The Living Loop

The Living Loop

InsTrucTor

proJEcT mAnAGErs

dEsIGn TEAmdEsIGn dIrEcTor: sarah KellermandEsIGn EdITor: Jackson Morsey

wrITInG dIrEcTor: claire ThomisonwrITInG EdITor: rhonda Payne

wrITInG TEAm

Janet smith

Malek AbdulsamadKasey Evans

Alireza BahramiradKyle BardoEmily EganHarish PatelAriel stouderNathan Taylor

upp 506 – sprInG 2013

Patricia BonWilliam coblentzNusrat JahanAlireza Kardunisummer ManoggNicholas smith

Executive summaryPlanning Process

context + catalystVision

02030607

InTroducTIon

History + current statePopulation Demographics

EducationHousing

Economic AnalysisLand Use

Environment conditionsTransportation system

1012121213141617

communITy profILE

communITy AnALysIssWOT Analysis

Main stakeholdersscenario Planning + Trend Analysis

Environment scenarioTransportation scenario

Economic Development scenario

202122222324

Goals + recommendationsPipeline to Prosperity

Working Green communityEnvironment + Health

EnergyUrban Freight Village

connecting + Building communitiesrealized recommendations

2829323639444751

rEcommEndATIons

Implementation Matrix 54ImpLEmEnTATIon

EndnotesWorks cited

Maps + charts KeysMaps

charts

IIIIVVIXVI

AppEndIx

Introduction

2 Introduction

Executive Summary

Little Village and Pilsen (LVP) are vibrant, evolving communities with a rich cultural and industrial heritage. Located three miles west of Chicago’s downtown Loop, the communities are situated on the north bank of the Chicago River which, in conjunction with signifi-cant rail investment, has facilitated industrial and economic growth in the communities’ past and present. The construction of the Crawford and Fisk coal plants in the early 20th century was critical to the growth of these communities, though these polluting giants brought significant environmental degradation and devastating health consequences for residents.

Residents are still facing much of the destruction these plants left behind although both plants were closed in 2012. Due to the communities’ proximity to the Loop, particularly Pilsen, pressure from incoming new residents lured by LVP’s distinctive culture, arts district, and inexpen-sive rent threatens housing afford-ability and the existing culture for current residents. Chicago’s chang-ing industrial landscape also serves

as both a threat and an opportu-nity. As lower-skilled manufactur-ing jobs left the city and the coun-try, LVP increasingly experienced the skills mismatch phenomenon which has become evident through high unemployment rates.

With the closing of the Crawford and Fisk plants, LVP finds itself at a critical juncture with opportuni-ties for adaptive environmental re-mediation, enhanced connectivity for people and freight, and vitality through increased educational and employment opportunities. How-ever, with challenges such as an economy in flux, increasing real estate pressures, high unemploy-ment, crime, and continuing envi-ronmental damage, goals must be approached strategically.

This plan was developed to build on community strengths, capitalize on emerging opportunities, reinforce existing community stakeholder’s desires, and transform weaknesses and threats into strengths and op-portunities. In response to envi-ronmental degradation, economic instability, and the need for an en-hanced transportation network, the concept of the Living Loop was

Executive summary

Pipeline to Prosperity. Enhance educational and employment opportunities through streamlining the path from education to workforce.

Working Green Community. Improve the dete-riorating buildings and infrastructure and provide green building training in LVP through a Green Building Improvement and Training Zone (GBITZ).

Environment + Health. Prioritize environmental remediation and redevelopment of sites by identify-ing sites in a prioritized land use map.

Energy. Promote research and development of sus-tainable energy through an energy innovation hub at the Fisk plant site.

Urban Freight Village. Establish a local planning board to support the activities and coordination of the urban freight village.

Connecting + Building Communities. Increase green space and pedestrian connectivity through the development of strategic pathways.

developed to holistically incorpo-rate considerations of adaptability, connectivity, and vitality into each goal and recommended strategy. Through the goals of: 1.) Pipeline to Prosperity, 2.) Working Green Community, 3.) Environment + Health 4.) Energy 5.) Urban Freight Village, and 6.) Connecting and Building Communities, six critical strategies were developed to com-prehensively address the need for enhanced adaptability, connectivity, and vitality within LVP.

These strategies work in conjunc-tion with each other, building on the area’s industrial past and future environmental considerations. They also promote community invest-ment and economic development without sacrificing cultural heritage or the desires of current residents. Furthermore, they aid in maxi-mizing community and regional resources and assets in a way that promotes adaptability, connectivity, and vitality within Little Village and Pilsen.

3Introduction

Our planning group, under the di-rection of Janet Smith, began the planning process by identifying and researching the stakeholders’ key concerns. The stakeholder analysis diagram on page 21 illustrates the connectivity between the commu-nity, business, and governmental interests.

The People Prosperity and Planet sustainability model informed our preliminary research and the for-mation of work groups. The work groups were assigned to analyze

best practices and explore innova-tions in the categories of transporta-tion, environment, and economics.

We collected and analyzed data in the work groups, reported find-ings, and collaborated with the remainder of the class to analyze driving forces, trends, and possible scenarios. During this process we noticed themes in our discussions and therefore focused research on education, environment, economy, energy, and culture. These themes evolved into strategic directions and were used to develop our goals and strategies.

In order to develop a framework for understanding current community concerns and future development considerations, a closed loop frame-work (i.e. a system that allows for the circulation or recirculation and distribution of area-wide resources that minimize waste while strength-ening the community) was used to connect our guiding ideas.

Next, we integrated the closed loop concept with the human scale, while recognizing the sophistication and complexities of all living organisms. Through this framework, we devel-oped the Living Loop which is built

on the principles of adaptability, connectivity, and vitality.

Vitality is focused on the promotion of a vibrant, engaged community, adaptability is focused on the development of a flexible, evolving urban system, and connectivity is focused on the creation of smart, integral systems at all levels of development. We developed the following plan by thinking critically about these principles and their interaction with the conditions in LVP across space and time. Living Loop – Small Actions, Big Impact.

planning process

figure 1.1: The LVp planning process progresed from research and idea development to planning and production.

4 Introduction

I0 2.5 5 Miles

L a k e

M i c h i g a n

C i t y o f C h i c a g o

Ch

ica

go

Re

gi o

n

State of Illinois

Iowa

Wisconsin LakeMichigan

Missouri

Kentucky

Indiana

figure 1.2: The city of chicago is located in northeastern Illinois and is situated along the coast of Lake michigan.

figure 1.3 (Above): Little Village and pilsen are located in a relatively central position in chicago, a few miles southwest of the Loop and city’s central business district (cBd).

figure 1.4 (right): The industrial corridor spans Little Village and pilsen and runs along the Illinois and michigan sanitary ship canal.

