properties along Foster are lower-rise and of approximately the same height as the adjacent Winona buildings.

• Exhibit B shows the massing of the neighborhood after construction of the proposed Admiral redevelopment. Notice how the proposed Admiral properties, especially the critical care facility along Winona and the tower along Foster, dwarf the neighboring buildings and shift the scale of the neighborhood. These taller buildings, wrapping around the north side of Winona, will give Winona residents a very closed-in, dark feeling in their own homes.

• Exhibit C shows the line of sight for a person standing on the south side of Winona. The tower’s height will be so much greater than the other properties along Winona that the upper half of the Admiral’s building will tower over Winona pedestrians.

• A high-rise building will introduce several non-desirable microclimatic changes on the neighborhood.

• High-rise buildings create downdrafts of wind and accelerate wind speeds by up to 150% of the prevailing wind speed.¹ This creates dangerous conditions for pedestrians, stirs up dirt, debris, and precipitation, and proves problematic on neighboring building’s chimneys, flues, and open windows. The neighborhood is already a victim of such effects year-round from the buildings at 5040-5060 and 5100 N. Marine Drive and wishes to contain or eliminate further such intrusions on the neighborhood.

• A high-rise tower may or may not shadow neighboring buildings, but it will certainly deaden ambient light and darken and cool neighboring buildings. From an energy perspective, this will have undesirable environmental repercussions.

3. We object to the destruction of the old Admiral Hotel building.

• It a significant work of renowned Swedish-American architect John A. Nyden. It is our understanding that despite the passage of time and change in use, all of his important works have been renovated rather than destroyed and we would like to see the same for the Admiral Hotel building. Please see Exhibit D attached at the end of this letter.

• It is a stately building that is a gateway to our neighborhood as one enters from Lake Shore Drive.

• It fits architecturally within our neighborhood and the greater Uptown/Edgewater area. It serves as an iconic reminder of what makes Uptown and Edgewater special, harkening back to its historic glory as an exclusive neighborhood, a Midwest vacation destination, and a hub for entertainment and filmmaking. It stands as a foundation for the community’s ongoing renaissance.

• It counters and defies the blight of the Foster/Sheridan intersection, which includes a McDonald’s, the neglected Dominick’s and parking lot, the atrocious Khan developments, and that eyesore of a hotel.

• We expect that in addition to our local community, the local Swedish-American population would object to its loss, as well.

4. We object to an enlarged delivery dock located along the alley between Foster and Winona.

• We believe the increased volume of delivery traffic should continue to be directed off of Foster and not the alley. The Admiral currently has a curb cut just east of the alley access on Foster for a delivery dock.

• The alley between Foster and Winona is not adequate of adequate width to accommodate the neighbors living and parking along the alley, as well as additional trucks from the enlarged Admiral.

We also have grave concerns with the following aspects of the Admiral’s plan:

1. We are concerned about plans to raze the 900-910 W. Winona courtyard building.

• The architecture, especially the French doors and balconies, the setback, the green space, all add visual diversity and character fitting our residential neighborhood.

• The residents of this building are good neighbors and participants in our community. They are also indirect property taxpayers. The clients of the critical care facility would be a closed community and would not support local businesses, participate in our community development efforts, or contribute to the local tax base.

2. We are concerned about traffic flow, but to-date the Admiral has not responded to our request for more information which will help us assess this.

• A large increase in the number of residents, employees, contractors and service people, and visitors is certain. The added volume is a concern, especially around shift-change time, in light of existing congestion along Foster during rush hours, the CTA use of Foster east of Sheridan as an unofficial depot for employee shift changes and bus parking, Dominick’s and McDonald’s traffic, and the already inexcusable pedestrian safety situation at the Foster-Sheridan intersection.

• We believe an appropriate neighborhood-preservation response to the potential traffic snarling from the increased business at the Admiral will be for our Block Club to explore and pursue having the direction of one-way traffic along Winona and Carmen reversed to run in the same direction (East to West) in order to prevent increased circling and others using our side streets to avoid congestion along Foster to Marine and Lake Shore Drive. We consider this matter to be a very serious concern and a demonstration of how committed and forward thinking our neighborhood is, and our demand of being part of the process of the continued urban development of the area.

