Riverside Junction: Form and Function

RIVERSIDE JUNCTION: FORM AND FUNCTION A 30-YEAR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

URBAN PLANNING AND POLICY 505 | 506 WINKLE | KAWAMURA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chicago is starting to see unprecedented development along the southern branch of the Chicago River, its main waterway. What was formerly seen as a means for industrial transport is quickly becoming a destination for leisure and a hub for residential and commercial development. This transformation, already underway in several large-scale riverfront developments, will certainly be a catalyst for change in this part of the city, but it remains to be seen how far the benefit will reach.

Currently, the study area faces challenges with connectivity, both between its communities and with the surrounding city. Physical boundaries such as elevated highways, industrial areas, railroad infrastructure, and the river itself segregate otherwise close neighborhoods, and transportation options are concentrated within a small area.

Kawamura Partners has utilized a wide range of planning tools to understand the distinct nature of the study area and to propose feasible recommendations to improve it. The area’s population has risen greatly in the past decade.There exists great opportunity with the study area’s proximity to Chicago’s downtown (“The Loop”), the city’s economic hub.

The 62-acre site, currently vacant, exists as a blank slate to meet the needs of the surrounding city and region. There is also strength in the diverse cultural character of nearby East Pilsen and Chinatown. However, along with the area’s strengths, there is the reality of disparities that need to be addressed.

The physical boundaries reinforce existing inequality in the study area. Disparities in income, educational attainment, housing stability, and economic opportunity all form along neighborhood lines. The study area has seen steady decline in its Black and Latino populations, while the Asian and white populations have grown.

“The recommendations of this plan are necessary to preserve the existing strengths of the area while leveraging new investment to create a better future for all Chicagoans.”

Some will benefit greatly from increased riverfront investment; for many others, this process inevitably means the hastening of gentrification which has already started. For these reasons, the recommendations of our 30-year plan are needed to guide growth while preserving vulnerable communities and resources in the area.

The recommendations of this plan are necessary to preserve the existing strengths of the area while leveraging new investment to create a better future for all Chicagoans. These recommendations will foster greater connectivity and livability of the neighborhoods in the study area, as well as connection to the opportunities of greater Chicago as a city and a region.

Recommendations in this plan, as detailed in both the framework and synthesis plans, fall under five categories: TRANSPORTATION: Improve safety for all forms of transportation through complete streets design and lighted public space.

Expand the public transportation network in terms of service and accessibility across the study area.

LAND USE: Dedicate more open space for recreation to match city park averages. Preserve economically critical industries and employment centers. Develop vacant, city owned land according to its current zoning.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Encourage development of green industries and foster innovation hubs in the study area. Work to increase the equity of education and job training.

HOUSING: Preserve existing affordable housing and increase the stock of subsidized and affordable units with new development.

Create a larger supply of housing overall by using high density building practices.

DESIGN: Institute new green construction and energy efficiency standards for all new buildings and projects. Increase connectivity through new infrastructure and removal of existing barriers.

Preserve cultural identity through the protection of cultural landmarks, buildings, and community spaces. Promote river ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration.

The build out of the 62 acre site is critical to both the study area and the city as a whole. The site is projected to bring thousands of new residents with over 4,000 units of new housing. The site will also include the construction of Discovery Partners Institute (DPI), a new University of Illinois campus for learning, innovation, and professional development.

In order to bring these recommendations to fruition, multiple partnerships between city agencies, developers, and community stakeholders will be required. Some of the largest actors include the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Metropolitan Planning Council, University of Illinois, and Related Midwest.

Right: St. Charles Air Line Bridge, located at the south end of the 62acre site. Photo credit: David Saradin.

The following plan was completed as a part of University of Illinois at Chicago’s (UIC) College of Urban Planning & Public Affairs (CUPPA) 506: Plan-Making Studio course during the Spring 2018 Semester.

Kawamura, Kazuya, Course Instructor UPP506: Plan Making Studio, a Graduate Course in the Urban Planning and Policy Program at UIC. Co-Authors: Nathan Bruemmer, Joshua Campbell, Lydia Eckels, Benito Garcia, Brandyn Gray, Sara Haney, Angela Howard, Alex Jackson, Carlos Lopez, Mary Nicol, Dylan O’Reilly, Kaitlin Cernak, Elisabeth Rask, Charles Sirridge, Brianna Stack, Alexis Stein, Eric Tellez, Pratichha Wagle Acknowledgments: The Kawamura Partners were guided by the wisdom and expertise of Professor Kazuya Kawamura. Additionally, we would like to thank the numerous CUPPA faculty, colleagues, alumni, and visiting speakers who provided their valuable insights throughout the plan-making process.

Professor: Kazuya Kawamura Project Manager: Elisabeth Rask Management Team: Carlos Lopez, Joshua Campbell, Mary Nicol, and Eric Tellez Writing Team: Mary Nicol, Lydia Eckels, Alex Jackson, Joshua Campbell, Dylan O’Reilly, and Angela Howard Production Team: Sara Haney, Bree Stack, Carlos Lopez, Brandyn Gray, Kaitlin Cernak, and Eric Tellez Design Team: Alexis Stein, Elisabeth Rask, Nathan Bruemmer, Pratichha Wagle, Charles Sirridge, and Benito Garcia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents Introduction vi

INTRODUCTION ................................................................1 VISION STATEMENT..........................................................2

COMMUNITY PROFILE......................................................4 Sub-Areas.............................................................................6 Population..............................................................................7 Race and Ethnicity.................................................................7 Physical Barriers to Connectivity...........................................8 Transportation Access...........................................................9 Educational Attainment........................................................ 10 Income Breakdown.............................................................. 10 Employment Characteristics................................................ 11 Summary............................................................................. 13 FRAMEWORK PLAN........................................................14 Scenario Planning................................................................ 16 Principles and goals............................................................. 18 Land Use.............................................................................20 Transportation and Connectivity..........................................22 Economic Development.......................................................28 Housing...............................................................................32 Design Paradigm.................................................................34 SYNTHESIS PLAN............................................................36 River Restoration.................................................................40 Green Infrastructure............................................................. 41 Design Standards................................................................ 41 Discovery Partners Institute.................................................42 School..................................................................................44 Housing...............................................................................44 Metra Development.............................................................44 Land Donation Park.............................................................48 Neighborhood Square.........................................................48 Evaluation Process..............................................................50 Environmental Impact Evaluation.........................................52 APPENDIX............................................................................ i

•vi

Introduction

Introduction •1

RIVERSIDE JUNCTION: CHICAGO’S NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD The following document was completed as a part of University of Illinois Chicago’s College of Urban Planning & Public Affairs Plan-Making Studio course during the Spring 2018 Semester.

For this course, the Kawamura Partners were given the task to develop a thirty-year framework plan for the study area, bordered

by Roosevelt Road to the north, the South Branch of the Chicago River to the west, Clark Street to the east, 16th Street to the south, and a more detailed plan for the 62 acre site, newly named Riverside Junction.

In the following pages, readers will be guided through both the South Branch study area as well as the future Riverside Junction community. The Community Profile will highlight important

aspects of our study area including land use, demographic features, connectivity, and income levels. Our Framework Plan outlines the goals and principles that will foster equitable growth throughout the study area for the next 30 years. Finally, we synthesize our vision for Riverside Junction, highlight how this new community will help meet the needs our both the study area and the Chicago region, and layout how this community will be brought to fruition.

Stakeholders and clients include: University of Illionois, Related Midwest, Chicago Department of Planning & Development, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, the Metropolitan Planning Council, and the citizens of Chicago and the region.

View of the Chicago skyline from the south end of the 62-acre site.

Photo credit: David Saradin.

Introduction •2

VISION STATEMENT Our vision is to transform the study area from a patchwork of culturally and physically separate neighborhoods into a set of neighborhoods that are socially, culturally, economically, and physically integrated with each other and the rest of the city and which contribute to a future-oriented economy that is inclusive of all Chicagoans and attractive to global talent and firms.

Introduction •3

Figure 1: Planning Process Diagram.

Community Profile •4

Community Profile

Community Profile •5

Located along the South Branch of the Chicago River, our study area encompasses several neighborhoods including East Pilsen, Printer’s Row, Dearborn Park, Chinatown, and the South Loop. The entire study area is bounded by the Congress Expressway on the north, Interstate 55 on the south, State Street on the east and Halsted Street on the west. The area’s diverse communities and close proximity to the river and downtown provide a unique opportunity for equitable development that can reshape not just the communities within the study area, but all of Chicago.

• Due to geographical disparities in demographic and economic characteristics, the Study Area is best understood by breaking it into Sub-Areas.

• Physical barriers and gaps in transportation contribute to a lack of connectivity.

• The Study Area is experiencing gentrification and population shifts.

Figure 2: Sub-Areas Map of Study Area.

Community Profile •6

SUB-AREAS The study area is not a homogenous section of the city. Examining the study area as a whole would only serve to muddle the characteristics of the many communities that live here, leading to poor understanding and generalized interventions. For this reason, disaggregating the data is crucial. In order to accomplish this Kawamura Partners chose to break the geography into seven smaller divisions in order to give the different neighborhoods attention on a more fitting scale. Each sub-area is bound by similar characteristics, such as land use (see comparison in Figure 3), demographic features, and income levels. These sub-areas also reflect the physical borders made by existing barriers to connectivity.

Figure 3: Comparison of Land Use in Sub-Areas 2 and 6.