Locator maps

5Introduction

I N D U S T R I A L C O R R I D O R

I0 0.5 1 Miles

L I T T L EV I L L A G E

P I L S E N

35TH

ARCHER

26TH

KED

ZIE

31ST

PULA

SKI

HA

LSTE

D

16THK

OST

NER

OGDEN

WES

TER

N

DA

N R

YAN

CEN

TRA

L PA

RK

BLUE

ISLA

ND

ASH

LAN

D

RA

CIN

E

43RD

CERMAK

6 Introduction

West of Chicago’s downtown Loop, Little Village is within the South Lawndale community area and Pilsen is within the Lower West Side community area. LVP is bounded by the University of Illi-nois at Chicago (UIC) and North Lawndale to the north, the Town of Cicero to the west, and waterways to the east and south. Both neigh-borhoods border each other along Western Avenue.

The area possesses rich econom-ic, social, and political heritages and plays a defining role within the City of Chicago. LVP has long been a “gateway” for recent immi-grants to the United States and has a strong cultural identity which is integral to the lives of many resi-dents. These factors all must be considered when planning for the area’s future.

Due to their proximity to the city’s central business district and strong transportation infrastructure, the communities of Little Village and Pilsen have historically been areas of great economic activity. How-ever, as the result of wider demo-

graphic and economic shifts that occurred in the latter half of 20th century, the current image, health, and economic strength of LVP has since deteriorated.

Critical issues such as vacant land, lack of development, and health issues arising from past industrial activity in conjunction with dimin-ished land values, high crime, and decaying infrastructure have im-pacted the communities in recent decades. In order to truly serve the area’s stakeholders, these issues must be addressed.

With the recent closure of the Fisk and Crawford coal-fired power plants, these two locations have become representative of LVP’s economically stressed state. As a result, the community’s need for health and redevelopment has been a priority among community residents and city leaders. If the community’s current situation is to be improved and its overall vi-tality and connectivity to the sur-rounding city and world is to come to fruition, the ability to adapt to changing environmental and eco-nomic realities must be ensured for the future.

This plan provides a detailed analy-sis of LVP’s existing economic, so-cial, political, and environmental conditions as well as stakeholder desires and offers recommenda-tions and strategies to support the

economic, environmental, and so-cial well-being of LVP.

context + catalyst

figure 1.5: An overhead image of the fisk coal power plant, a powerful symbol of LVp’s industrial past and the current environmental issues facing the community. operations at the plant ceased in 2012 and future redevelopment of the site is uncertain.

7Introduction

Vision

Vision

In 30 years, Little Village and pilsen will be vital, connected, and adaptive neighborhoods which

continue to build on their rich heritage by fostering a strong community-oriented economy and an effective multimodal transportation network that integrates nature throughout the physical and

social fabric of the community.

community Profile

10 Community Profile

Early development of LVP began in the 1840s with the construction of the Illinois and Michigan (IL-MI) Canal, an ambitious inland waterway connecting Lake Michigan to the Il-linois River. Economic development was further supported by the expan-sion of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad in the mid-1850s. The job opportunities provided by this growth, combined with the rela-tive ease of entry into low-skill labor jobs, drew a large number of recent Eastern and Central European im-migrants to the area.

Approximately 30 years later, LVP was spared from the destruction wrought by the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. The fire served as a cata-lyst to support further economic growth in both communities. Dis-placed residents found new homes within LVP as well as the rapidly developing land west of Ashland Avenue within Little Village. This rapid expansion necessitated im-proved infrastructure. Conse-quently, the first elevated train reached LVP in the 1890s.

By the first quarter of the 20th cen-tury, LVP had cemented its posi-

tion within the city as an industrial powerhouse. A number of lumber yards, brickyards, quarries, ware-houses, and manufacturing plants lay along the IL-MI Canal and the industrial rail spurs in the area. To support the immense energy needs of these industries and the growing population, two coal-fired power plants were constructed within the communities, Fisk in 1903 and Crawford in 1924.

In 1920, the population of LVP reached its peak, with over 85,000 residents. Eastern and Central European immigrants, primar-

ily Czechoslovakians, continued to dominate the neighborhood’s racial demographic. However, con-sistent with the trend in Chicago and the nation, this rapid growth halted with the onset of the Great Depression in 1929.

By the close of World War II, LVP was in a period of stagnation. New housing was nonexistent and over-crowding was becoming an issue. Industry, in the form of the Fisk and Crawford power plants, re-mained the backbone of the com-munity’s economy and image. At this time there was also an exodus

History + current state

1800s 1900s

71

75

86

50s

64

‘03

24

40s

48

German& Irish Immigrants

Completion ofIllinois & MichiganCanal

37 Chicago Incorporated

Great Chicago Fire

Lumber & Railroad Strikes occurred

70s Czech Immigrantsin Pilsen

Haymarket Riots in Pilsen

Fisk PowerPlant Openedin Pilsen

Crawford PowerPlant Openedin Little Village

Vibrant Mexican Ameican Murals and Art District Developed

Mexican PopulationMoved into Pilsen from Near West side

Growth ofInterstateHighwaySystem

60s

11Community Profile

Historyof longtime Czechoslovakian and other European residents from LVP, combined with the social movement favoring suburbaniza-tion. As the European population began to leave, they were replaced by the rapidly growing Hispanic population. By 1960, the popula-tion of LVP had dropped to 61,000 with Hispanics comprising 33% of the population.

These trends would continue throughout the remainder of the 20th century and into the new millennium, with Hispanics even-tually comprising almost 90% of

LVP’s population. The massive in-flux of these new residents resulted in a great cultural shift, made most conspicuous by the establishment of the National Mexican Museum of Art in 1982.

Despite this shift in demograph-ics, little change occurred to LVP’s economic situation. Land values remained depressed while indus-try continued to dominate the area’s economy and image. More recently, however, this pattern has been slowly changing. A robust commercial corridor developed on 26th street, a major thoroughfare

through LVP, has become one of the highest sales-tax revenue gen-erators for the City of Chicago. The Fisk and Crawford power plants, despite the negative externalities of coal pollution on human health, continued to operate throughout this time. Due to the persistence of local residents, community leaders, and community organizations such as PERRO (Pilsen Environmental Rights and Reform Organization) and LVEJO (Little Village Environ-mental Justice Organization), both facilities were closed in 2012.

Currently, LVP looks to be on the

precipice of another great demo-graphic shift. Young, childless, edu-cated, and upwardly mobile people, lured by LVP’s robust culture, arts district, inexpensive rent, and con-spicuously urban flair have begun to call the area home in increasing numbers. This emerging pattern has generated friction between the new residents and the existing His-panic population. The antagonism between these two very different groups is likely to continue to be a major issue in the near future.