• Numerous traffic studies for other health care and nursing facilities find that staff, visitors, etc. overwhelmingly drive to the facility despite the availability and proximity of public transportation. This has traffic as well as parking implications.

3. We are concerned about parking issues, but to-date the Admiral has not responded to our request for more information which will help us assess this.

• Garage parking issues:

• A large increase in the number of residents and patients, employees, contractors and service people, and visitors is certain. We are unable to determine based on lack of information if the parking garage includes adequate parking for all of these groups at peak times.

• We are attuned to regulations that hospital employee shifts overlap and the related parking needs, especially for employees on the critical care and other related staffs.

• We insist the garage entrances and exits are located on Foster and not along the alley.

• Street parking issues:

• Our neighborhood currently does not have adequate street parking and cannot handle the needs of an enlarged Admiral business. We are unable to determine, based on lack of information, if residents, employees, and guests will be required to park in the Admiral’s garage and/or if they will be charged to park there. Our concern is that these people may avoid parking in the garage and will avoid the cost by finding free street parking.

• In addition to lost street parking for the proposed curb cut, we are concerned that a skilled care facility on Winona will require additional street parking spaces to be designated for disabled parking use resulting in additional parking space losses.

• We believe an appropriate neighborhood-preservation response to the potential parking issues from the increased business at the Admiral will be for our Block Club to explore and likely pursue zoned parking. Gunnison St. (Zone 79), where the Chicago Lakeshore Hospital is on Marine north of Lawrence, requires a residential parking permit to park on that street anytime (24/7).

4. We are concerned about the negative economic impacts on our community by the expansion and redevelopment of the Admiral.

• Significant tax revenue will be lost under the proposed rezoning. Since the Admiral is established as a not-for-profit institution and, therefore, is not subject to income tax nor is it subject to assessed real estate taxes by the county, the inclusion of the 900-910 W. Winona property into its Planned Development zoning will eliminate $40,181.45 as reflected on the Cook County’s treasurer report for the most recent tax year (Property Index Number 14-08-403-021-0000).

• The Admiral’s exclusive, gated community is insular. Its redevelopment plans ask for material concessions from the community, while excluding consideration of the community’s needs. The services offered by the Admiral are exclusively driven from within to meet its residents’ needs. As a result there is a decided lack of interest in helping to establish commercial services that would be considered stand alone enterprises, except where these same commercial enterprises can be established to primarily service the needs of its resident community. It is only after the needs of its residents are served will it consider those same commercial enterprises to be open to our community.

• We also view the Admiral as a poor neighbor from the standpoint of lack of patronage of local businesses and economy. The Admiral’s building manager is Kinzie Realty, which is not from the Uptown area, but from Evanston. The Admiral’s developer for this project is Greystone Distinctive Senior Living, which is not from the Chicago area, but from Texas. We also believe the residents of the Admiral will have little need to leave the Admiral campus for neighborhood services (i.e. grocery, food service, dry cleaning/laundry, florist, general retail) based on plans to provide much of this on-site and on limited mobility, as the CEO commented that the new target median age will be 75 years old.

• The loss of the 900-910 W. Winona property will also force residents out of the neighborhood, who patronize local businesses and generate sales tax income for the City. Their loss of business, not expected to be replaced by the much older new residents of the Admiral, will adversely impact our neighborhood businesses.

5. We are concerned such an ambitious Admiral redevelopment, if allowed to proceed, will negatively impact property values.

• As we consider the Admiral less of a true residential development and more of a hybrid, including elements of a commercial or institutional development, we provide reference to a research study, which indicates the loss of residential zoning in our neighborhood will adversely impact property values.

