708-church-aerial-wide

With Evanston aldermen voting Monday night to deny a developer extra time to start work on the 708 Church St. tower, here are some numbers on the state of planned development projects in Evanston.

The numbers, provided by City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz, show:

Just two new planned developments have been approved in the nearly five years since the tower won approval in 2009. Those are smaller-scale retail developments for the Trader Joe’s and Walgreens stores on Chicago Avenue.

Three planned developments are in the pipeline for City Council consideration by the middle of next year. All of them involved residential mixed-use or hotel projects and two are proposed for the downtown area.

While condominium projects drove many planned developments last decade, no new dwelling units have been approved as part of a planned development since 2009.

Twenty-two planned developments were approved between 2003 and 2008 and 12 of them were granted extensions for various reasons. The extensions averaged two years. Of the ones granted extensions, only one has yet to be completed. That one, the E2 development at 1890 Maple Ave. is under construction.

Two of the planned developments that got extensions — E2 and 1717 Ridge — have or will add 642 rental apartment units to the downtown area. And the AMLI planned development has added another 214 rental units on Chicago Avenue in south Evanston.

The heights of some planned developments constructed before the market meltdown include Optima Views at 1720 Maple Ave. at 259 feet, Sherman Plaza at 807 Davis St. at 236 feet and the Park Evanston at 1630 Chicago Ave. at 218 feet.

The tallest building under construction since 2009 is E2 at 165 feet.

Bill Smith is the editor and publisher of Evanston Now.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

  1. Council voted down the extension, not the project

    Actually, the council did not vote down the project – they voted down the extension to the original five- year extension of the project. That is, if the extension were to be approved, it would simply have added three years and drawing out the probable start of tower construction beyond 2016.

Leave a comment
The goal of our comment policy is to make the comments section a vibrant yet civil space. Treat each other with respect — even the people you disagree with. Whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims.

Your email address will not be published.