TO PRESENT1900s 2000s 2010s

70s

80s

Mexican Immigrantsin Pilsen & Little Village

Property ValuesIncreasedin Pilsen

Latino Populationincreased inLittle Village 83%Pilsen 89%

Gentrification Begins Latino Population Decreased

Mexican PopulationMoved into Little Villagefrom Pilsen

Power PlantsClosed


According to the American Com-munity Survey 5-year estimates, in 2011 Little Village had a popu-lation of 79,288 and Pilsen had a population of 35,769, with over 115,000 total residents in LVP. By 2030, the populations for Little Vil-lage and Pilsen may grow to 87,770 and 43,296 respectively.1 Population projections are difficult to perform accurately, but a projection of slight growth in both neighborhoods is consistent with current trends.

Comprising over 80% of local resi-dents, LVP’s population is primar-ily Hispanic. Of this population, the majority fall within younger age cohorts with approximately 75% of current residents being under the age of 44.

Population density is centered on major arterial roads with Little Vil-lage having a comparatively higher density than Pilsen, due to its larger population in an area of similar size.

Educational attainment levels across LVP continue to lag behind that of Cook County and the nation. While most residents have high school diplomas, it is concerning that the percentage of citizens possessing a higher-education degree remains low. Increasingly, many businesses prefer to employ college-educated people. This preference, in conjunc-tion with LVP’s low educational attainment levels, threatens LVP’s ability to participate in the regional economy.

Exemplifying LVP’s current eco-nomically stressed state as well as the impacts of the 2008 “housing bust,” median home values across both neighborhoods have decreased. Ad-justing for inflation, from 2006 to 2012, Pilsen’s median home value decreased 53% to $133,000.2 The value of newer condominium and townhouse developments has suf-fered from a similar decrease, down 34% to an average of $179,000 from 2006 to 2012.3

population demographics

Housing

Pilsen FemaleLittle Village Female

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Under 55 to 9

10 to 1415 to 1920 to 2425 to 2930 to 3435 to 3940 to 4445 to 4950 to 5455 to 5960 to 6465 to 6970 to 7475 to 7980 to 84

85 +

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Under 55 to 9


85 +

Pilsen MaleLittle Village Male

figure 2.1: current (Top) and projected (Bottom) population of the LVp area delineated by gender and age group. Although Little Village is larger than pilsen, both neighborhoods are characterized by a large percentage of residents under 44 years old and a larger male population.

Education Population of Little Village and Pilsen by Age and Gender (2011)

Pilsen FemaleLittle Village Female

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Under 55 to 9


85 +

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Under 55 to 9


85 +

Pilsen MaleLittle Village Male

Projected Population of Little Village and Pilsen by Age and Gender (2030)

13Community Profile

The LVP area currently has an unem-ployment rate of 14%.4 This is signifi-cantly higher than the Illinois unem-ployment rate of 9% and the national rate of 8%.5 Part of this high unem-ployment rate may be attributed to immigration constraints. Addition-ally, skills possessed by the residents of the community do not necessarily match the needs of the employers in the area. This skills mismatch causes many employers in LVP to look for workers outside the area and forces many residents to travel outside their

community for work.

The LVP median income is signifi-cantly lower than that of Chicago, Illinois, and the country. This may be due to lack of access to educa-tion and job training. Recently, the area has seen an increase in income which may be attributed to new resi-dents moving into the area.

Location quotient analysis reveals that the arts and entertainment in-dustry is one of the strongest eco-nomic drivers in the area. Manufac-turing is another key industry which

Economic Analysis

Economic Analysis

6%

24%

20%

2%

16%

12%

17%

3%

PLV Economic Composition

7%

16%

21%

3%

18%

19%

12%

4%

Illinois Economic Composition

6%

18%

17%

2%

17%

16%

21%

3% 7%

13%

20%

2%

19%

22%

13%

4%

2000 CENSUS DATA 2000 CENSUS DATA

PLV Economic Composition Illinois Economic Composition

Construction and miningManufacturingTrade, Transportation & Utility

Information servicesFinancial, Professional & Management ServicesEducation, Health & Social ServicesArts, Entertainment & other servicesGovernment

2011 CENSUS DATA 2011 CENSUS DATA

0.13

0.92

1.66

1.19

0.76

0.95

0.77

0.77

1.10

0.72

1.68

1.14

0.61

0.56

0.84

1.19

1.11

0.95

1.16

0.98

1.12

1.04

0.98

0.96

0.97

0.78

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining

Construction

Manufacturing

Wholesale trade

Retail trade

Transportation and warehousing, & utilities

Information

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing

Professional, scientific, and management and administrative and waste management services

Educational services, and health care and social assistance

Arts, entertainment, & recreation, and accommodation & food services

Other services, except public administration

Public administration

Location Quotients

IllinoisPLV

figure 2.3 and 2.4: Economic and employment impact of different economic sectors within LVp in relation to the state of Illinois. LVp possesses a large service and manufacturing sector, but lags behind the state benchmarks in all other economic areas.

Location Quotients (2011 5-yr Estimates)


Existing Land use map

0 1 20.5 M ile s

Existing Land Use Map

N

supports the area’s local economy. Although the manufacturing indus-try represents one of the area’s main employment industries, nationally, the industry has been in decline for the past 30 years.6 Research also shows that transportation, trade, and utility have been in decline in the area for the past five years.

LVP has comparative strengths in the manufacturing industry and arts and entertainment. Emerging indus-tries to consider for investment in-clude construction, transportation, and warehousing which are under-represented in the area.7

15Community Profile

ResidentialOffice/ProfessionalUrban MixCultural/EntertainmentInstitutionalIndustrialTransportationOpen SpaceVacantWater

Land Use Percentagesfor Pilsen and Little Village

Land Use Legend

(0.1%)

(0.0%)

(3.5%)

31.1%

7.9%

6.7%

31.5%

10.4%

5.2%3.7%

Land use within LVP is diverse, but is largely segregated by type. Resi-dential is mostly located along the northern sections of LVP. Com-mercial, retail, and residential and commercial mixed-use buildings are located along major roadways, mostly on 18th Street, Blue Island Avenue, and Cermak Road. The southern section of LVP along the IL-MI Canal is predominantly in-

dustrial. Interspersed among these land uses are various institutional buildings including: schools, pub-lic services, and the Cook County Jail which is located near the center of LVP.

There is a clear lack of open space and park space within LVP. A siz-able amount of vacant land and brownfields can also be found among the industrial locations within the corridor.

current Land use


Within the past decade, the air quality in LVP has been among the worst in the country. Before the Fisk and Crawford coal plants closed, they emitted: 230 pounds of mercu-ry a year; 17,765 tons of sulfur diox-ide and nitrogen oxide, and 260,000 pounds of soot. These conditions have led to serious health problems for many members of the commu-nity.