“Costs and benefits of land use regulations: A theoretical survey.” Journal of Real Estate Literature, 2003 by McDonald, John F, McMillen, Daniel P:

“The model discussed in this section implies that a necessary condition for the assignment of a block exclusively to residential use to increase land value is that residential land values rise with the proportion of the block in residential use (over some range). Empirical land value functions were estimated by McMillen and McDonald (1993) for Chicago in 1921, two years before the first zoning ordinance was adopted. This study found that residential land values did not increase with the proportion of land in residential use on the block, so the conclusion was reached that the zoning system that was adopted in 1923 could not have brought about a general increase in land values. However, a subsequent study by McMillen and McDonald (2002) found that land zoned for residential use increased in value more rapidly after 1923 than did land assigned to commercial use. The conclusion that can be reached as a result of these two studies is that residential zoning provided a kind of insurance policy against the invasion of commercial or industrial activity that would create strongly negative external effects, even though such invasion had not generally been the case prior to zoning. Apparently the value of residential zoning was a value attached to a reduction in a form of risk. This finding is consistent with Speyrer's (1989) empirical result that residential zoning increased property values by about 8% (compared to an absence of zoning) and with Jud's (1980) result that residential zoning increased house value per square foot by 11% (compared to non-residential zoning)."

• We believe it may create a large exodus of long-time property owners in the neighborhood. Many of these taxpayers are expressing grave concerns that the successful efforts over the past couple decades to beautify and quiet this residential neighborhood will be undone by the current plans. They fear the loss of our community by the imposition of an expanded, insular, gated Admiral business with an expanded hospice mandate. The hard-won stability of the neighborhood is truly in jeopardy with this project.

Finally, we refer you to Exhibit E, which ties together many of the objections and concerns we have highlighted above in the context of the City of Chicago Zoning Ordinance. We also wish you would read Exhibit F, which is our editorial summary of and position on our community’s redevelopment. In short, it commends your work, Alderman Smith, on overseeing a unique and desirable redevelopment of our community. We believe the Admiral redevelopment to be incongruent with your work and ours. There is a fundamental difference of philosophy between our Block Club and the Admiral regarding what constitutes being a contributor to the community and a good citizen and neighbor. It might be clarified best by their choice of developer, Greystone Distinctive Senior Living, which states on its website under the heading “Philosophy,” “senior housing is a business, not a real estate development.” A successful Admiral redevelopment in this quiet, residential community must consider the real estate and community development aspects and not just the business aspects. In fact, we believe this project is the appropriate opportunity for the greater neighborhood constituency to come together to coordinate redevelopment parameters for the Foster-Sheridan intersection and neighboring properties. This is our chance to do something really positive for our neighborhood.

We look forward to discussing these issues with you in greater detail at our upcoming appointment.

Respectfully,

Joseph Trendl

Carmen-Winona Block Club Delegate to the 48^th Ward Zoning & Planning Committee

(773) 728-6973

On behalf of The Carmen Winona Block Club Officers:

Donald Brown, President

Sylvia Moore, Vice-President

Deborah Ullhman, Secretary

Charmaine Stilinovich, Treasurer

Edward (Ned) Read, Margate Park Advisory

On behalf of the leaders of the Carmen-Winona Block Club Zoning Subcommittees:

Economic Issues

Joseph Trendl

Melissa McNeal

Historical & Architectural Issues

Steve Warnelis

Elsa Reyna

Karen Furnweger

Traffic, Parking, & Environmental Issues

Charles L. Ruifrok, Jr., CFA

Joanne J. Ruifrok

Zoning & Lake Front Protection District Issues

Michael Risselada, Licensed Architect

Tony Kotsonis

Ken Pollina

Kathe L. Walton

Adrian G. Walton

cc: Glenn Brichacek, President & CEO of The Admiral at the Lake

Exhibit A: Existing Block Massing

Exhibit B: Block Massing with the Proposed Structures

Exhibit C: Block Massing Cross-Section with Proposed Tower

Exhibit D: Nyden Vitae

Admiral at the Lake

Originally: The Admiral Hotel

Designed by Swedish-American Architect John Augustus Nyden of Chicago

• Nyden is a significant success story among Swedish immigrants to the United States between the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries.

• Nyden’s life and career was reported on by Bradley Skelcher in a 16-page spread of the 45^th volume of the Swedish-American History Quarterly under the title: “Achieving the American Dream: The Career of John Augustus Nyden, 1895-1932”, published 1994. The Quarterly’s headquarters is at Chicago’s North Park University on West Foster Avenue.