The Chicago River bisects the study area into east and west, and the existing industrial and transportation infrastructure limits access between northern sub-areas and their southern counterparts. This creates an isolating effect on these neighborhoods that are otherwise within walking distance of each other. Examining sub-areas individually facilitated a better understanding of the unique needs and strengths of each neighborhood. Each sub-area provides an opportunity to tailor interventions to a local level for the greatest impact. For example, the needs of the highly industrial and commercial Harrison/Canal and Industry Park sub-areas (sub-areas one and two) vary greatly to that of the highly residential Chinatown (sub-area six); our plan reflects the unique character and challenges of each sub-area.

Community Profile •7

POPULATION

RACE AND ETHNICITY

The study area’s population is approximately 28,000 residents as of 2015 ACS estimates:

The racial distribution amongst the sub-areas displays various levels of segregation (Figure 5). As of the 2015 ACS estimates:

• Printer’s Row and Chinatown have the largest populations (Figure 4).

• In the 15 years between 2000 and 2015, all of the subareas experienced population growth, except for East Pilsen, which saw a 3% decline • Harrison/Canal and Industry Park (sub-area one and two) experienced the largest increase, with over 250 percent growth • Dearborn Park (sub-area five), also the location of Riverside Junction, will likely see significant growth as the project is completed • The other sub-areas are also likely to experience further growth given the number of housing developments such as the Riverline

Figure 4: Population of the study area, sub-divided into sub-areas.

Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015.

• Harrison/Canal, Industry Park and Printer’s Row are majority white neighborhoods • Dearborn Park and McCormick Park display a more equal ratio of white, black and Asian residents • East Pilsen, while still a majority Latino community, has seen a decline in Latino residents and an increase in white residents between years 2000 and 2015.

Chinatown is primarily an Asian community Overall, the entire study area has experienced a decline in black and Latino residents and an increase in white and Asian residents (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Racial Demographics By Sub-Area, 2000 to 2015. Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015.

Community Profile •8

PHYSICAL BARRIERS TO CONNECTIVITY Physical barriers exist throughout the study area and pose disparate access challenges among the sub-areas. The river divides the study area into two halves, separating sub-areas one, two, and three on

the west bank from sub-areas four, five, six, and seven on the east bank. While sub-areas four, five, six, and seven face eastwest connectivity challenges, the north-south connectivity is considerably more accessible than on the west bank. The physical barriers throughout the east bank sub-areas include the gated entry to Dearborn Park, the wall along Clark Street blocking the Metra tracks, and the Stevenson Expressway off ramp, all of which primarily affect sub-areas five and six.

Along the west bank of the river, sub-area two is the most isolated within the study area; however, due to a considerable residential population, sub-area three faces the largest ramifications from segregating physical barriers. Residents living in sub-area three are bounded by industry and the river to the south and east, I-90 to the west, and the BNSF and Amtrak railyard to the north.

Sub-area three is predominantly Latino with lower educational attainment and average income than other sub-areas, suggesting this type of physical confinement is a result of and contributes to disparities rooted in segregation throughout the study area.

PHYSICAL BARRIERS TO CONNECTIVITY • • • • •

Figure 6: Physical Barriers to Connectivity.

South branch of the Chicago River All interstates: I-90, I-55 BNSF/Amtrak rail yard Clark Street wall/Metra tracks Gated entry at Dearborn Park

Community Profile •9

TRANSPORTATION ACCESS The sub-areas on the east bank of the river have considerably more transportation options, including multiple bus lines, CTA stops servicing different lines and the Metra. Sub-areas two and three are collectively serviced by a total of four bus lines, while every other sub-area within the study area has access to at least three bus lines and one CTA stop. This disparity further points to the isolated nature of sub-areas two and three, with residents living in sub-area three experiencing the greatest effects from the lack of connectivity and access to transportation.

• Harrison/Canal (1): Clinton Blue Line; 7, 8, 12, and 157 bus routes • Industry Park (2): 8 and 12 bus routes, Metra • East Pilsen (3): 18 and 21 bus routes, • Printer’s Row (4): LaSalle Blue Line; Harrison Red Line; 12, 36, 62, 22, 24 bus routes, Metra • Dearborn Park (5): Roosevelt Red/Orange/Green Lines; 12, 62, 29, 146 bus routes, Metra • Chinatown (6): Cermak-Chinatown Red Line; 62, 24, 44 bus routes • McCormick Park (7): Cermak- McCormick Place Green Line; 24, 62, 29, 146 bus routes

Figure 7: Study Area Bus Routes and CTA TrainRidership Data, 2016

Community Profile •10

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

INCOME BREAKDOWN

The breakdown of educational attainment by sub-area further highlights the disparities within the entire study area. East Pilsen and Chinatown have notably lower levels of educational attainment than all other sub-areas within the study area, and consequently lower incomes (Figure 8 below) and less access to high paying jobs. This highlights the necessity of improved educational opportunities for all residents and the need for ongoing opportunities to grow job skills. Lastly, Pilsen and Chinatown have large immigrant and first generation populations.

Therefore, educational resources for all age groups is a necessity.

The federal poverty level for a family of four is $24,600. In the chart below (Figure 9), the areas with the highest percentage of low income households close to or below the poverty level are subareas five, six and seven. The areas with the highest percentage of household incomes over $150,000 are Harrison/Canal, Industry Park, Printers Row, Dearborn Park, and McCormick Park. It is important to note that some of the sub-areas with high levels of poverty also have high percentages of households with higher incomes. Addressing these instances of income inequality will require many programs, policy changes and approaches.

Figure 8: Breakdown of the educational attainment by sub-areas illustrating that Chinatown has the highest percent of residents with less than a high school degree, and that five of the sub-areas have over 70 percent of residents with a bachelor’s degree or higher Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2016 5 Year Estimates, accessed from https://factfinder.census.gov/ on March 2, 2018.

Figure 9: Income distribution broken down by sub-area reveals that Chinatown has the highest percentage of people earning $25,000 or less and that all other sub-areas are consist of over 50 percent of households earning above $100,000.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2016 5-Yr Estimates.

Accessed from https://factfinder.census.gov/ on February 3 2018.

Community Profile •11

EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS Data from the Longitudinal Employer-Housing Dynamic (US Census Bureau, Center for Economic Studies 2015) highlights the following trends: • 21,392 primary jobs in the study area • 20,743 of those employed in the study area live outside • 649 people both live and have their primary job in the study area

Given the low percentage of residents that live and work in the study area, efforts to increase job opportunities in Riverside Junction and the study area should be given priority in the plan.

In terms of variability between the sub-areas, the residents of Harrison/Canal, Industry Park, Dearborn Park, McCormick Park and Printers Row on aggregate have higher paying jobs, whereas East Pilsen and Chinatown have more residents with lower paying jobs, even with in the same category (Figure 10 below). The job prospects and earning potential of residents in Chinatown and East Pilsen are lower than the other five sub-areas. This highlights the need to focus the interventions on improving the access to employment for residents of these sub-areas.

Figure 10: Comparison of employment by industry category. Disparities exist between subareas, even across in the same category. Source: 2015 American Community Survey.

Community Profile •12

Figure 11: Community images of Sub-Areas. Graphic Produced by Alexis Stein.

Community Profile •13

SUMMARY Disaggregating the data leads to community needs being teased out rather than muddled in averages, and this micro-analysis reveals a story of disparity. Household income varies widely between northern and southern sub-areas, and educational attainment gaps form along similar geographic lines. Sub-areas share common industries of employment, but income in these fields differ greatly as well.

These trends identified in the community profile show no sign of slowing down in the future. If left alone, the disparity of social outcomes is likely to increase. For this reason, the study area requires intervention. The framework plan, found in the next section, will outline the goals Kawamura Partners developed and the recommended actions needed to achieve the vision for the study area.

This inequality is in part perpetuated by the segregation caused by physical barriers. The river limits connectivity between the east and west and transit options are concentrated in more affluent parts of the study area. Industrial and transportation land uses also limit northsouth connections. This makes access to opportunity less attainable in the western sub-areas compared to their eastern counterparts.

As Kawamura partners analyzed the community profile of the framework area, we identified areas of concern where interventions were needed, and created a vision that identified ambition to change course. To enable us to reach the vision for Riverside Junction and track our progress, we produced a series of goals. Strategies to reach the goals were developed through focusing on the areas of priority concern, and are represented through fifteen principles. The framework plan outlines the course Kawamura Partners will follow to implement this plan through articulating the goals and principles of the study area.

Population growth across the study area predicts a tightening of the existing housing stock and a rise in cost of living for current residents.

Gentrification has already been observed in the South Loop and Printer’s Row sub-areas and is in motion in the rest of the study area according to the Voorhees Center1. Racial demographic shifts reflect this, with the proportion of white and Asian residents increasing and the total numbers of black and Latino residents in decline.

Framework Plan •14

Framework Plan

Framework Plan •15

This framework plan presents a broad strategy consisting of goals and principles that will guide growth and equity over the next 30 years. It was produced by engaging in scenario planning techniques conducting and conducting a SWOT analysis of the community. This section includes the four scenarios constructed, the framework plan goals and principles, and detailed explanations of the areas of impact the recommendations would reach.

Left: Figure 12: Site Connectivity Map. Illustration by Nathan Bruemmer.

Framework Plan •16

SCENARIO PLANNING Kawamura Partners utilized scenario planning in order to anticipate future challenges and opportunities. Scenario planning is an analysis tool that visualizes current trends and predictions as plausible future narratives to help guide the planning process. Four scenarios were developed from three external driving forces that will have high impact on the Chicagoland region.

By having these visions of the future, we were able to generate planning principles and later evaluate our recommendations. Plan recommendations were determined to be resilient if they remain useful to achieving our planning goals across the four scenarios.