Remediation for the contaminated soil in the area is necessary, and EPA is taking emergency action as of spring 2013 on two locations: the Walsh Elementary School and the Lowenthal Metals site. The soil on these sites were tested in November 2012 and were found to have a lead contamination level of 26,000 parts per million (ppm); while anything over 1,200 ppm requires remedia-tion. Remediation projects of this nature are essential. Both sites have much foot traffic and are significant outdoor spaces for children and adults (across from the Lowenthal site is one of the few community gardens in Pilsen).

Although LVP has experienced significant environmental degra-dation, remediation and action to prevent further damage has begun. EPA started the remediation of the former People’s Gas 22nd Street site and has already removed al-most 350,000 tons of pollutants. Pollutants removed from this site included polynuclear aromatic hy-drocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and heavy metals such as arsenic and lead.

EPA also plans to take soil samples and test for lead near other schools in the neighborhood, like Perez El-ementary and Benito Juarez High School. This will be done at no cost to the residents. If contamination is found, EPA will recommend follow-up action, though funding is yet to be determined.

Environmental conditions

230 pounds of

mercury17,765tons of sulfur

260,000pounds

soot

26,000ppm lead

350,000tons

pollution

41premature

deaths

550emergencyroom visits

28,000asthmaattacks

figure 2.5: decades of industrial operation have resulted in many negative externalities on the residents of LVp. These include mercury, lead contamination, and an increased rate of persons suffering from asthma within the community.

17Community Profile

LVP possesses a robust and mul-timodal transportation network. Roads within the area are laid out in a grid pattern punctuated by ma-jor arterials. Major north-south throughways include Western and Ashland Avenues; major east-west roadways include Cermak Road and Blue Island Avenue. With these lo-cal roads, LVP also has a connection to the National Interstate Highway Network via I-55 along the south-ern boundary. The majority of local roads include sidewalks, supporting pedestrian mobility. Although bike infrastructure is currently lacking within LVP, Chicago’s 2020 bike plan has seven dedicated bike routes passing through PLV, offering a re-versal of the mode’s current weak-ness.12

Along with road and sidewalk infra-structure, LVP is host to numerous transit services. Two of the Chicago Transit Authority’s (CTA) heavy rail rapid transit lines, the Pink Line and the Orange Line, have stations near or inside LVP. These lines offer con-nections to Chicago’s Loop, Midway Airport, and inner ring suburbs. In conjunction with these rail lines,

the CTA also operates a number of bus routes within LVP, including four of the agency’s most travelled bus routes. Metra, the Chicago re-gion’s commuter rail system, also makes two stops within LVP, offer-ing residents radial connections to the western suburbs as well as the Loop.

The position of the freight railroad industry within LVP is one of par-ticular importance. Four Class

I railroads: Canadian National (CN), Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF), CSX, and Union Pacific (UP) operate mainline track, inter-modal and switching yards within or in close proximity to LVP.13 With continuing growth, strong private financing and Chicago’s position as the nation’s busiest rail hub, freight railroads within LVP are significant stakeholders and a major potential partner to support economic growth.

The complexity of LVP’s transpor-tation network has caused some conflict, including tensions be-tween public and private users of infrastructure. Furthermore, is-sues of congestion mitigation, funding for infrastructure con-struction, and maintenance remain major problems. These transpor-tation issues must be addressed as LVP continues to grow in order to ensure its future vitality.

Transportation system

to Loopto Loop

to 95thto Midway

W 31st

W. 26th

W. Cermak

To 54th/Cermak

Pilsen

Little Village

NS.

Cic

ero

Ave

S. P

ula

ski R

d

S. K

ed

zie

Ave

S. C

alif

orn

ia A

ve

S. W

est

ern

Ave

S. A

shla

nd A

ve

S. H

als

ted

St

figure 2.6: map displaying transit routes, stops, and service within LVp. The area enjoys a diverse, multimodal transit network including buses and heavy rapid rail transit provided by the chicago Transit Authority (cTA) as well as commuter rail offered by metra.

cTA LinesBus routesroads

community Analysis

20 Community Analysis

The Strengths, Weaknesses, Op-portunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis attempts to determine vari-ables of all types and how they af-fect a community. Each of these fac-tors operates on two different axes; helpful versus harmful and external versus internal. Through SWOT analysis, we developed the goals and interventions providing the founda-tion of the Living Loop Plan.

swoT Analysis

1The existance of energy

production and distribution infrastracture

Area underserved by greenspace

Riverside opportunity for recreation and green use

The pollution in the Chicago river flowing through the area

2 Strong workforce in both communities

A number of sites like Fisk/Crowford are

dangerously polluted

Existing Green boulevard can be used to create a

connected green structureGentrification of the

residents in Pilsen

3 Existance of Vacant lots for further development

Majority of houses in residential areas are old, in need of major repair, and

are not efficent

Existance of the freight rail network

Unsatisfactory situation of schools in the area and

school closures

4The river is not well connected to the residential areas

Existance of CTA train stations in the area

Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats

12

2

1

2

2

3

4

1

23

3

3

4 441

2

2

3StrengthsWeaknesses

Opportunities

Threats

Existing green space

Boulevard system

Freight rail system

Chicago river

swoT

Numbering does not imply order.

21Community Analysis

LVP contains a variety of stakehold-ers, each interested in their own well-being and vitality. Before any plans for the area can be developed, the needs and desires of these stakeholders must be discerned to ensure that all com-munity voices are considered and eq-uitable policies are promoted.

Three major types of stakeholders were identified within LVP; the com-munity/residents, government/public sector, and business owners/private sector. Specific parties within the community include homeowners and renters, neighborhood groups, as well as laborers. Key desires of the commu-nity include job creation, connectiv-ity to jobs, health, and neighborhood safety.

Government stakeholders consist of city politicians, aldermen, transit agencies, and educational institutions. Their wants include revenue genera-tion through a stronger tax base, job creation, and the development of a positive image for LVP, the city, and their respective agencies.

For business owners, concerned par-ties include: small and local busi-

nesses; trucking, freight railroad, and warehousing industries; as well as util-ity companies. Their concerns include profitability, strong infrastructure to support growth, and a supportive reg-ulatory environment.

Through analysis, we determined that these three categories of stakeholders all consider job creation, infrastruc-ture, safety, and schools to be critical concerns that should be addressed within a formal plan for LVP. Further-more, issues affecting the environ-ment and recreational space are also deemed important among the area’s residents and government officials.