• Nyden’s Manuscript Collection is housed at North Park University’s Swedish-American Historical Society. North Park’s Hamming Hall was designed by Nyden.

• Nyden played a notable role in pre-Depression Chicago architecture, including the Admiral Hotel, as well as iconic structures in Philadelphia and Minneapolis-St. Paul at the University of Minnesota, variously designing structures of common use, special purpose or of memorial value.

• Of particular note: It was Chicago’s own John A. Nyden who was tapped to design the American-Swedish History Museum in Philadelphia, PA, which sits on land in which Philadelphia’s celebrated the 1926 sesquicentennial of the Declaration of Independence—land which was a grant from Sweden’s Queen Christina to a colonist in 1653, some 123 years BEFORE the declaration was written!

• Chicago Daily Tribune first reported plans for The Admiral Hotel in 1920 and identified John A. Nyden as the architect of record. Additional report was printed in the Daily Tribune in 1922, shortly before construction began.

• Nyden is known for contributing significant architectural landmarks in including (original names listed/Source: American Terra Cotta Company Image Archives, University of Minnesota Libraries):

• Victory Monument, 35^th and King Drive

• Joseph E. Hesser Garage and Garage Addition – Morse Ave. & Sheridan Rd.

• Apartment Buildings at southeast corner of Glenlake Av. & Winthrop St., at one time known as the Glyndale Apartments; and at the corner of Brompton Av. & Pine Grove Sts.

• Axel N. John Apartments, 257 East Delaware Place

• A. C. Arnold Apartments, Frontier Avenue near Irving Park Boulevard

• Melrose Apartment Hotel at 447-455 Melrose Avenue

• Frank Gustafson Studio, 157 E. Ohio Street.

Exhibit F: Our Editorial on the Neighborhood’s Redevelopment

“We had more half-way houses and sub-standard housing than anywhere else

statewide. We decided to stay, fight and reclaim our community...Instead of

tearing down troubled buildings, we worked to preserve them.”¹

Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48th)

In short, most of us chose to live in Edgewater because of the:

• Availability of affordable housing to rent or purchase

• Lakefront location

• Easy access to mass transit

• Elegant architecture

• Rich cultural history

• Ethnic and racial diversity

Unfortunately, Edgewater became the victim of disinvestment and urban blight when post-World War II “White Flight” to the suburbs deprived the community of its middle class. Uptown and Edgewater soon became dumping grounds for the city’s underclass. To this day, these areas still have a disproportionately large number of households receiving Section 8 housing subsidies. However, the outright neglect suffered by these areas also meant that a healthy amount of low-rise, multi-family buildings were preserved from development. This eventually drew diverse people with low and moderate incomes who sought affordable housing.

Over the years, a coalition of civic and public leaders worked hard to halt the decline of Edgewater. Buildings were cleaned and rehabbed, vacant property was developed, green space was created, the crime rate was lowered, traffic was calmed, commercial investment was encouraged and new construction was welcomed. As one of the most socially diverse and dense residential areas in the country, Edgewater became the focus of a great deal of urban research. A 2000 study sponsored by the Fannie Mae Foundation selected Edgewater as one of the top ten viable neighborhoods in the country but warned that public intervention might be needed to maintain the community’s affordability and equity.² In the face of gentrification, it’s necessary to guide investment that encouraged neighborhood revitalization and long-term change, while serving the community’s best interests. Gentrification has re-introduced a middle-class population committed to staying in Edgewater. However, studies have shown that the increasing influx of affluence into a neighborhood also leads to the displacement of its long-time residents. Community-based organizations and the 48^th Ward’s Planning and Development Committee have tried to control development and maintain Edgewater’s distinct character. Zoning and local laws, as well as TIFS, have been used to rebuild the neighborhood’s infrastructure and to stymie the economic resegregation of the community.