Figure 13: Three External Driving Forces of Scenario Planning.

Framework Plan •17 RECESSION AND INEQUALITY

UNEMPOWERED CITIES

The economy is largely deregulated, continuing the neoliberal trends of the past thirty years. This will lead to an exacerbation of the inequality that exists today. Chicago will continue to see slow population loss leading to a tightening of the city’s budget via a shrinking tax base. If this population loss matches current trends it will be concentrated primarily on the south and west side, while The Loop and adjacent neighborhoods see slight population growth. Chicago will continue to have an influential municipal government which can either be utilized as a tool to remedy inequality or as a force to concentrate investment in already successful neighborhoods.

Chicago’s local government is less influential than a more involved federal government. Economic policy has become more regulated, including greater consumer and worker protections. Federal funds are available to nonprofit and community developers. Social equity is prioritized over profit.

Chicago relies heavily on federal funding due to the budget constrictions from its shrinking tax base.

GROWTH AND INEQUALITY Chicago experiences population growth due to an influx of migrants from the coasts and Sunbelt to escape worsening weather events.

This has led to the city seeing its largest population since the mid1900s. Local budget concerns are minimal due to the larger tax base, but many public services have been privatized. This limits Chicago’s government influence on city outcomes. Due to increased pressures in real estate demands and the continuation of deregulation, gentrification in the city has become even more impactful on existing communities. This has led to a faster rate of displacement and a concentration of poverty in neighborhoods further from the central core of the city, with much of the working class pushed out to the suburbs.

Center: Figure 14: The four scenarios developed throughout planning process.

EMPOWERED CITIES Chicago has become directly involved in the social well-being of its residents by instituting strong local policy that has led to improved economic and social equity. The population influx from other parts of the country has strengthened the city’s spending power, and the money has been used to strengthen existing public institutions while giving more funding to grassroots organizations. Infill development and construction have increased across the city, but the rate of displacement has slowed greatly due to a larger housing stock and an increase in the proportion of affordable housing and stronger regulation of real estate speculation.

Framework Plan •18

PRINCIPLES AND GOALS The principles and goals are the result of analysis of local and regional needs. Through these goals and principles, the vision for Riverside Junction and surrounding sub-areas will be translated into tangible outcomes. The goals outline our broad aspirations, and the principles provide detailed guidelines for projects pursued throughout the framework area. The plan for Riverside Junction is a sustainability plan, which requires interventions that address environmental, economic and social concerns. The goals outlined below were identified using that lens, with the understanding that in today’s society, a plan that does not address sustainability will not be resilient, and likely be little more than an aspirational document.

GOALS Connect isolated communities to the city and region

Ensure equal access to opportunity for all residents

Implement environmentally sustainable communities

Increase residential access and utilization of the river

Drive economic growth that creates jobs for all income and skill levels

Promote health and wellness in all neighborhoods

Figure 15: Goals for addressing local and regional needs.

Framework Plan •19

PRINCIPLES Goals

LAND USE

Sub-Areas

L-1: Improve connectivity throughout the study area.

Remove physical barriers to strengthen street grid and increase connection between recreational open space (e.g., Dearborn Park cul-de-sacs, and dead ends).

Goals

L-2: Promote land uses that preserve economically 1, 2, 3, critical and regionally significant industries and critical services. Preserve transportation and logistics 5, & 6 uses in sub-areas 1 and 2 (e.g., freight rail, UPS distribution).

Preserve locations of critical services (e.g., ComEd substations, fire station, Deep Tunnel access). Preserve a strong local business community (especially in East Pilsen and Chinatown) the framework area.

Goals

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

E-1. Preserve vital industries in Sub-Areas 2 and 3.

Preserve and strengthen vital transportation, logistics, and warehousing uses in Sub-Areas 2 and 3.

E-2. Encourage development of green innovation and industries. Encourage green industries such as renewable energy, recycling, green consulting, etc to promote both sustainability and economic growth. An innovation center, Discovery Partners Institute (DPI) helps solve green industry challenges by firms, and firms help commercialize the innovation that occurs within the DPI. E-3. Increase the equity of education and job training amongst the Sub-Areas of the Framework Plan.

2&3

5

3, 6 & 7

H-2 Produce additional subsidized housing. Provide a variety of subsidized housing options on Riverside Junction, targeting multiple income brackets and household sizes.

Utilize vacant lots for new affordable housing.

H-3 Build high density housing. In Riverside Junction, buildings could be as high as 12 levels (~144ft), decreasing in height, and 4-6 levels (48-72 ft) as they approach Chinatown. Infill development in vacant land of sub area 3.

3&5

Sub-Areas

Sub-Areas

H-1. Preserve affordable housing. Preserve existing affordable housing in sub-areas with a high number of households at risk of displacement through an affordable housing requirement ordinance that applies across the framework area.

1, 2, 3, 5, & 7

L-3: Utilize city-owned vacant land as it is currently zoned to increase affordable housing density, provide job training and business opportunities, and develop a vertical farm.

HOUSING

Goals

DESIGN

Figure 16: Principles of local and regional needs with corresponding goals.

3&5

Sub-Areas

D-1. Require green construction and resource conservation standards for all new buildings and rehabilitation projects.

D-2. Address physical barriers through the utilization of complete streets, and pedestrian friendly spaces.

D-3. Preserve cultural identity through the protection of cultural landmarks, buildings, and community spaces.

Preserve neighborhoods’ unique and distinct cultural identities and heritage.

ALL

3&5

D-4. Promote river ecosystem rehabilitation and restoration. Begin along the Riverside Junction, and phase in an expansion of the effort to other sub areas over time.

5

2, 3 & 5

3&6

5

Framework Plan •20

LAND USE The study area hosts a diverse array of land uses that are often concentrated by category and largely contribute to the character of each sub-area. Taking note of the changes that occurred along the North Branch of the Chicago River when industrial land was rezoned to residential, we intend to take the necessary steps to accommodate for change while preserving crucial existing services and industries2. The steps described below, which are guided by principles to increase connectivity between open space, preserve critical infrastructure and industries, and promote infill development by utilizing limited vacant space in the study area.

PRESERVE TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS USES IN SUB-AREAS ONE AND TWO The preservation of regionally significant jobs is vital to the economic health of the study area. We intend to maintain these industries by extending Planned Manufacturing District-11 north to Roosevelt Road and east to the Dan Ryan Expressway to help protect local jobs from residential encroachment. Following the steps laid out by the Chicago Zoning Ordinance, the application to the city will include appropriate overlays to accommodate existing businesses3. This process will require support from the local Alderman and approval from the zoning board; however, it comes at zero cost while preserving local revenue and jobs.

PRESERVE LOCATIONS OF CRITICAL SERVICES While critical services in the study area are not at risk for displacement, the implications of their location on future planning decisions should be carefully analyzed. For example, when implementing bike lanes, accessible routes must be maintained for fire engines and emergency vehicles coming from stations in subareas one, two, and six. This can be achieved through strategic and comprehensive planning processes.

Figure 17: Location of critical services and utilities map.

Framework Plan •21 UTILIZE CITY-OWNED VACANT LAND AS IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED

INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DENSITY, PROVIDE JOB TRAINING AND BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES, AND DEVELOP A VERTICAL FARM

The existing vacancies found throughout the study area provide the physical space necessary to implement a number of our suggested projects4. Abiding by the current zoning for each vacant lot, additional affordable housing can be produced, in addition to a vertical farm and a job training center. Infill of vacant commercial space can help contribute to economic growth in the study area.

IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN EXISTING RECREATIONAL SPACES

STRENGTHEN STREET GRID TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO OPEN SPACE ACCESS

The barriers that currently prevent fluid accessibility and connectivity throughout the study area will require numerous interventions. By reducing the number of barriers, the study area will become more seamless with the city and neighborhood isolation will be reduced. Below are the suggestions for action steps that align with principle L-1.

• Demolish wall surrounding Dearborn Park • Connect Thirteenth and Fourteenth Street to the Riverside Junction site to allow for increased east-west access • Create a seam between Ping Tom Park and the 62 acre site

Figure 18: City-owned vacant lots and current zoning ordinances.

Framework Plan •22

TRANSPORTATION AND CONNECTIVITY With the potential for many thousands of new residents expected in Riverside Junction, and the current spatial obstacles that exist throughout the framework area, addressing connectivity is critical to successfully implementing the framework area vision. The four transit improvement suggestions align with principles to improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, expand the public transit network and accessibility, and address physical barriers.

RECOMMENDATIONS Access to the Loop is reasonable in the framework area, except for Riverside Junction, and parts of East Pilsen. East-west travel is a concern for all of the sub-areas in the study area due to spatial obstacles of the river, a railyard, and an expressway. Increasing safety for pedestrian and cyclists is a priority.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT A route that begins in the southern end of the framework area and travels through Riverside Junction into the Loop would address demand for reliable and efficient transit in Riverside Junction, and will be more cost effective and adaptable than a new CTA rail line.

Travel times will be significantly reduced through dedicated bus lanes in Riverside Junction, and along State Street. The project is phase-able and will cost in the range of 10-30 million dollars to construct5.

DISCOVERY PARTNERS INSTITUTE SHUTTLE SERVICE FOR FRAMEWORK AREA Using an all-electric bus fleet, powered partially by renewable energy, this 4.5 mile free shuttle route will enable the Institute to model innovation and sustainability, play a critical role in the framework area by mitigating borders for neighborhoods west of

the river, and increase access to job opportunities for the residents of the entire framework area. It will have the added benefit of increasing access to nearby University of Illinois resources. The yearly costs would include leasing of two busses and salaries for drivers, which amounts to approximately $175,000, and could be implemented upon completion of the institute6.

PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE PATH USING THE ST. CHARLES AIRLINE BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE With the addition of bike and pedestrian safety mechanisms along South Canal Street and throughout the framework area, this connection point will dramatically improve east-west access for the entire framework area, especially East Pilsen. The cost will depend on whether portions of the unused bridge will be repurposed, or if a cantilever bridge will be added to it. The cost will be in the range of 30-40 million dollars, and it will take around 10 years from planning to completion to construct7.

IMPROVED BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE An extended and improved bike network across the framework area will provide a low cost, healthy way for residents to travel, and improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. The addition of a protected bike lane along Roosevelt Road will provide critical access to the amenities of the Museum Campus and Chicago’s lakefront. We are proposing around 10 additional miles of bike lanes throughout the study area, which will cost in the range of 1-2 million, and can be implemented immediately8.

Framework Plan •23

Figure 19: Proposed Bike and Pedestrian Bridge along the St. Charles Aitline Bridge. Graphic produced by Nathan Bruemmer.

Framework Plan •24

Figure 20: Left: Transportation & Connectivity Recommendation Map. Figure 21: Right Top: 14th St. Steet Section.

Figure 22: Right Bottom: Clark St. Street Section.

Framework Plan •25 COMPLETE STREETS Streets within Riverside Junction will be designed to welcome multimodal transportation, shifting the focus from car-oriented streets to pedestrian, cyclist, and mass transit-oriented ones. This will involve construction of protected bike lanes; wide sidewalks, protected from vehicular traffic by a vegetative buffer; designated lanes for Bus Rapid Transit along Wells-Wentworth; and safety and accessibility features, including adequate street lighting and benches. Relatively narrow lanes for car travel will enforce traffic calming and shift the streetscape’s focus to other forms of transportation, creating a safe and enjoyable experience for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users.

Figure 23: Wells/Wentworth Street Section.

Framework Plan •26

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The economic ecosystem of the study area is very diverse, with different industries clustering in various sub-areas. Therefore economic development will follow smart growth standards: with policy changes, incentives, public private partnerships and projects targeted to enhance and expand current businesses and industries in each sub-area.

PRESERVATION OF VITAL INDUSTRIES Industry Park and East Pilsen host several essential manufacturing, commercial and transportation industries. Two examples are the BNSF railyard directly across the river from Riverside Junction, and the multiple Ozinga facilities located at Cermak Avenue and along South Lumber Street, Ozinga supplies concrete, building materials, logistics and compressed natural gas.

Such vital industries and services are essential to any urban area.

They also provide critical sources of employment, particularly for residents with fewer educational assets, who can secure a stable income through work in the construction, shipping, and logistics trades.

Development will therefore be directed toward supporting and expanding existing businesses and industries, while also attracting new businesses in renewable energy, biopharmaceuticals, logistics, transportation, manufacturing, and commercial services.

The overall objective is to strengthen, enhance and grow the existing industry clusters in Industry Park and Pilsen. Programs like Chicago’s Local Industrial Retention Initiatives (LIRI) and partner organizations like the Eighteenth Street Development Corporation (ESDC) will be essential toward achieving these goals.

EQUITY OF EDUCATION, JOB TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Given the inequitable levels of educational, job skills, and earnings potential throughout the study area, the final plank of the Economic Development strategy is to increase access to education and jobs skills resources. Using the DPI as a facilitator and educational hub, programs will be created to further education and provide critical skills to residents in order to take advantage of current available jobs. Such programs will be partnerships between businesses and the DPI to recruit and train local residents to fill labor needs to local and regional employers.

Framework Plan •27

Figure 24: Proposed PMD and current land use zone.

Framework Plan •28 GREEN INNOVATION AND GREEN INDUSTRIES The negative consequences of many industrial activities include the various forms of land, water, air and noise pollution they create which must be mitigated or remediated. The solutions to this problem are twofold. First is the need to increase the energy and resource efficiency of all industrial processes, in order to reduce the levels of waste and pollution produced. Second, innovation and research are needed to make current industries and processes less ecologically damaging, to eliminate pollution, or to replace old processes and industries altogether. This type of innovation and research will be spearheaded by the DPI as part of its mission.

Green Industries, those that do not cause environmental damage and produce no toxic byproducts, represent the future of all industry. Therefore the priority is to attract, incubate and support green industries in the study area and the city as a whole. One major project toward this goal would be Chicago’s first large scale Vertical Farm. As part of the DPI’s commitment to agroscience, the Institute will build a 7-10 story vertical farm in East Pilsen.

This will be a multiphase project, which will reuse an existing industrial site and building in the Pilsen PMD.

PHASE 1: 1-5 years • • •

Research, planning and design of the farming and business model The DPI will purchase an existing 1-4 story industrial building, and retrofit the structure to begin production Research and design phase for larger 7-10 story purpose built vertical farm

PHASE 2: 5-10 years • •

Construction of larger facility and commencement of operations Development of educational and incubation infrastructure to spur new Vertical Farms locally and regionally

This farm will use and enhance existing local food distribution infrastructure, create local jobs, promote sustainable urban agriculture (UA), contribute to local UA, grow the local UA job pool, and serve as a facilitator and incubator for expanding the UA industry in region.

Figure 25: Watertower for storm water collection.

Graphic produced by Benito Garcia.

Framework Plan •29

Figure 26: Proposed vertical farm in East Pilsen, Chicago, IL. Graphic Produced by Alexis Stein.

Framework Plan •30

HOUSING The projected influx of new housing, new residents, and new jobs to the study area is an exciting prospect; however, it brings with it potential consequences for vulnerable residents. It is the intention of Kawamura Partners to take the necessary steps to help ensure equal access to housing from this point forward by implementing principles H-1, H-2, and H-3.

PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING According the Nathalie P. Voorhees Gentrification Index score, the entire study area underwent changes over the last few decades that signal gentrification, including an influx of higher median income earners and increased home values9. Despite this influx, households earning low and moderate incomes still reside in the study area and must be considered as housing prices increase and housing affordability decreases. Housing-cost data revealed that housing affordability is a widespread issue throughout the study area. Households in all sub-areas earning annual incomes below $75,000 face a housing cost burden, paying over 30 percent of their income on housing expenses10.

Abiding by principle H-1, which aims to preserve existing affordable housing, we intend to address this issue through all available measures. Although we cannot reduce rent amounts, we intend to accommodate lower income households living in secured affordable housing units by maintaining affordability of those units and renewing subsidies as needed.

IMPLEMENT AN AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE PILOT To ensure future affordable units, we recommend implementing an Affordable Requirement Ordinance Pilot that will have a greater impact on affordability in the study area by raising the mandate to 30 percent. Currently ARO policies in Chicago mandates that 10 to 20 percent of new construction housing units are affordable11. We believe that increased affordability requirements are necessary to combat gentrification in the study area. There is a need to accommodate households with incomes well below the area median, as they are often left out of the affordability equation driven by the ARO. The policy put forth in the study-area-specific ARO will see that principle H-2 is achieved and will deliver infill of vacant residential land while providing housing units that are accessible to lower income households.

See also: Appendix page vii.

Figure 27: Percent of rent-burdened households by income bracket.

Framework Plan •31

Figure 28: Mixed-use housing development on the 62-acre site. Orange represents residential development.

Graphic produced by Charles Sirridge and Benito Garcia.

Framework Plan •32

DESIGN PARADIGM There is a paradigm shift occurring in the way in which society views the built environment and public spaces. The focus is now on human centered design, and to create spaces that are pleasing, desirable and useful. The design standards proposed for the study area share the following characteristics on all new buildings, building renovations, and infrastructure improvements: • Use all repurposed, recycled, remanufactured or sustainably harvested materials when cost is feasible • Maximize energy and resource efficiency through the use of green infrastructure, sustainable design, and smart building technology • Harvest wind and solar energy resources in all possible locations in the study area • Address physical and psychological barriers to promote neighborhood connections and integration • Utilize Green Infrastructure to manage stormwater and distribute the ecosystem services provided by Green Infrastructure to all feasible areas of the study area • Use edible and/or native plants in all landscaping, where feasible • Install green roof technology on all feasible locations • Apply passive design standards to all buildings • Rehabilitate the riverbank to foster a stronger ecosystem and enhanced water quality These features will enhance the environmental, social and economic aspects of the study area, thereby improving the sustainability of the area.

PASSIVE DESIGN SPECIFICS All new buildings and building rehabilitations will follow City Sustainable Design Policy and the design guidelines of the Passive House Institute US12. These design standards will lower energy and resource requirements, reduce overall neighborhood greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and reduce the footprint that the residents of Riverside Junction have on the environment.

•

•

•

•

REFLECTIVE GLASS: Glass treated with a metallic coating to allow hear and radiation reflection, rather than absorbing it.

The goal is to reduce heat gain and loss.

POLLUTION ABSORBING BRICK: Absorbing urban pollution through bricks can become an active agent in climate change. Additionally, bricks can improve indoor air quality, thus reducing carbon emissions and energy consumption.

PHOTOVOLTAIC ROOF INGENERATION: Unifying solar panel systems with building design can facilitate a greater visual continuity with the exterior.

TRANSPARENT WOOD: Reinventing wood as a transparent material can provide additional natural daylighting and better insulation properties. This allows creative integration with building designs.

Framework Plan •33

Figure 29: Refelective Glass. Monsant Platform, Jeju-Si, South Korea. Architizer.