Conflicts arise due to the complexity of the stakeholders system. Remedia-tion of contaminated sites is a focal point of conflict and generates strong feelings among residents and commu-nity organizations. Two organizations in particular, LVEJO and PERRO are in battle with another stakeholder, Commonwealth Edison, to remedi-ate the properties they contaminated. Legally however, Commonwealth Edison has no obligation to remediate the site. Despite the existing conflicts, numer-ous interests align across stakeholders for both communities.

primary stakeholders

Higher house values

Better education

Living wage jobs

Better rail access

Better public transportation

Better truck access

More jobs

Remediation of coal plants

Affordable housing

Healthy environement

Lower taxes

Technical job training

Qualified workers

Less government

Immigration reform

Stem gentrification

Rail Industry

Stakeholders

Stakeholder Values

Government Community Business

MayorState Officials Youth

ElderlyStudentsWorkers

Local Owners

ComED

Citizens

Federal

AldermenCity Departments

World BusinessChicago

CommunityOrganizations

Corporations

MidwestGeneration


Stakeholder AnalysisEnvironment scenario

Scenarios help to develop plan rec-ommendations. For LVP, the class developed various scenarios of pos-sible futures, attempting to ascer-tain the most desirable and feasible future for the neighborhood and its various stakeholders from the per-spective of: the environment, trans-portation and economic develop-ment.

Each future was developed by ana-lyzing driving policy, economic and environment forces as well as the values and goals of defined stakeholders. These variables were placed on a 30-year temporal and spatial scale in order to establish these scenarios. These determined futures had a profound influence on the formation of the group’s Living Loop concept and its focus on LVP’s adaptability, connectivity and vital-ity.

scenario planning + Trend Analysis

Focus: Climate change is a given and not a preventable or debatable phenomenon.

Stakeholder concerns: jobs and eco-nomic growth, preservation of local heritage, and a clean and healthy en-vironment. While the environment and nature were not main priorities in consideration, the preservation of them is critical to the future suc-cess and health of LVP residents.

Scenario axes: economic well-being and adaptability. Economic well-being is interpreted not only as eco-nomic growth but also as economic stability. Adaptability refers to the community’s ability to adapt to cli-mate change as well as social engage-ment and open mindedness needed to address the challenges of climate change. The non-adaptive side gen-erally includes passive and apathetic attitudes and an unpreparedness or denial of climate change.

The four scenarios based on the in-teraction of these two axes are as follows:1. Thriving economy and increased ability to adapt to climate change.

The residents are open-minded re-garding new ideas and systems of development. Renewable energy powers the community and waste is seen as a resource that is repur-posed. Green and meaningful jobs are available. Nature is woven into the built environment, and the economy and the climatic condi-tions begin to stabilize in a sustain-able way.

2. High adaptability, though low eco-nomic well-being. The general econ-omy is weak, though people find cre-ative ways to adapt. Social economy thrives, and people are connected by sharing skills and bartering for goods and services. Walking and biking are primary modes of transporta-tion, and most food is grown at the home or community scale. Adaptive, sustainable solutions for everyday life include rainwater harvesting and home- and neighborhood-scale en-ergy production.

3. Total economic collapse. It has a very poor, weak, unstable economy and no adaptation. This results in an increased cost of living, financial instability, reliance on non-renew-able, expensive energy sources that are unattainable by most. Water is

also scarce and expensive. Unem-ployment, poverty, and crime are in abundance and there is widespread pollution. There is more environ-mental degradation and more fre-quent natural disasters resulting in social and political unrest.

4. Low/no adaptability, though eco-nomic prosperity. In this scenario, society is driven solely by financial goals and is heavily reliant on auto-mobiles and fossil fuels. The com-munity has more money and jobs are plentiful, but the overall quality of life decreases due to devastating pollution. Additionally the resi-dents and the area are very vulner-able to natural disasters.

The existing environmental situ-ation of LVP is characterized by neglect. Air, ground, and water pollution levels, legacies of the Fisk and Crawford coal plants and LVP’s industrial past, remain well above EPA minimum standards. Most vacant land within LVP re-quires remediation before redevel-opment occurs. Furthermore, LVP must adapt to changing weather and temperature with the onset of global climate change. Education


Scenarios/Trend Analysis

ECONOMIC GROWTH

ECONOMIC DECLINE

AD

APTIV

E

NO

N-A

DA

PTIV

E

ECONOMIC GROWTH

ECONOMIC DECLINE

AD

APTIV

E

NO

N-A

DA

PTIV

E

1

23

4

Desired Future

Current Moment

Future based oncurrent trends

and physical redevelopment efforts are crucial in order to reverse these current environmental conditions.

To support LVP’s environmental and human health, education and techniques to support energy and resource efficiency and reduction are needed. Furthermore, physical alterations to the area’s streetscapes and buildings and adherence to

LEED standards are paramount. These education and physical rede-velopment efforts together support LVP’s vitality, ability of adapt to changing environment and energy conditions as well as ensure the ar-ea’s connectivity to the environment and wider economy.

figure 3.1: Visual representations of potential environment-focused futures of LVp based on two matrices of economic growth and an adaptation to environmental issues. with climate change and high pollution levels, LVp risks economic decline. Interventions developed by the class seek to increase economic growth and adaptation to environmental concerns.

Transportation scenario

Focus: A profile of LVP stakehold-ers’ diverse goals was identified within transportation in the corri-dor.

Stakeholder concerns: the public and the local residents have expressed a desire for economic growth, great-er safety, and accessibility to the community and surrounding city. Existing privately-owned transpor-tation-related businesses, such as railroads, warehouses, and trucking companies seek continued profit-ability and a strong infrastructure. Finally, government goals include positive image development of LVP and increasing the tax revenue.

Scenario axes: Through analysis of the stakeholder’s desires, possible scenarios were synthesized to de-termine the best plan to meet the numerous goals of LVP constitu-ents. These scenarios were identi-fied through the lens of two driving forces: public versus private use and industrialization versus deindustri-alization. These two axes are natu-rally antagonistic to each other but embody the various opportunity paths facing LVP.

The four scenarios based on the in-teraction of these two axes are as follows:

1. Incentivized industrial and freight-related transportation in-frastructure, development within a regulatory environment that more aggressively protects local residents through health and safety stan-dards. Assumed results of this pol-icy include job creation, economic development, and the assurance that resident concerns would not be ignored. While this scenario repre-sents the greatest adherence to the goals of identified stakeholders, po-litical capital, public-private part-nerships, and relationship building are crucial to bringing this scenario to fruition.

2. Supporting private industry and industrialization. While this poli-cy would net great economic gain through infrastructure investment and job creation, the desires of local residents and the mitigating exter-nalities arising from industrial de-velopment would likely not receive due attention.3. A continued lack of investment in transportation infrastructure from the public sector, leaving employers


Focus: economic growth and com-munity-oriented development.

Stakeholders: all want economic development of some type but may not agree on what it should be or for whom it will benefit.

