The Evanston Land Use Commission has voted against the mixed-use proposal at 605 Davis Street in Evanston. Located near the corner of Davis Street and Chicago Avenue, the tower is the third proposal for the site from Vermilion Development, which has owned the parcel for several years. While the vote may delay the project, the Evanston City Council will have the final say later this year.
Site map of 605 Davis Street via Google Maps
Set to replace a vacant lot and a small bank ATM in the heart of downtown, the 31-story proposal would become the city’s tallest building—and one of the tallest in the suburbs. It would exceed Evanston’s 243-foot maximum height restriction; however, it would not be the first to do so. Vermilion has been working with Chicago-based SCB on the tower’s design.
Current view of 605 Davis Street via Google Maps
The building’s podium would include commercial space along the streetfront, as well as an 80-space parking garage. To supplement this, the developer plans to lease an additional 120 parking spaces from the city nearby, according to the Tribune. These spaces would serve the 430 residential units proposed within the tower.
Massing diagram of 605 Davis Street by SCB
While the unit layouts are not yet known, the development team plans to designate 20 percent of the units—86 residences—as affordable. This exceeds the city’s requirement and would qualify the developer for a 12-year property tax reduction, similar to programs offered in Chicago. This was one of the major points of contention for commission members.
Rendering of 605 Davis Street by SCB
As with many projects facing opposition, complaints included excessive density, insufficient parking, increased traffic, excessive height, and blocked views. One commission member noted they would support something half the height. The project will next go before the Evanston City Council, which has previously disagreed with the Commission on projects like Ryan Field.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
Perhaps, if the building design was more unique, architectural and residential and Evanston specific instead of looking like a generic office tower, the Evanston community could be wooed. Density in downtown makes sense. It helps the economic base, and proximity to the El and Metra is a draw. Push for more romantic and meaningful architecture that Evanston is known for instead of bland developer banality.
The community don’t care about the look of it, I hate to break it. They just don’t want more people living near them and they don’t want density. And if we should not build new needed housing because some people don’t like how it looks then we have a whole different problem occurring
Don’t agree. Residents in Evanston do want density. The retail base is fragile, because it doesn’t have the consistent volume that is needed to support them in the long run (AMC theatres, and many many restaurant openings and closures as examples).
But agree with the primary comment – that it should be done in a Evanston centric way – so that it doesn’t change the character and charm of the city. Developers need to get creative..
430 additional units, somewhere between 500-600 residents, in a single tower would help retail get consistent volume to support them in the long run
Evanston rejects most buildings. Then they wonder why there is so much empty retail space. All of the additional residents paying taxes and supporting businesses would help that. Not the brightest people for being an ivy league school and town.
Northwestern is not Ivy League. They’re more like the Harvard of the northern part of Chicagoland.
You’re right- but they are better than most Ivy, so point stands.
The complaints are the same complaints every NIBMY has about every project ever proposed that has the potential to be anything beyond a copy of the surrounding buildings.
They’re not ivy league but are ranked higher than half of the ivy league so
I’m glad this was rejected. A forbidding, unforgiving, looming monolith of an edifice. Propose something with a little sophistication and humane quality to it and it will be considered, I’m sure.
I think the design looks nice. Not adventurous, but not displeasing either.
I can’t believe that Vermillion is still trying to play Evanston’s stupid games after all these years.
Time to cut your losses and go try to build something in a less NIMBY-infested community.
more people downtown will help retail. But the real issue is the parking meters. People in Evanston don’t want to eat downtown because of them. I Was at Mench’s this afternoon and had to pay 2.50 to park. I can go to Kaufmans in skokie for free. Indluding more parking in the new high rises and freeing up street parking will make dowtown E a fantastic place to eat and drink.
Ya there’s so much cool green building happening over in Europe, why not have Evanston get something special? Mass timber, solar balconies, green walls…we can do better here
Wonder if anyone at the city of Evanston has done the math on how much the tax break is costing the city, and how many “affordable” units it’s getting them for how long.
Willing to bet the cost per unit is stupidly high.
There’s no “cost” except opportunity cost. The city WAS going to get millions of dollars a year in property taxes, and now they’re not going to get any of that.
That’s only partially true. There are costs associated with new development – it’s just that in Illinois, property taxes are so high that the new revenue almost always well exceeds the cost. The apartments will generate students (affordable units typically generate more students than market-rate units), increase demands on parks and the library, among other City services. While it’s likely even the reduced tax income will still cover the marginal costs, they can’t be completely discounted.
The passive aggressiveness in Evanston is so thick it permeates the air. Citizens hate Northwestern, the college students, and basically everything. They complain about taxes but shoot down every development they can. An insufferable echo chamber of small thinking.
But their energy policy is so progressive! /s
What’s uglier: an empty lot, or this building? I’m so sick of the “it’s ugly” argument. Style is relative and no design will be for everyone. Ultimately, something is better than nothing.