Link to full article at The Chicago Tribune
Better Urban Planning
Steve Weinshel’s argument against reducing parking requirements along transit corridors misses the mark and clings to a 20th century urban planning mindset (“Cutting parking requirements while upzoning Broadway will create a crisis,” July 20). It is not utopian to imagine a Chicago where most people do not own cars. Many of us already live that reality. My spouse and I moved to Edgewater because we can live here without a car. We walk, bike and take transit because that is what a city should offer: the freedom to get around without being forced into car ownership.
Cars are deceptively expensive. In 2024, AAA estimated the average cost to own and operate a car is $12,297 per year. That figure is likely even higher in Chicago. The cost to build off-street parking is also prohibitively high. According to Elevated Chicago, an underground spot costs $42,000 to build. That cost gets passed on to renters and buyers, whether they own a car. This city cannot be affordable if every household needs to own a car and every car needs its own house.
Removing parking mandates is not “urban planning malpractice” — it is smart policy. Requiring parking increases car ownership and traffic. Each car needs multiple parking spots throughout the day, fueling demand for wasteful surface lots that contribute to flooding and the heat island effect and make neighborhoods less walkable and bikeable.
But eliminating parking minimums is just one step. We must invest in walking, biking and public transit to support both future and current residents. The $2.1 billion Red-Purple Line modernization is a great start. We also need protected bike lanes, camera-enforced bus-only lanes and fully funded transit. That is why Springfield must pass the transit reform and funding package already approved by the state Senate as soon as possible.
Let’s build a more affordable, healthier and sustainable city. More housing, more transit, more bikes and less parking are the future Chicago deserves. Cities all over the world from Paris to Tokyo have done this. Why can’t Chicago?
— Neville Hemming, co-founder, Neighbors of Edgewater and Uptown
Let Others Benefit
The opposition to sensible housing policy along Broadway reveals an uncomfortable truth about how some view community membership. Opponents tout their credentials as longtime residents and neighborhood saviors. But I must ask: Does living here longer grant them veto power over decisions affecting thousands of current and future residents?
These longtime residents deserve credit for their community investments, but I fail to see how seven-story buildings along a busy commercial corridor next to the city’s highest-ridership “L” line will ruin anything. The increasing demand to live in Edgewater and Uptown is testament to the success of these investments. Denying potential residents the ability to benefit from these successes hurts everyone — we’re depriving ourselves of economic growth while denying housing to thousands who want to live in these amazing neighborhoods.
These opponents are going against broad community support for more housing. Hiring lawyers to block development through technicalities isn’t democracy — it’s using procedural tricks to override community will.
This is provincialism: putting narrow interests over the well-being of not just current residents, but also the entire city. Change is difficult, and protecting one’s community from perceived threats feels natural. But upzoning Broadway isn’t a threat — it’s an opportunity and a long-overdue investment needed to keep our communities affordable and accessible.
Who are we to deny others the right to live here simply because you got here first?”
— Noah Ayoub, Chicago