Exhibit E: Application of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance to the Proposed Redevelopment

Special Use Issues with Regard to the Winona Street Project

• This planned development DOES NOT meet the primary purpose of the RT districts, which is “to accommodate detached houses, two-flats, townhouses and low-density, multi-unit residential buildings at a density and building scale that is compatible with RS districts” and which is “also intended to provide a gradual transition between RS districts and higher density RM districts.” [Sec. 17-2-0103]

• This planned development IS NOT “compatible with surrounding uses and development patterns” as required for Special Uses approval. [Sec. 17-13-0901]

• This planned development DOES NOT meet the required criteria for Special Uses approval as follows:

• it IS NOT “in the interest of the public convenience,” [Sec. 17-13-0905-A]
• it WILL “have a significant adverse impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood and community,” [Sec. 17-13-0905-A]
• it IS NOT “compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of site planning and building scale and project design,” and [Sec. 17-13-0905-A]
• it IS NOT “designed to promote pedestrian safety and comfort” [Sec. 17-13-0905-A]

• This planned development DOES NOT meet the current Zoning Ordinance’s Special Use Conditions of Approval because it has “the potential for adverse impacts on surrounding property.” [Sec. 17-13-0906]

Planned Development Issues with Regard to the Foster Avenue/PD-152 and Winona Street Projects

• Due to the almost 30 year span of time that has passed since the approval of PD-152, and the changes that have taken place throughout the surrounding community during that time, we feel that it is imperative that the Admiral’s Planned Development be carefully reviewed before any further approval is granted.

• Under the current Zoning Ordinance requirements for Expansions of Existing Development, the planned development does not meet the necessary requirements to be granted planned development approval for the following reasons:

• it WILL “result in an increase in building height,” [Sec. 17-8-0515-B]
• it WILL “result in a significant increase in adverse impacts on the surrounding area, in terms of traffic congestion, incompatible building bulk or scale, or other measurable land-use impacts,” [Sec. 17-8-0515-C]
• it DOES NOT “[involve]s only reuse of an existing building and the building's height [IS] being increased,” [Sec. 17-8-0515-C]
• it IS NOT “compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of uses, density and building scale,” [Sec. 17-13-0609-B]
• the “public infrastructure facilities and city services [WILL NOT] be adequate to serve the proposed development at the time of occupancy,” [Sec. 17-13-0609-C]
• the planned development DOES NOT “minimize conflict with existing traffic patterns in the vicinity,” [Sec. 17-8-0904-A]
• DOES NOT “minimize and mitigate traffic congestion associated with the proposed development,” [Sec. 17-8-0904-A]

Exhibit E: Application of the Chicago Zoning Ordinance to the Proposed Redevelopment (cont)

• DOES NOT “create seamless or gradual transitions in bulk and scale when high-intensity development occurs in or near areas with a lower-intensity character,” [Sec. 17-8-0906-A] and
• DOES NOT “promote economically beneficial development patterns that are compatible with the character of existing neighborhoods.” [Sec. 17-8-0103]

• The planned development is in conflict with the stated Purpose and Intent of the current Zoning Ordinance for the following reasons:

• it DOES NOT “ preserv[e] the overall quality of life for residents and visitors,” [Sec. 17-1-0502]
• it DOES NOT “protect...the character of established residential neighborhoods,” [Sec. 17-1-0503]
• DOES NOT HELP TO “maintain... economically vibrant as well as attractive business and commercial areas,” [Sec. 17-1-0504]
• it DOES NOT “maintain...orderly and compatible land use and development patterns,” [Sec. 17-1-0508]
• it DOES NOT “ensur[e] adequate light, air, privacy, and access to property” - specifically surrounding property, [Sec. 17-1-0509]
• it DOES NOT “promot[e] rehabilitation and reuse of older buildings,” [Sec. 17-1-0511]
• and for all the above reasons, it DOES NOT “accommodat[e] growth and development that complies with the preceding stated purposes.” [Sec. 17-1-0514]

The planned development is in direct conflict with surrounding area zoning changes that are supported by 48th Ward Alderman Mary Ann Smith and approved by both ASCO (the Association of Sheridan Road Condominium and Co-op Owners) and the 48th Ward Zoning and Planning Committee because due to “the density in this neighborhood, the community felt that additional high-rise buildings would negatively impact quality of life by increasing traffic congestion, affecting parking and safety, overtaxing city services and creating a high-rise “canyon” effect that would block sunlight and existing views.” [From Alderman Smith’s Website

