In conclusion, we would like to quote from a column published in the Wednesday Journal, May 16, 2017 by Dr. Antony Wood, an advocate of density development, but not of this development:
As the executive director of the Chicago-based nonprofit, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBUH), the international association that exists to disseminate best-practice information on skyscrapers and ratify their height/"tallest" status globally); an architect; a professor of architecture at the Illinois Institute of Technology; and most pertinently, a resident of Oak Park (I live three blocks north of the proposed Albion development), I would like to offer perhaps a unique perspective on the Albion project, and other high-rise projects in the village.
I moved my family to Chicago from the UK 11 years ago to take up the role with CTBUH/IIT, and Oak Park was the obvious choice for our home life, largely because of its fantastic physical environment. I have lived in half a dozen countries and traveled extensively across all seven continents and, in comparison to many places around the world, I think some Oak Parkers don't truly realize what an exceptional place this is! The blend of fantastic one-off houses of all styles and expressions, beautiful well-kept yards, extensive parks and gardens — not to mention the walkability and facilities at our disposal — make this place close to utopian, especially when compared to a typical American suburb. Unfortunately, however, our main street(s) pale into utter insignificance in comparison to this "suburban" charm. Actually, it is worse than this — much of the recent modern development is a gross embarrassment.
…What I suspect many of my neighbors and fellow Oak Parkers are reacting to in the case of Albion, however, is not necessarily a blanket rejection of height/density on that site, but the rejection of a complete lack of creativity or quality in the massing, design and expression of this project. In my opinion, the Albion proposal (and several other recent projects) do not even come close to accurately being described as "architecture" in the progressive sense of the word. They are 100 percent commercially driven, banal boxes whose only purpose is to generate a maximum financial return for the developer.
…It is just so depressing to see the onslaught of low-effort commercial architecture (to which downtown Chicago is also guilty) taking hold in Oak Park, destroying the essence of what makes the place unique — and in the face of so much architecture that really is special.
… The sad thing, not yet realized by some developers, is that, in the same way "sustainability" has moved away from "tree-hugging" to mainstream and even financially lucrative in many businesses over the last decade or two, such an embrace in innovation and quality in modestly-tall buildings would bring its own financial reward, and attract occupiers or residents (and likely from a much wider field) who value those qualities.
... Oak Park seems too eager with its begging bowl, grateful to accept any development proposal that "luckily" comes our way, on the basis that it will increase taxes/revenue? The view needs to be much more longterm than this for if we continue on this path, those who really have a choice will not want to live here in another 20 years, for what makes us special will have become impaired — or very likely lost. Oh, Oak Park, we can, and should, do much better. …
Dr. Wood’s full column can be found at http://www.oakpark.com/News/Articles/5-16-2017/This-is-aboutcommercially_driven,-banal-boxes/
Each new inappropriate development takes away a part of the quality of life in downtown Oak Park. It is the cumulative effect of all developments that is negatively impacting downtown Oak Park, but each development is evaluated individually in solitude. Bit by bit, incrementally negative impacts are accruing, and the sum total is not being accounted for in any review.
We close with this call from Oak Park homeowner Suzanne Andriukaitis: