8/13/2019 Lathrop Letter to CHA 120413

1/4

DRAFT January 7, 2014Mr. Michael MerchantCEOChicago Housing Authority60 E Van BurenChicago, IL 60605

In November 2012 I wrote a letter (enclosed) to your predecessor Mr. Woodyard expressing seriousconcerns regarding the planning process and initial development scenarios proposed by Lathrop

Community Partners (LCP). Thirteen organizations in the surrounding neighborhood signed on assupporters of this letter. Subsequently, the CHA and LCP made some substantive changes relative to theinitial development scenarios, most notably decreasing the residential density from 1,600 to just fewerthan 1,200 units. Despite this progress toward addressing community concerns, there remains keyissues that must be addressed before the process can advance toward the submission of a planneddevelopment application.

The current plan, presented in August 2013 as a, final draft plan, calls for an, iconic tower, of anunspecified height. The model presented at the open house suggested a high-rise of approximately 28stories. The proposal to revert back to the days of high-rise public housing by building a tower on the

Lathrop Homes site is completely unacceptable to both me and the overwhelming majority ofsurrounding neighbors. A building of such height and density would be completely out of context andcharacter relative to the surrounding neighborhoods and materially detract from the historic characterof the existing buildings slated to be preserved on the Lathrop Homes site.

Providing access controlled units with secured parking in a high rise is a strategy to address the inabilityto lease and sell market rate units at LCPs principal team members existing mixed income develo pmentat Roosevelt Square. Fifteen years after approval of the TIF to support the mixed income developmentat Roosevelt Square only 24 percent of the planned units have been built. However, this strategy iscompletely counter to the CHAs stated goals of c omingling market, affordable, and public housing unitsin its mixed-income communities. Despite this track record, the City and the CHA are poised to stake LCPwith free land and a $30 million TIF subsidy on the bet that the seclusion and views that accompanyhigh-rise living will be sufficient to overwhelm the higher construction costs and potential concernssome may have with the prospect of living in a mixed-income CHA community. LCP will collectdevelopment fees from the CHA regardless of whether the development is successful. However, as iswell demonstrated at other CHA mixed-income sites, taxpayers will be responsible for covering shortfallsif the development fails to meet its revenue targets.

8/13/2019 Lathrop Letter to CHA 120413

2/4

Page 2 of 4

The following points summarize my objections to this unfortunate, yet persistent, element of the LCPplan for Lathrop Homes:

Excessive Height is Inappropriate Relative to the Surrounding Community High-rise residentialbuildings are typically built in areas with high levels of residential density in locations with close accessto high capacity mass transit and significant resident and visitor amenities within walking distance. Theproposed location of this Lathrop Homes high-rise features none of these attributes. The Citys ownDepartment of Planning and Development would certainly oppose a proposal for a similar high rise inthis neighborhood on private property on the grounds that the height and density were excessive andwould detract from the viability of surrounding residential units. The only relatively recent proposal for aresidential high rise in this area was rejected after strenuous opposition from neighboring residents andthe former 1 st Ward Alderman.

High Rise Construction Costs are Significantly Greater LCPs plan to build a high-rise tower iscontributing to the purported need for public subsidies. Recent construction cost data from RS Meansplaces the cost of constructing 8-24 story high rise apartment units 38 percent higher than 1-4-storyunits. LCP has stated a need for $30 million or more in subsidies from the City. A high-rise is notnecessary to accomplish the level of density the CHA is proposing for the site. Why then is LCP insistenton building a high rise? The only plausible explanation is that LCP believes that vertically isolating marketrate units in a high rise apart from the balance of the mixed-income development is necessary to attractrenters. The Gautreaux decision prohibits the CHA from placing public housing units with children abovethe third floor of any building. The court has granted previous waivers to this restriction, but only for lowand mid-rise buildings. A proposal to place public housing units in a high rise would be unprecedentedsince the Gautreaux decision and the resulting court supervision and undoubtedly attract both nationaland international sc orn given Chicagos infamously poor track record with such housing.

Implications for Ultimate Potential Density The overall Lathrop Homes redevelopment project mayfail to meet developer and CHA expectations, a circumstance that has been the rule rather than theexception in recent years. If the planned market rate units fall short, the overall site density may need tobe adjusted downward in order to maintain the desired ratio of market versus affordable and publichousing units. In this highly likely chain of events, the site would feature an unnecessary high-riseresidential tower and the timing of the renovation of the existing buildings will be delayed, perhapsindefinitely, due to the inability to absorb the planned market rate residential units on the overall site.

Detriment to Historic Character of the Overall Site In the unfortunate scenario where a publichousing high rise is approved and constructed, it will be the dominant permanent feature of the site,overshadowing the two and three-story walkup character of the historic development and the GreatLawn. Comments by City of Chicago staff and historic preservation professionals involved in the Section106 process stressed significant concerns over the detrimental effects of proposed building heights onthe hi storical character of the site. The Citys Historic Preservation Division referred to the adverseeffects proposed high-rise towers would have on the historic character of the site,

8/13/2019 Lathrop Letter to CHA 120413

3/4

8/13/2019 Lathrop Letter to CHA 120413

4/4

Page 4 of 4

LCPs plan for the southern portion of the Lathrop site inexplicably proposes to do the exact opposite ofthis recommendation, by replacing low-rise units with those in a high rise.

Conclusion

I remain adamantly opposed to a high rise on the Lathrop site. Lathrop Homes residents and thesurrounding neighborhood community organizations and nearby residents who have been concernedand frustrated with the planning process to date share this view. Before LCP moves any closer tosubmitting a planned unit development application for the site, I am requesting an opportunity to meetwith you to discuss these concerns in detail. I appreciate your consideration of my views on thisimportant public housing redevelopment plan and look forward to discussing them with you in detailsoon.

Sincerely,

Scott WaguespackAlderman 32nd WardCity of Chicago

Cc: Mayor Rahm Emanuel1st Ward Alderman Proco Joe MorenoDaniel Levin, Chairman of The Habitat CompanyAndrew J. Mooney, Commissioner, Department of Housing and Economic Development

Eleanor Gorski, Assistant Commissioner, Landmarks DivisionPatricia Scudiero, Zoning Administrator, Department of Housing and Economic DevelopmentMike Jackson, Chief Architect, Illinois Historic Preservation AgencyRobert Whitfield, Attorney for the Central Advisory CouncilLathrop Community Partners