Scenario axes: economic growth is defined as low unemployment, true living wage jobs, and a resil-ient economy that are in line with stakeholder desires. Economic de-cline is defined as the opposite of those desires with high unemploy-ment, no living wage jobs, and an economy susceptible to shocks. At the extreme end of the economic growth axes there are indications of a strengthening economic situ-ation that will place the area resi-dents in a desired position. On the other hand, a sharp economic decline manifests conditions which further restrain and dismantle not only the quality of life, but also the long-term social structure of the community.

The four scenarios based on the interaction of these two axes are as

Economic development scenario

PUBLIC USE

PRIVATE USE

MO

RE IN

DU

STRIA

LLESS

IN

DU

STR

IAL

1

23

4

Desired Future

Current Moment


vate use and the industrial econo-my, which simultaneously encour-ages job growth, but largely ignores the issue of negative externality mitigation. However, as legislative deadlock for infrastructure funding reigns, the community is threatened by economic deterioration through infrastructure undercapitalization. The economic, social, and physical health of LVP must be ensured.

This can be accomplished by proper investment and relationship build-ing between local transportation operators, businesses, government, and residents as identified in the upper left scenario axes. By engag-ing these stakeholders and convers-ing on shared goals of: job creation, profit, economic development, health, and safety, planning and funding mechanisms can be iden-tified to support all stakeholders within LVP to ensure the area’s vi-tality, connectivity, and adaptability within the wider city, regional, and world economy.

figure 3.2: A matrix of industrial growth vs. deindustrialization and public vs. private focused transportation use. Interventions proposed by the plan act to encourage industrial economic growth with a focus toward mitigating externalities affecting the community residents.

and transportation operators to do business on increasingly deteriorat-ing infrastructure. With this policy, economic development within LVP would be threatened and possibly decrease because the competitive capacity of local businesses and residents would be diminished. This may result in congestion and an exodus of LVP employers to more supportive areas.

4. Deindustrialization and more recreational transportation devel-opment. The endgame of this policy is characterized by more green space and active transportation attention, but with a decrease in employment opportunities and contention with the existing industrial locations in the area.

The current status of the industrial corridor is prioritized toward pri-


follows:1. Community-oriented develop-ment policy and economic growth. This quadrant is characterized by a vibrant and adaptable commu-nity and economy, with high social connectivity and local ownership of businesses. Due to growth in the economy, gentrification is not a large factor in the community, and the community-oriented develop-ment policies empower the local residents.

2. Economic growth and a market driven development policy. Char-acters of this quadrant include high gentrification, the commoditiza-tion of culture, the flight of blue-collar jobs, and rising rental and property values. Local residents are forced to move away from the com-munity due to higher prices and lack of jobs, resulting in the loss of cultural values.

3. Economic decline paired with market driven development policy. This situation is characterized by eroded social capital, high jobless-ness, and a few surviving firms giv-ing way to empty store fronts and pressures from big-box stores. The communal characteristics of the

area have entirely diminished, and the residents are under economic pressure while working low pay-ing, unstable, hourly jobs to make ends meet.

4. Highest level of economic de-cline and community-oriented de-velopment policy. This quadrant typifies high social capital, out-migration of middle class jobs, and a devastating cycle of poverty pre-venting most social and physical mobility. Although social capital is at its highest in this quadrant, the devastating economic conditions limit the possibility of growth and decrease the quality of life.

The current economic status of LVP is one marked by high un-employment, high levels of land and building abandonment and a general lack of private investment. Unless significant interventions are performed, there is a risk of a con-tinuation of this bleak situation. Identified key variables that can reverse this trend and ensure LVP’s future adaptability, connectivity, and vitality include supporting: lo-cal business ownership, education development, and a strong protec-tion of the area’s unique culture.

In order to achieve this, stakehold-ers must be engaged to support workforce and education develop-ment. Furthermore, the creation of physical community centers that support a strong local focus and interaction between the communi-ty residents, business owners, and educators are crucial.

figure 3.3: Visual representation of potential economic development focused futures of LVp based on two matrices of community vs. market driven growth and economic health. current service driven development has depressed the area’s economic health. Interventions proposed by this plan attempt to support local small business growth.

1

23

4

Desired Future

Current Moment


COMMUNITY ORIENTEDDEVELOPMENT POLICY

MARKET DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT POLICY

ECO

NO

MIC

DEC

LIN

E

ECO

NO

MIC

GRO

WTH

recommendations

28 Recommendations

Goals + recommenda-tions

The class determined six major goals designed to improve the pros-pects and meet the needs of LVP. These goals are: Pipeline to Pros-perity, Working Green Community, Environment + Health, Energy, Ur-ban Freight Village, and Connect-ing + Building Communities. With-in each goal, a number of objectives and strategies were identified to en-sure that the goal is achieved. Even though all objectives and strategies are important, this plan focuses on one critical strategy and the associ-ated evaluations for each goal that will be most influential in the at-tainment of these goals.

pipeline to prosperity

The Pipeline to Prosperity is the conduit through which residents are educated and develop into well-employed citizens who contribute to the emerging green industries in the community and surrounding area. Students will attend schools where the curriculum is based on natural sciences and will be pre-pared to pursue higher education or

vocational training, enabling them to obtain employment in the local green industries and related fields. This educational shift is achieved through collaboration among resi-dents, educators, industries, and community organizations linking education and skill development to the needs of local industries.

working Green community

The Working Green Community goal is representative of the Living Loop and its principles. Deteriorat-ing buildings and infrastructure in LVP require immediate and col-lective action. The area’s strong community organizations have the capacity to build on current movements and partner with other groups invested in the area to create green economic development.

Environment + Health

The Environment + Health goal’s main principles originate from the concern for the communities’ en-vironmental conditions and those

effects on residents’ health. The in-dustrial heritage of LVP has dete-riorated the environment, resulting in a negative effect on the health of the communities’ residents. The Environment + Health goal aims to remediate the dire situation impact-ing the sites flagged by EPA to ulti-mately improve the quality of life in and desirability of LVP.

Energy

The Living Loop’s Energy goal in-volves the community, private inter-ests, and public institutions to work together to further values of the stakeholders by creating infrastruc-tures, systems, and policies that create innovative solutions to the energy needs of not only the com-munity and our city, but also to the region, while making the LVP cor-ridor clean, green, and carbon-free.

urban freight Village

A freight village is a master-planned logistics and freight hub clustered around a shared and complemen-tary transportation infrastructure. With Chicago’s premier position as

a transportation powerhouse and LVP’s already existing road, rail, and water infrastructure, there is great opportunity to support freight-fo-cused economic development and greater transportation efficiency. This will be achieved through re-lationship building and planning among public and private organiza-tions, businesses, neighborhoods, and city stakeholders.

connecting + Building communities

Connecting + Building Communi-ties is a goal that puts the “living,” in the Living Loop. This goal, through its critical and underlying strategies, aims to improve the livability of the communities. This will be achieved through the creation of a series of community centers and activity areas interconnected by walkable pathways.