Exhibit F: Our Editorial on the Neighborhood’s Redevelopment (cont)

Therefore, despite extensive rehabilitation, Edgewater has avoided incurring the destabilizing economic extremes seen in other gentrified areas of Chicago, such as Lincoln Park. The City estimates that out of

approximately 30,000 housing units, a substantial portion remain affordable. Ald. Mary Ann Smith (48^th) vowed that Edgewater would never be “...a ghetto of the rich or poor. The key was affordable housing.”³ This was echoed by Dan Hammel, one of the authors of the Fannie Mae Foundation study, who noted that, “Neighborhoods like this tend to be discovered...The challenge is how do you keep that affordability?”⁴

Now that Edgewater and Uptown have achieved “hot” status, real estate developers finally find it cost-effective to invest in our neighborhood. They seek to maximize their investment by tearing down elegant low-rise buildings and building expensive apartment or condominium towers. Their actions threaten to destroy the affordable housing stock that has been at the root of the neighborhood’s renaissance and to displace the low to moderate income households that have contributed to our community’s diversity.

The Old People’s Home of the City of Chicago and Grey Stone Developers want to tear down an elegant, old building along Foster and Marine Drive and throw up an out-sized tower that will loom over Winona Street, a narrow, tree-lined street characterized by three-story brick buildings. They also seek to destroy an affordable, multi-unit rental courtyard building to construct a commercial health facility on Winona Street, which will upset the residential nature of the street, violate its architectural scale and increase the flow of traffic. We’ve come to accept the canyon of high rises along major thoroughfares like Sheridan Road. However, we must stop the incursion of large scale developments into the small side streets that will reduce the neighborhood’s affordable housing stock, impact the community’s diversity and diminish the beauty of streets lined with low-rise buildings that were lovingly preserved.

Bebow, John. “Zoning War Looming.” Chicago Tribune 11 Apr. 2004

Chanen, Jill Schachner. “Comeback for Rundown Area of Chicago.” The New York Times 15 July 2001

“Chicago’s Edgewater,” Building Blocks, Winter 2000, Volume 1, Issue 2, Fannie Mae Foundation

Davidson, Michael. “The Two Faces of Gentrification: Can Zoning Help?” News, American Planning Association June 2002

Davis, Kevin. “Neighborhood Sees Diversity Threatened.” USA Today 25 Sept. 2000

Exhibit F: Our Editorial on the Neighborhood’s Redevelopment (cont)

“Gentrification and Decline in Chicago: Defining Neighborhood Change With Census Data.” Interpreting Neighborhood Change in Chicago. Nathalie P. Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement. College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs. Great Cities Institute. University of Illinois at Chicago 4 Apr. 2003

Lydersen, Kari. “Shame of the Cities: Gentrification in the New Urban America.” LiP Magazine 15 Mar. 1999

Maly, Michael T. and Leachman, Michael. “Rogers Park, Edgewater, Uptown, and Chicago Lawn, Chicago.” Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 4, Number 2 (1998),

Mumm, James. “Victory in Sight: Community Organizations and Popular Governance.” www.infoshop.org

Palmer, Ann Therese. “The Essence of Uptown: Can the Latest Hot Neighborhood Move Up Without Leaving Itself Behind?” Chicago Tribune 16 Dec. 2001

Palmer, Ann Therese. “A Rare Combo; Edgewater’s Hot, But It’s Also Diverse, Affordable.” Chicago Tribune 28 July 2002

Pearce, Barry. “Growing Signs of Gentrification Cause Fear and Hope in Uptown.” New Homes Magazine

Wyly, Elvin K., Cooke, Thomas J., Hammel, Daniel J., Holloway, Steven R. And Hudson, Margaret. “Ten ‘Just-Right’ Urban Markets for Affordable Homeownership.” Fannie Mae Foundation (2000)

[  top  |  Home  |  Calendar  |  News  |  Announcements  |  Garden Club  |  Links  |  Contact Us  ]