Figure 31: Solar Roof Tiles. Tesla.

Figure 30: Pollution Absorbing Brick. bioMason Brick. bioMason: Building with Nature.

Figure 32: Transparent Wood, Nendo Studio. DesignBoom.

Synthesis Plan •34

Synthesis Plan

Synthesis Plan •35

Figure 33: Proposed development plan for 62-acre site. Orange represents residential, blue represents Discovery Partners Institute, and Red represents commercial development. Graphic produced by Charles Sirridge and Benito Garcia.

Synthesis Plan •36

SITE PLAN

Synthesis Plan •37

1. Street Layout: 14th and 15th Streets are extended west, and Wells Street is extended south to connect to Wentworth Avenue. Complete Streets design will be used throughout.

2. Town Square: A half-acre community square will be open for gatherings including picnics, small concerts, farmers markets, cultural festivals, and holiday markets.

3. Underground Parking: Subterranean parking lots will be located under the school, park, DPI buildings, and highdensity residential buildings.

4. Community Recreation Center: We propose the construction of a community recreation center on the corner of 14th Street and Clark Street.

5. Riverwalk: The Riverwalk will run along the riverfront for the entire length of the site, blending natural riparian restoration with linear promenade development.

6. Riverfront Commercial Activation: The businesses along Wells-Wentworth will have the ability to build patios that extend to the riverwalk, though a 100-foot setback will be required.

7. Artificial Hill Covering Metra Line: The Metra railroad tracks will be relocated to the west and covered with a 25-foot artificial hill for safety and for the creation of open space.

8. Land Donation to Chicago Park District: Donated land will connect to Ping Tom Park and will include a community garden.

9. Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections: A cantilevered bicycle and pedestrian bridge addition to the existing St. Charles Airline Bridge connects paths to the west side of the river.

10. Stormwater Meander: Stormwater management systems, including bioswales, will meander across the site to mimic the natural course of the Chicago River.

11. Discovery Partners Institute (DPI): The DPI will be located at the site’s northeast corner, closest to the Loop.

12. Housing: A range of housing options, from traditional Chicago two-flats to mid-rise towers, will satisfy the diverse needs of future residents.

Figure 34: Full, 62-acre site plan.

Graphic produced by Elisabeth Rask and Alexis Stein.

Synthesis Plan •38

RIVER RESTORATION

The Chicago River is a major natural feature bisecting the study area. The river is still a vital transportation component of the larger area, but the aesthetic, recreational, and ecosystems services functions of the river must be enhanced. Additionally, the environmental health and ecosystems of the river are still undergoing major remediation efforts. Given that Riverside Junction is adjacent to half a mile of prime river space, the riverbank and a 100-foot setback will be rehabilitated and redeveloped into a new public space that will be connected to the River City development immediately to the north.

The riverbank restoration aligns with the goals of river ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation, and will expand and increase access to open space. The cost of the project is $3-6 million and would require 132,000 square feet of land along the river.

Figure 35: River restoration proposal developments.

Graphics produced by Nathan Bruemmer.

The development will consist of the following features: •

• •

•

A riverbank alteration that mimics a natural riparian zone, with native aquatic plants, and a kayak/canoe path carved into the banks of Riverside Park The riverside will closely imitate natural areas along Riverside Park up to the point of the St. Charles Airline Bridge Beyond the bridge, the riverwalk will transition into a more mixed-use space with a pedestrian walkway, patio and dining space, relaxation spaces, and an outdoor venue appropriate for concerts and community events Abundant Green Infrastructure to enhance the space and provide ecosystem services

Synthesis Plan •39

GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Storm water management infrastructure is required for all new developments in Chicago. Various Green Infrastructure methods, including bioswales, rain gardens, porous pavement, “grass pave”, trees, green roofs, and storm water collection and storage will be used to create a distributed storm water management network in Riverside Junction. This system will also provide secondary benefits including noise dampening, water filtration, air filtration and increased recreation area and open green space13.

Additionally, Green Infrastructure and other forms of Low Impact Development are often cheaper to install and maintain than Grey Infrastructure14. The vision for Riverside Junction is a lush and green neighborhood where nature and the built environment coexist.

DESIGN STANDARDS

In keeping with the framework plan standards, Riverside Junction will be a sustainably designed neighborhood that uses passive design principles, green infrastructure, human centered design and proactive planning to build Chicago’s most resilient, sustainable and low ecological impact neighborhood. Riverside Junction will use innovation, leading edge technologies, smart infrastructure and the considerable research resources of the DPI to build a neighborhood that is a model of how thriving, healthy, and ecologically harmonious urban spaces should be.

Figure 36: Bioswale storm water management infrastructure. Graphic produced by Elisabeth Rask.

Synthesis Plan •40

DISCOVERY PARTNERS INSTITUTE The Discovery Partners Institute (DPI) will be the anchor of Riverside Junction. Led by the University of Illinois system, the DPI will be a conduit between leading industry clusters in the Chicago region and the region’s research and development infrastructure.

Additionally, the DPI will create an educational pipeline for students in primary, secondary, and higher education. Universities will help solve industry challenges faced by cluster firms, and firms will help commercialize the innovation that occurs within the DPI.

DPI MAJOR RESEARCH FIELDS • Healthcare • Crop Science and Nutrition • Transportation and Logistics • Computing and Engineering • Policy Research • Sustainable Industries

MAJOR OBJECTIVES OF THE DPI • Enable Interdisciplinary public-private research • Catalyze small businesses within industry clusters • Ensure DPI is a revenue generating institution • Enhance the local/regional secondary and post-secondary education to job pipeline • Incorporate green building practices, and sustainable design in all functions and partnerships • Enhance the Urban Agriculture industry through a Major Vertical Farming initiative • Invest in and facilitate the growth of local and regional human capital through ongoing skills training and local/regional job creation

FURTHER DETAILS OF THE DPI • 1.8 million square feet of office, laboratory, classroom and residential space • 90 new faculty, 1,800 students • A 150,000 -200,000 square foot Vertical Farm(s) in East Pilsen • Cost projections are approximately 600 million dollars.15

Synthesis Plan •41

Figure 37: DPI pedestrian walkway that connects to the riverfront. Graphic produced by Benito Garcia and Elisabeth Rask.

Synthesis Plan •42

SCHOOL

The site will include space dedicated for a new public school to serve the current demand for an elementary school in the area, as well as to educate the influx of school-aged children from the proposed housing development. The proposed South Loop Elementary School is planned to serve 1,200 children16. This school is meant to serve the same area as the former South Loop Elementary and the soon to be closed National Teachers Academy. Since these schools currently serve 1,530 students there is already demand for expanded education space17. With more children on the way from housing infill, the demand for public education will be high. The school will be located in sub-area 5, but will also serve sub-areas 6 and 7 or other areas as determined by Chicago Public Schools district mapping. The school will take $40 Million to construct with a $5 million annual running cost based on comparable schools18. It will take two acres of the site, and will take around six years to implement. It will serve principle E-3.

HOUSING

One of the critical components of the Site Plan will be the construction of mixed-income housing to accommodate the needs of households with incomes ranging from below 30% area median income (AMI) to above 100% AMI. Housing options will be broken down by affordability brackets, allocating 33% each to households earning between 0-60%, 60-120% AMI, and market rate units. This will be funded through the use of CHA public housing units, Project Based Vouchers, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. See Appendix page vii.

In order to maximize space and give the largest boon to the housing stock possible, high density build out is recommended.

Residential buildings will start at 8 stories in the northeast corner of the site and gradually decrease in height to 3 stories closer

to the river’s edge and southern end of the property. This will allow the riverwalk to maintain a human scale, and blend each section of Riverside Junction into the density of the surrounding neighborhoods. Overall, the site is expected to fit 3,273 units of housing on the site, over 58 residential and mixed use buildings.

METRA DEVELOPMENT

The Metra tracks that currently run adjacent to Clark Street will be moved approximately 100-200 feet westward toward the river.

The wall along Clark Street will be removed and the street will be transformed into a complete street - a place where all residents and multimodal transit users feel secure and welcome. The tracks will be enclosed in a cement tunnel covered with earth, and topped with a pedestrian walkway. The resulting “artificial hill” created around the Metra line will be terraced and landscaped for user enjoyment of this open space, and covered with Green Infrastructure, such as rain gardens, bioswales, and trees.

The walkway will run from Roosevelt Road at the north of Riverside Junction and southward to the rail tracks that cross the St. Charles Airline bridge (approximately 16th Street). This walkway will connect to other segments of pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure.

As an elevated feature, it will be accessible to all residents through appropriately spaced staircases, terraced landscaping, meandering ramps, connections to adjacent buildings, and elevators. Enclosing the Metra tracks will enhance safety, reduce noise pollution, increase efficiency, and improve local air quality.

The walkway will effectively turn a massive barrier that bisects the entire neighborhood into a major asset and essential component of Riverside Junction’s connective and people-centered infrastructure.

Synthesis Plan •43

Figure 38: View looking east along 14th Street at the Metra crossing. The commuter rail tunnel daylights at the proposed grade crossing (protected by standard gates, lights, and signage), allowing for a level and accessible streetscape. The pedestrian path crosses 14th Street as a bridge. When trains are not scheduled, gates protect the tunnel for safety. Graphic produced by Nathan Bruemmer.

Synthesis Plan •44

Figure 39: View looking north at site topography. From left to right: range of housing options between Wells-Wentworth and Clark Street; artificial hill with stormwater meander; pedestrian path atop Metra rail line; retaining wall of artificial hill; DPI building. Graphic produced by Elisabeth Rask.