29Recommendations

objectives:By 2016:1. Immediately prioritize and increase investment in educational

programs for primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools.

2. Integrate natural sciences into the core curriculum of primary- and secondary schools.

3. Achieve annual increases in school attendance rates and continue until the local attendance rates meet or exceed the national average.

By 2017:4. coordinate services between educational institutions, employers,

and workforce training providers to increase post-secondary education and employment opportunities for students. Ensure that students and job seekers acquire marketable skills, particularly skills necessary for energy and green industries, beginning with the high school class of 2017.

By 2020:5. Develop a one-stop-shop resource network for students and job

seekers to locate local education and training opportunities.14

By 2025:6. Increase the number of small businesses in LVP 20%.

By 2030:7. reduce unemployment in LVP to the national rate.

pipeline to prosperityGoal:

critical strategy:streamline the path from Education to workforce

“The quality of the labor force is probably the single most important factor driving future economic prosperity, according to academic

research, surveys of businesses and anecdotal evidence from economic development experts … having an educated, skilled workforce is more

important than any other factor in creating economic prosperity.” - cmAp GoTo 2040

Develop an educational curriculum based in the natural sciences and focused on teaching students valu-able workplace skills and building effective connections between the curriculum, schools, and local em-ployers. Improve employment and business opportunities within the community.

Education is a key factor in LVP’s social and economic vitality. If the area is to be competitive, it must support cerebral development and equip the next generation to suc-ceed in existing and emerging in-dustries. With a greater attention

toward environmental, engineering, and technology-related businesses, there is the opportunity for LVP to connect to this economic shift.

For LVP to participate in this eco-nomic movement, access to a highly skilled workforce is crucial. The development of this workforce can be achieved through innova-tive education efforts, such as the not-for-profit Project Lead the Way (PLTW). PLTW is the “…leading provider of rigorous and innovative Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) educa-tion curricular programs used in

30 Recommendations

Green jobs training

Primary and secondary education

Full time employment

Feedback loop

ElementarySchool

Middle School

High School / Technical training

Center

Technical /Community

College

Craft /Technology

Training

College /University

Apprenticeship Journeyperson

Master Craftsperson

ForemanSupervisor

Safety DirectorHuman Resources

Project Manager

Business Management

CEO / Company

Owner

ArchitectureEngineeringAccountant

Internship

figure 4.1: flowchart depicting pipeline to prosperity process

middle and high schools across the U.S.”15 The organization’s mission is, “to prepare students for the global economy. PLTW accomplishes this through a world-class curriculum, high-quality professional develop-ment, and an engaged network.”16

The demands of the modern econ-omy and challenges facing the envi-ronment require existing and future workers to be capable of critical rea-soning and problem solving. PLTW engages students in activity-, proj-ect-, hands on-, and problem-based learning to create, design, build, discover, collaborate, and solve

problems with math and science skills. Professionals in local indus-tries provide mentoring and work-place experiences for students and expose students to the STEM fields.The impact of PLTW has already garnered the attention of U.S. Sec-retary of Education, Arne Duncan, who called PLTW one of the “…great models of the new [career and technical education] succeeding all across the country.” Alumni of the program go on to study engineer-ing and technology at institutions of higher learning at a rate 5-10 times greater than the national average. Ninety-seven percent of PLTW se-

niors plan to pursue 4-year degree, compared to the national average of 67%.17 Eighty percent of PLTW se-niors indicate they will study STEM fields in college, compared to the national average of 32%. 18 Gradu-ates achieve significantly higher scores in reading, math, and science than those following a traditional curriculum.

Within higher risk areas like LVP, the previous implementation efforts have been positive. An analysis of student achievement programs in 2007 at the Galt Joint Union High School District in California found

that, “Project Lead The Way has been an effective program during the past three years at narrowing the achievement gap for Hispanic/La-tino students in all four core areas.”

In order to ensure LVP’s vital-ity, connectivity, and adaptability to changing markets and industry, education is key. A program such as PLTW is a critical strategy that, if properly planned and implement-ed, can uplift LVP from its current depressed state and support rede-velopment and rebirth of the area’s society and economy.

31Recommendations

1. streamline the path from education to workforce.

2. Little Village + Pilsen Education summit: bring together parents and schools to share information about educational opportunities, higher education, parental involvement, health and wellness, local programs, support services, and discussion of local education issues in order to promote a true pipeline to prosperity.

3. Facilitate educational programs focused on environmental and resource awareness: promote and facilitate programs designed to create awareness among youth and adults on conservation of limited resources, the effects of human activity on the environment, and home-scale interventions that can simultaneously promote healthy people and a healthy environment.

4. Increase small business access to credit: judiciously provide credit by established guidelines for local businesses through small- and, potentially, micro-loans. This program should be associated with the business incubator.

5. Fisk or crawford Education and Business center: redevelop a portion of the Fisk or crawford site into an education and business development center to serve as a central location for business creation and innovation, skill development, and general-educational programs. As part of the education and business center, a small business incubator should be established to facilitate residents with business and product ideas in developing a business plan, reduce startup costs through shared resources, and receive business guidance from experts employed by the incubator. These efforts work in conjunction with the Green Development Zone.

6. Target business incentives towards the growth and development of formal local small businesses: local economic development incentives should be targeted at small business growth and development within the community. Organizations such as Enlace chicago in Little Village and the Greater Pilsen Economic Development Association will be instrumental in promoting job creation through small businesses.

7. Guide informal businesses through business formation and development processes including, but not limited to, the acquisition of proper licensing and processing of legal paperwork. This program should be associated with the business incubator but would not require business clients to be tenants within the incubator.

pipeline to prosperity strategies

Existing Local resources and possible collaborators:•Little Village Lawndale High School•West Side Technical Institute•Green Tech U• Jane Addams Resource Corp.

•Pilsen Workforce Center•City Colleges of Chicago• Instituto del Progresso Latino•Other local institutions, universities and colleges

32 Recommendations

objectives:Immediately:1. Build a database of organizations that could support projects and

sources of funding for those projects and create partnerships with local financial institutions invested in the future of the area.

2. Begin coalition building with established community organizations and other stakeholders to establish effective and sustainable organizations familiar with community organizing and financing for the pilot Green Building Improvement and Training Zone (GBITZ) program.

By 2015:3. Provide seasonal workshops on home greening for community members

and provide other community-building events.4. create a set of green-home improvement guidelines and renewable-

energy opportunities to provide to residents.5. Begin remediation, planning, and redevelopment work on Fisk and

crawford coal Plant sites; transform into green-innovation and business development hubs.

By 2016:6. Publish a neighborhood-wide renewable energy policy.