Synthesis Plan •45

CAPTION

Synthesis Plan •46

NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE As a component of the 62-acre site plan, Kawamura Partners suggests including a half-acre communal, neighborhood square that is surrounded by commercial and mixed-use buildings. The commercial spaces will be ideal for small boutiques, specialty stores, bakeries, a post office, and any other independent retailers. 14th Street will extend westward through the site, where it will meet the community square and split into two, one-way roads that will run along the perimeter of the square and eventually join with Wells-Wentworth. This project is inspired by the town squares in Savannah, Georgia, as well as countless public squares throughout Europe. The space will be designed to promote the gathering of people year-round. A combination of hardscape and landscaped areas will allow the space to be used for picnics, small concerts, farmers markets, cultural festivals, holiday markets, and a multitude of other leisure activities. On a daily basis, there will be vendors and small cafe stands. Ideally, the surrounding buildings will not be built above four stories in height, to ensure adequate sunlight and views from the ground level. The eastern edge of the square will open up to Wells-Wentworth, where a traffic signal and crosswalks will be placed for easy and safe access to shops and The Riverwalk.

Synthesis Plan •47

Figure 40: Neighborhood Square. Graphic produced by Pratichha Wagle and Alexis Stein.

Synthesis Plan •48

PARK LAND DONATION Kawamura Partners recommends that ten acres of the site area adjacent to Ping Tom Park be donated to the Chicago Park District to expand local park and open space offerings. This will be in line with Related Midwest’s goal to keep forty percent of the site as open space, while increasing recreational space within the study area. With the current build out suggested for the site (notably proposed topography and road alignment), the proposed donation area faces significant difficulty for development of uses other than open space. This also assists in connectivity to Ping Tom Park, a community asset to Chinatown that currently has accessibility issues. The proposed Riverside Park will contain pedestrian and cycling trails, a half-acre community garden (seen right), a restored riparian zone habitat for river species, and a kayak and canoe path to complement the Ping Tom Kayak Launch facility.

Since the land is a donation, the only costs for the Park District are construction and programming. Construction of park facilities are estimated to be $22 million compared to similar parks in the region19. Maintenance costs for parks of this size average $2.7 million a year. The projected timeline of this park will be to cede the land at the start of site development so that park construction can occur concurrently to the rest of the Riverside Junction project.

Synthesis Plan •49

Figure 41: Half-acre community garden. Graphic produced by Alexis Stein.

Synthesis Plan •50

EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process of the proposed recommendations was based on an assessment of each project. The evaluation process began with the plan’s goals and principles to establish the implementation merit for each recommendation. Each of the ten projects were then evaluated by using a logic model, feasibility and impact analysis, scenarios evaluation and environmental assessment. This process allowed for a clearer iteration of priorities and focused the scope of recommendations, making the finalized recommendations stronger and more directly correlated to the plan’s vision. See also: Appendix page iii.

ESTIMATED INITIAL COST OF PROJECT

FEASIBILITY AND IMPACT

The estimated cost of the site project is 3.3 billion dollars, where big ticket items approximated over 1 billion dollars including Discovery Institute Partners and nearly 5,000 new housing units.

This amount is less than the 5 billion dollars expected cost for construction of the entire site projected by the development firm, Related Midwest20. The conservative estimate calculated for proposed project costs fits within the anticipated price tag, which points to financial feasibility and successful implementation.

To accomplish the six goals outlined in this plan, it is important to evaluate the collective effects of the recommendations, the estimated initial cost of the project as a whole, and to identify potential funders for future partnerships. This process allows stakeholders to gain a comprehensive understanding of the reasoning for each proposed projects and to devise the next steps toward implementation.

COLLECTIVE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES

POTENTIAL FUNDERS

The ten proposed recommendations work symbiotically toward the accomplishment of all six goals, with some recommendations serving as many as five goals and only one recommendations that satisfies a single goal. While a few recommendations negate one or more of the goals, there is an overall supportive trend across the board. The overwhelmingly positive connection between individual recommendations and goals alludes to future goal achievement and successful implementation. This indicates the suite of recommendations are adaptive approaches to serving the planning process’ collective goals.

In addition to estimated costs, potential funders have been identified to help assess the availability of funds and possible partnerships. Many projects require financial and expert assistance from various agencies and stakeholders, providing an opportunity for long-term and successful collaboration.

The collective assessment of these three factors combined - overall goal achievement, estimated cost, and potential funders - reflect the comprehensive process in designing and selecting projects that contribute to the vision of Riverside Junction and identify important considerations for feasibility.

Synthesis Plan •51 Goals Recommendation Initial Cost Storm Water Management

$1.8 million

Bridges $70 million Primary Education $40 million Facility Bike Lanes

$1.6 million

Activate and Restore River

$4.5 million

Mixed-Income Housing $1.93 billion Discovery Partners Institute $1.2 billion

Funder Metropolitan Water Reclamation District; Department of Water Management Chicago Department of Transportation; Illinois Department of Transportation Chicago Public Schools Chicago Department of Transportation Friends of Chicago River; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Chicago Park District Chicago Housing Authority; Illinois Housing Development Authority; Various city funds Private Investors; University of Illinois

Bus Rapid Transit $20 million

Chicago Transit Authority

DPI Bus Route

$500,000

Discovery Partners Institute

Land Donation

$22 million

Chicago Parks Department

TOTAL

($ 3,290,400,000)

0

+

0

0

0

0

+

0

-

+

+

+

+ +

0 +

0 0

0 +

+ +

+ +

+

+

0

+

+

+

+

-

+

0

+

+

+ + + + 9

+ 0 + + 5

+ 0 + + 3

0 + + + 6

0 0 0 + 6

+ + + + 9

Figure 42: Each recommendation was evaluated for its ability to achieve one or more of the goals put forth in the plan. A 0 indicates that the goal is neither achieved, nor negated by the recommendation, while a + indicates that the recommendation achieved a specific goal and a - suggests that the recommendation creates a barrier to achieving that goal. There are very few recommendations that work against goal achievement and those that do are greatly outweighed by the benefits they offer.

Synthesis Plan •52

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION

The methodology used in Figure 43 on page 53 (right) came from the Center for Neighborhood Technology - The Value of Green infrastructure. Our purpose for creating environment rubric were to be able to compare and contrast each alternative idea positivity strength against each other. The alternative idea overall positive (+) strength impact on the environment, specifically in reducing stormwater runoff, and improved community livability. Each proposed recommendation was qualitatively judged for its environmental impact represented.

SUSTAINABILITY

TRANSPORTATION

RIVER RESTORATION (RR)

BRIDGES

Activating the river has been one of Chicago’s biggest ticket implementation plans. It promotes best management practices for green building construction with resource conservation by cleaning the river. RR obtains positivity strength of +9 shown in the environmental rubric. RR will take place in sub-area 5, adjacent to Riverside Junction.

The bridge alternative overlaps with the bike corridor alternative idea, but is also for the use of pedestrians. The bridge alternative compared to other alternatives is very strong in improving community viability, holding a positivity strength of +8.

BUS RAPID TRANSIT (BRT)

SWM focuses on policy and green infrastructure efforts directly on sub-area 5: Riverside Junction. SWM, when compared to other alternatives is the strongest alternative, carrying a positivity strength level of +11 in the table above. A combination of various techniques to retain and or reuse “rainwater or melted snow that runs off streets, lawns and other sites” in green roofs, biofiltration systems, permeable pavement, native vegetation, and swales. This green infrastructure initiative will directly impact sub-area 5.

BRT brings many benefits to our study site addressing the demand for high quality transit. BRT is very cost effective through the short construction timeline and phase ability. BRT running in a loop through the site and around the sub-area would increase access between neighboring communities. It could make the trip between neighboring sub-areas into the site more pleasant and convenient. Although this has many benefits and connectivity opportunities for the surrounding communities when compared to the other alternative it has one of the lowest positivity scores in environmental impact of +5.

LAND DONATION

BIKE CORRIDOR OR LANE

Kawamura Partners proposes an additional 10 acres donated to the Chicago Park Distict to ensure stewardship of the open space and increase access to green space for the community. This will be located in sub area 5. Land donation alternative has the biggest impact on the environment holding a positivity strength of +13.

Bike lanes fit well with Chicago Streets for Cycling Plan 2020. The Wells/Wentworth connector is already drawn into the plan as a crosstown bike route as part of the near south plan. The bike lane positivity strength is +7.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT (SWM)

Synthesis Plan •53

Figure 43: Impact analysis of environmental impact of proposed alternatives. The methodology used in the table above came from the Center for Neighborhood Technology - The Value of Green infrastructure. Our purpose for creating environment rubric were to be able to compare and contrast each alternative idea positivity strength against each other. The alternative idea overall positive (+) strength impact on the environment, specifically in reducing stormwater runoff, and improved community livability. Each proposed recommendation was qualitatively judged for the environmental impact represented.

Synthesis Plan •54

HOUSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS: MIXED INCOME DEVELOPMENT The mixed-income housing development will provide people with low income the opportunity to live on the site, ensuring equal access to housing options, despite financial resources. Affordable housing has also has one of the lowest positivity ratings of +4 according to the environmental rubric.

PRIMARY EDUCATION FACILITY Dedication of land in sub-area 5 for future construction of elementary school to serve anticipated increase in school-age children resulting from housing development on site. The school will serve the populations of sub-areas 5, 6, and 7. Primary Education Facility has the lowest positivity score of +2.

VERTICAL FARM

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DPI Led by the University of Illinois system, The Discovery Partners Institute (DPI) will be a conduit between leading industry clusters in the Chicago region and the region’s research and development infrastructure as well as assist a primary through higher education pipeline. Universities will help solve industry challenges faced by cluster firms, and firms will help commercialize the innovation that occurs within the Discovery Partners Institute. DPI has a positivity of +5 for environmental impact.

As a part of the DPI’s commitment of agroscience and advanced food production technology we envision a vertical farm to be located in East Pilsen. The vertical farm has a positivity strength of +5.

In closing, the benefits mentioned in the environmental impact evaluation do not include all forms of green infrastructure practices.

We also note that some benefits are lower than others or are not covered at all. We believe that it does represent a great start to increasing the benefits that these types of infrastructure can offer to our community.

Synthesis Plan •55

MITIGATING INEQUITABLE DRIVING FORCES

From the evaluation of our plan against the scenarios, it became clear that that most important driving force is a strong local government and the most vulnerable recommendations were those that assume high equity, such as affordable housing and innovation for accessible living wage jobs incubated from the DPI. During recession and in a less regulated environment, a weak local government is more vulnerable to economic forces that drive profit over the needs of people impacted the most.

END NOTES 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

However, a strong local government can find tools to preserve equity through enforcing zoning and land use policy that require affordable housing and the types of jobs accessible to those an inequitable economy has left behind. Therefore, strong local advocacy is recommended in order to maintain the equitable development that the plan has set forth. To achieve equity it is recommended that local residents and non-profit organizations from wealthy and less wealthy areas of the study area and adjacent neighborhoods such as Pilsen, Chinatown and Douglas build a base, utilize existing equity proposals in the plan, move the equity proposal among key political and private stakeholders, and advance and defend equitable development and policy21.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Nathalie P Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement. (2014, October).

The Socioeconomic Change of Chicago’s Community Areas. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from http:// voorheescenter.red.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/122/2017/10/Voorhees-Center-Gentrification-Index-Oct-14.pdf Joravsky, B. (2018, April 20). Does the North Branch Industrial Corridor Modernization Plan spell the end of the Hideout? Retrieved from https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/hideout-north-branch-zoning-gentrification/Content?oid=31710047 City of Chicago. (n.d.). Planned manufacturing districts. Retrieved April 10, 2018, from https:// chicagocode.org/17-13-0700/ City of Chicago Data Portal. (2017, October 6). City-Owned Land Inventory. Retrieved April 17, 2018, from https://data.cityofchicago.org/Community-Economic-Development/ City-Owned-Land-Inventory/aksk-kvfp Hilkevitch, J. (2012, September 19). CTA’s new bus rapid-transit service gets a name: Jeffrey Jump. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-0919/news/ct-met-cta-jeffery-jump-0919-20120919_1_bus-rapid-transit-73rd-and-84th-streets-jeffery-express-bus-route and Geib, P. (2014, September 29). A plan for downtown transit improvements (infographic). Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from http://www.chicagotribune. com/news/columnists/ct-downtown-transit-improvements-map-gfc-20140929-htmlstory.html.

Proterra Secures Three-Year Lease Program With New York MTA. (2017, September 12).

Markets Insider. Retrieved April 16, 2018, from http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/ proterra-secures-three-year-lease-program-with-new-york-mta-1002361649.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (2014). Transportation Improvement Program. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from https://etip.cmap.illinois.gov/.

Hilkevitch, J. (2015, October 11). Build More and Better Bike Lanes, Cycling Advocates Urge Chicago. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ctbike-lane-network-getting-around-met-1012-20151011-column.html.

Nat halie P Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement. (2014, October).

The Socioeconomic Change of Chicago’s Community Areas. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from http:// voorheescenter.red.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/122/2017/10/Voorhees-Center-Gentrification-Index-Oct-14.pdf U.S. Census Bureau. (2016, October 05). American Community Survey, Table B25106. Retrieved February 4, 2018, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview. xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_B25106&prodType=table City of Chicago. (2015, October). 2015 ARO Enhancements: Summary. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/dcd/general/housing/ARO_Enhancements_Summary.pdf Passive House Institute US. (2018). Passive House Principles. Source: http://www.phius.org/ what-is-passive-building/passive-house-principles EPA. (n.d.). Benefits of Low Impact Development: How LID Can Protect Your Community’s Resources. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ documents/bbfs1benefits.pdf EPA. (n.d.). Benefits of Low Impact Development: How LID Can Protect Your Community’s Resources. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/ documents/bbfs1benefits.pdf Seidel, E. (2017). Discovery Partners Institute & Illinois Innovation Network: An engine for economic development [pdf]. Retrieved from https://uic.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/ execute/content/file?cmd=view&content_id=_5798134_1&course_id=_132950_1 Matthews, David. “ New South Loop Elementary School Work To Start Next Month.” DNAInfo.

February 15, 2017.

Chicago Public Schools. “National Teachers Academy.” http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Find_a_ school/Pages/findaschool.aspx Matthews, David. “ New South Loop Elementary School Work To Start Next Month.” DNAInfo.

February 15, 2017.

Department of Planning and Development Chicago Park District. (n.d.) Ping Tom Memorial Park Framework Plan. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20111005000132/http://pingtompark.org/Phase%20II%20Expansion_files/Ping%20Tom%20Memorial%20%20Park.pdf Joravsky, B. (2017, October 4). Does the North Branch Industrial Corridor Modernization Plan spell the end of the Hideout? Retrieved April 9, 2018, from https://www.chicagoreader.com/ chicago/hideout-north-branch-zoning-gentrification/Content?oid=31710047 EPA. (2017, March 07). EPA Facility Stormwater Management. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/epa-facility-stormwater-management

Synthesis Plan •56

Appendix

Appendix •i

Scenario Planning Methods.............................................. ii Scenario Evaluation..........................................................iii SWOT Analysis of Sub-Areas.......................................... iv SWOT Analysis of Regional Needs.................................. vi Housing: Affordable Requirements Ordinance.................vii Implementation...............................................................viii Transportation Accessibility..............................................xii Principles and Goals Logic Models.................................xiv References................................................................... xviii

Appendix •ii

SCENARIO PLANNING METHODS

DRIVING FORCES

One of the first tasks of assembling this plan was constructing the scenario planning elements. The first step was to research current trends among a variety of sources. This covered local Chicago newspapers as well the predictions of heads of industry. From these materials the Scenario Planning workgroup identified a collection of external factors that could impact the greater Chicago region. These trends were then ranked along two axis: the trends predictability and the the materiality or impact on the region. The Scenario Planning work group took the highest rated trends on the materiality axis and separate them by their predictability (See figure SP-1) . The least predictable, but most impactful, trends became the selected driving forces. The trends that were highly impactful and predictable were included as givens in each scenario.

Three driving forces formed the bones of the scenario: regulation of economy, strength of local government, and population migration. Each of these driving forces have two equally likely outcomes that could influence the region. The scenarios were constructed with an assumption of the directions the three driving forces would take. This made a possible combination of 27 scenarios which the work group narrowed down to four most divergent and influential to the study area.

These scenarios were expanded upon with a mix of research and story telling to write the narratives for what each would look like. The end result is four disparate stories of what the future could look like for the the greater Chicago region. These narratives were helpful for both brainstorming for the rest of the plan and for evaluating recommendations.

Table A-1: Table of driving forces identified with rankings of predictability and materiality.

Appendix •iii

SCENARIO EVALUATION The scenario section of our plan introduced the four scenarios and three driving forces. This section will evaluate the plan according to each scenario to determine which recommendations are most resilient. In the evaluation of scenarios, the plan is seen as fully implemented and the resiliency of the alternatives within the plan are evaluated against each scenario. Each scenario is a stress test to which the most well maintained and thriving scenarios were rated Most Resilient, Moderately Resilient, and Least Resilient.

EMPOWERED CITY The empowered scenario was evaluated as the most resilient. The empowered city promotes regulation of the economy that implements policies that allow all residents to succeed. A strong local government can enforce the maintenance and development its people need, and the city is further supported by population influx to the Midwest. The economic development, housing, transportation, and sustainability recommendations alternatives of the plan flourish within a supportive and well-funded government matched by population inflow to increase success of the study area and the city. In this scenario the Discovery Partners Institute is regulated to support research that provides the innovation that cluster industries need, and supports incubation of fulfilling and accessible careers in the planned manufacturing district. Also through the DPI the scenario climate supports meaningful relationships that create a pipeline from high schools and community colleges to jobs in cluster industries in the study area, city, and region. Affordable housing is well maintained and integrated within the study area. As the city gains an influx of population sustainability and transportation alternatives work to maintain a clean area people want to be a part of. The study area’s open space is welcoming, the river remains clean and well utilized, and flooding is mitigated through storm water management. Bus rapid transit, quality bike lanes, and bridges ensure the study area is connected to the entire city and attractions in the study area such as open space and the vertical farm.

UNEMPOWERED CITY The unempowered city was evaluated as least resilient. In this scenario a weak local government is made weaker by regulation that stifles the economy and population decline. The Discovery partners institute was seen as most resilient in this scenario as research focus can be adapted to meet the needs of the study area, city, and region. Affordable housing is not well maintained, the city struggles to maintain bike lanes and bridges and public transportation fares increase to make them less accessible.

Open space is abandoned and job providers throughout the study area are threatened due to a struggling economy and weak government.

GROWTH AND INEQUALITY This scenario is successful but only for certain classes of people in Chicago. The scenario has similar results in maintaining the various economic, housing, sustainability, and transportation alternatives but is less accessible. Segregation continues to produce affluent and impoverished communities with little middle ground. The DPI produces innovation for those who can afford expensive degrees in STEM fields while the best education is in affluent communities. Affordable housing is eliminated for market rate housing.

RECESSION AND INEQUALITY In this scenario deregulation pushes inequality coupled with population loss that makes it difficult for Chicago to maintain accessible services.

The DPI remains resilient in research that aims to bring the region out of recession. Affordable housing is threatened but able to remain due to a strong local government. Transportation and sustainability alternatives remain but are less successful due to population loss.

Appendix •iv

SWOT ANALYSIS OF SUB-AREAS STRENGTHS Sub-Area 1 & 2 (Commerical, Industrial, Transportation) • Big box retail growth • Prime real estate and location • Location strength at regional level Sub-Area 3 (East Pilsen) • Loction and connectivity • Strong community organizations • Cultural cohesion Sub-Area 4 (The Loop) • Walkability • High income and tax base • River access Sub-Area 5 (62-acre site) • Access to river and proximity to The Loop Sub-Area 6 (Chinatown) • Cultural landmark • Business community • River proximity Sub-Area 7 (South Loop) • Open space

WEAKNESSES Sub-Area 1 & 2 (Commerical, Industrial, Transportation) • Limited space for new infrastructure • Isolation of commercial area • River and highway barriers Sub-Area 3 (East Pilsen) • Inaccessibility, poverty, low educational attainment Sub-Area 4 (The Loop) • NIMBYism and resistance to change Sub-Area 5 (62-acre site) • Inaccessibility • Uninviting land use accross river • Isolation (Dearborn Park) Sub-Area 6 (Chinatown) • Vulnerable residents (education and language) • Low income Sub-Area 7 (South Loop) • Diverse needs/uncoordinated • Physical isolation

Appendix •v

OPPORTUNITIES

THREAT

Sub-Area 1 & 2 (Commerical, Industrial, Transportation) • Exiting commercial are vacant and high turnover rate • UIC campus can collaborate and possible physical connection to the site • Post office site can be redeveloped

Sub-Area 1 & 2 (Commerical, Industrial, Transportation) • Threat to small businesses that have resided in the area for years (long term fabric store on Roosevelt) • Exisitng transit along riverfront • Pacific Garden Mission Shelter may not be a desireable location in the future/backlash from residents

Sub-Area 3 (East Pilsen) • Future connectivity to the river and the site Sub-Area 4 (The Loop) • Wave of new development • Lining up agenda • Undeveloped riverfront Sub-Area 5 (62-acre site) • Create entriely new neighborhood • Connect disconnected neighborhood • Improve circulation and mobility Sub-Area 6 (Chinatown) • Service industry could benefit from increase foot traffic Sub-Area 7 (South Loop) • Open to change • Connector by the South Loop • Rest of the Southside and Chinatown

Sub-Area 4 (The Loop) • Struggle to maintain affordability and identity • Recession due to over-developed area • Congestion and traffic Sub-Area 5 (62-acre site) • Storm water and sewage overflow • Big money involved • Political realities Sub-Area 6 (Chinatown) • Struggle to maintain affordabiltiy and identity Sub-Area 7 (South Loop) • Damage to affordable housing

Appendix •vi

SWOT ANALYSIS OF REGIONAL NEEDS STRENGTHS • • •

Rich and diverse economic business Numerous research and educational institutions Lead nation in freight transportation

WEAKNESSES • • • •

Economically Segregated Deindustrialization and poor human capital development Low retention rate of high-skilled labor force Poor environmental condition

OPPORTUNITIES • • • •

Potential for economic growth through global connectivity Increase freight demand Room for green businesses and sustainable technology Growing diversity that can produce an enriched cultural fabric that will foster an exchange of ideas and creativity

THREATS • • • •

Competition from other states Due to climate change potential shift in coastal population to our region at a time where natural resources are limited (fresh water) Increase in need of high-skilled work may cause displacement and require training National politics threaten regional local economy by harassing immigrants

Appendix •vii

HOUSING: AFFORDABLE REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE

Table A-2: Current and Proposed Affordable Requirements Ordinance Specifications

Appendix •viii

IMPLEMENTATION

The ambitious projects put forth for the site will range in the time they take to implement and depend greatly on available funding and political will. Assuming that the finances and support necessary for completion are obtainable, 30-year timelines divided into short-term, mid-term, and long-term sections have been created for each project category. The short term items in green represent the first five years of implementation, while the mid-term items in blue and long-term items in red represent six to ten years and eleven to 30 years for implementation, respectively.

Figure A-1: Implementation Timeline of Transportation Recommendations

Appendix •ix

Figure A-2: Implementation Timeline of Housing Recommendations

Appendix •x

Figure A-3: Implementation Timeline of Economic Recommendations

Appendix •xi

Figure A-4: Implementation Timeline of Environmental Recommendations

Appendix •xii

TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY

Figure A-5: CTA Bus Routes and Average CTA Train Station Entries

Figure A-6: Regional Rail and Bus Transit Stations

Appendix •xiii

Figure A-7: Divvy Bikeshare and Bicycle Routes

Appendix •xiv

PRINCIPLES AND GOALS LOGIC MODELS

Figure A-8: Transportation Logic Model

Figure A-9: Land Use Logic Model

Appendix •xv

Figure A-10: River Restoration Logic Model

Figure A-11: Bridges Logic Model

Figure A-12: Stormwater and Passive Design Logic Model

Appendix •xvi

Figure A-13: Housing Logic Model

Figure A-14: Economic Development Logic Model

Appendix •xvii

Figure A-15: New School Logic Model

Figure A-16: Vertical Farm Logic Model

Appendix •xviii

REFERENCES Chicago Public Schools. “National Teachers Academy.” http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Find_a_school/Pages/findaschool.aspx.

Chicago Public Schools. “South Loop Elementary School.” http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Find_a_school/Pages/findaschool.aspx.

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (2014). Transportation Improvement Program. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from https://etip.cmap.illinois.gov/.

Chicago Transit Authority. (2016). Annual Ridership Report. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/ridership_reports/2016_Annual_-_Final.pdf.

City of Chicago. (2015, October). 2015 ARO Enhancements: Summary. Retrieved April 1, 2018, from https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/ city/depts/dcd/general/housing/ARO_Enhancements_Summary.pdf.

CNT. (2015, April 02). The Value of Green Infrastructure: A Guide to Recognizing Its Economic, Environmental and Social Benefits. Retrieved April 19, 2018, from https://www.cnt.org/publications/the-value-of-green-infrastructure-a-guide-to-recognizing-its-economic-environmental.

Department of Planning and Development Chicago Park District. (n.d.) Ping Tom Memorial Park Framework Plan. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20111005000132/http://pingtompark.org/Phase%20II%20Expansion_files/Ping%20Tom%20Memorial%20%20Park.pdf.

Divvy. (2017). Divvy Data: 2017 Q1-Q2 Ridership Counts and System Map. Retrieved February 18, 2018 from https://www.divvybikes.com/system-data.

EPA. (2017, March 07). EPA Facility Stormwater Management. Retrieved April 15, 2018, from https://www.epa.gov/greeningepa/epa-facility-stormwater-management.

Geib, P. (2014, September 29). A plan for downtown transit improvements (infographic). Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from http://www. chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-downtown-transit-improvements-map-gfc-20140929-htmlstory.html.

Greyhound. (2018). Retrieved February 18, 2018, from https://www.greyhound.com/en/.

Hilkevitch, J. (2012, September 19). CTA’s new bus rapid-transit service gets a name: Jeffrey Jump. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-19/news/ct-met-cta-jeffery-jump-0919-20120919_1_bus-rapid-transit-73rd-and-84th-streets-jeffery-express-bus-route.

Appendix •xix

Hilkevitch, J. (2015, October 11). Build More and Better Bike Lanes, Cycling Advocates Urge Chicago. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www. chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-bike-lane-network-getting-around-met-1012-20151011-column.html. llinois Department of Transportation, Division of Traffic Safety (2015). Retrieved April 26, 2018, from https://github.com/stevevance/Chicago-Crash-Browser/blob/master/DATA.md.

Joravsky, B. (2017, October 4). Does the North Branch Industrial Corridor Modernization Plan spell the end of the Hideout? Retrieved April 9, 2018, from https://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/hideout-north-branch-zoning-gentrification/Content?oid=31710047.

Matthews, David. “New South Loop Elementary School Work To Start Next Month.” DNAInfo. February 15, 2017.

Metra. (2018). Maps and Schedules. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://metrarail.com/maps-schedules/system-map.

Nathalie P Voorhees Center for Neighborhood and Community Improvement. (2014, October). The Socioeconomic Change of Chicago’s Community Areas. Retrieved April 9, 2018, from http://voorheescenter.red.uic.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/122/2017/10/Voorhees-Center-Gentrification-Index-Oct-14.pdf.

Policy Link, Getting Equity Advocacy Results, Retrieved from http://gear.policylink.org/gear/introduction.

Proterra Secures Three-Year Lease Program With New York MTA. (2017, September 12). Markets Insider. Retrieved April 16, 2018, from http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/proterra-secures-three-year-lease-program-with-new-york-mta-1002361649.

Seidel, E. (2017). Discovery Partners Institute & Illinois Innovation Network: An engine for economic development [pdf]. Retrieved from https://uic. blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?cmd=view&content_id=_5798134_1&course_id=_132950_1.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016, October 05). American Community Survey, Table B25106. Retrieved February 4, 2018, from https://factfinder.census. gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR_B25106&prodType=table.

United States, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. (2016, March). Greater Philadelphia Future Forces Technical Report. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from https://www.dvrpc.org/Products/16007/.