By 2020:7. Establish a “one-stop-shop” providing resources, information, and

connections to residents interested in green-home improvements.By 2023:8. Expand the pilot program zone to adjoining areas to double the size

of the zone. conduct quarterly meetings for members and public meetings on progress of the program.

9. Complete efficiency projects on at least 200 residential buildings and 25 commercial buildings.

10. Establish a workforce-training program to provide education and training for construction, repair, and retrofitting of homes within the pilot program. Ensure that at least 2 graduates of the workforce-training program are full-time employees on each work site. Work with local union members to guide, at a minimum, half of the workforce training program graduates into union apprenticeship positions.

By 2030:11. Develop racine and Western Avenues and Pulaski road into complete

streets based on the existing cermak road green-street model.

working Green community

critical strategy:Green Building Improvement and Training Zone

Goal:

Coor

dina

tion

of F

inan

cial

& O

rgan

izatio

nal Resources

Green Building Apprenticeship Program

Building & Home Improvements & Energy Savings

Figure 4.2: GBITZ cumulative benefit cycle.

To achieve the goal of a working green community, the creation of a Green Building Improvement and Training Zone (GBITZ) is recom-mended. The GBITZ is a new mod-el for local economic growth that focuses on forward-thinking, sus-tainable, and healthy environments.

By using high-road approaches and green practices, the zone fosters a sense of community and provides education and training for unem-ployed residents. GBITZ also fo-cuses on urban agriculture to con-nect residents to affordable and nutritious foods.

The graphic below is a place-based GBITZ initiative that restores build-ings, making them more energy ef-ficient while coordinating funding and providing job training for resi-dents. Through these efforts, GB-ITZ becomes a continuous growth cycle for the local economy.

GBITZ is a community driven, geographically-bound pilot project. The pilot zone contains a greater percentage of buildings built before

1852 than the remainder of the LVP area. The pie charts on page 24 il-lustrate the need for investment and renovation in the pilot zone. GBITZ projects will rehab, upgrade, and weatherize buildings, making them more energy efficient. This will not only improve the living conditions for residents; it will allow them to save money on heating and cooling expenses. Home-energy savings is one way for residents to save money for their future and reinvest it in their community.

The coordinated investments in the pilot zone will create the conditions necessary to stabilize the communi-

33Recommendations

The Green Development Zone (GDZ) in Buffalo, NY is an extremely successful ex-ample of a project similar to GBITZ. The Buffalo, NY community organization, People United for Sustainable Housing (PUSH), organized a direct action cam-paign around housing. PUSH’s success-ful housing campaign spurred a green-

home renovation training program. By providing resources for green home improvements, residents could save money on utility expenses while employing unemployed neighbors. PUSH partnered with busi-nesses and city officials to broaden its work.

Since its formation in 2005, PUSH has:• Provided $6 million in direct community investments • renovated six units of formerly vacant properties• Employed ten unemployed neighborhood residents• Engaged several hundred residents in a planning congress• created a democratically run land bank• Sold three homes to first time, low-income homebuyers• Enabled residents to save money through energy savings• Acquired forty-five parcels of property within the GDZ• created employment placement priority for graduates of the

PUsH green construction training program• Created fifteen rain gardens on vacant land• secured $2 million in federal investment • created a network of ten community-based contractors• Trained approximately twenty residents per year• Planned the first NetZero house in a low-income American

neighborhood• Organized a regional coalition around utility accountability• Generated $20 million in annual investment for the Buffalo, NY

regionfigure 4.3: common Home Energy savings/Interventions

case studyGreen development Zone, Buffalo, ny

ty. The improvement and greening of the zone is intended to benefit the current residents, rather than act as a marketing technique to attract others who might move in and price current residents out of the area.

GBITZ represents a new model for sustainable economic develop-ment. The GBITZ projects would not only work on weatherizing, greening, and retrofitting buildings and streets; it would also train resi-dents to do the work. Residents of

the area would receive priority for education and training in green construction and improvement techniques. GBITZ would partner with local contractors and unions to connect graduates of the program to apprenticeships and employment opportunities.

GBITZ would also serve as an um-brella organization that works on coalition-building to create aware-ness and access to resources for these projects.

34 Recommendations

W 25TH

W 26TH

W 23RD

S T

RO

Y

W CERMAK

S K

ED

ZIE W 24TH

S W

ES

TER

N

S A

LBA

NY

S W

HIP

PLE

W 22ND

W 27TH

S S

AC

RA

ME

NTO

S M

AR

SH

ALL

S C

ALI

FOR

NIA

W 21ST S F

AIR

FIE

LD

S F

RA

NC

ISC

O

W LUTHER

S R

OC

KW

ELL

S B

OU

LEVA

RD

S R

OC

KW

ELL

W 24TH

W 21ST

S W

AS

HTE

NAW

0.2MilesI

1852-19001901-19321933-19791980-2008

Year Built

Existing Parks & Open Space

GBITZ Pilot Area

Organize CommunityPartners/Coalition

P.E.R.R.OLVEJO

Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT Energy)

CRA Regulated BanksEnergy Impact Illinois

Commuity Investment Corp. (CIC)Retrofit Chicago

Existing W.D. ProgramsNew W.D. ProgramsLocal High Schools

Labor UnionsContractors

Community Organizations

Funding sources

Education & Training

Green Development Zone

Pilsen & Little Village Communiteis

External Communities/City of Chicago

ScaledImplementation

Pilot AreaImplementation

Program Design

Secure Relationships with Funding & Training Sources

Establish Green Building Skills Training& Workforce Development Program(s)

Establish Coordinating Organization to Centralize Information, Financial, &

Development Resources

Review& Evaluation

Annual Review of Project Performance

Ongoing Home Energy Audits

Apprenticeship Program Results

figures 4.4 and 4.5: year of Building construction for chicago, LVp, working Green community, and pILoT Zone.

figure 4.7 (pg. 35): GBITZ expansion areas.

figure 4.6: Implementation process.

The map on the right shows the lo-cation of the pilot GBITZ site. It is bound on the north by Cermak Road which has been called “the greenest street in America” because of its green design and photocata-lytic cement. Chicago’s boulevard network runs through the middle of the GBITZ zone, which provides a starting point for green space and open space to expand. In 2020, the pilot-project zone will be able to ex-pand to the surrounding residential and industrial areas. After 2030, the pilot zone will expand to include the remainder of LVP.

WorkingGreen

Community

39%

3%5%

53%

PILOTZone

37%

3% 5%

56%

33%

43%16%

7%

Chicago

43%

3%6%

49%

P/LV

1852-19001852-19001852-1900 1901-19321901-19321901-19321901-1932

1933-19791933-19791933-19791933-1979 1980-20081980-20081980-20081980-2008

Year Built: Buildings in The City of Chicago and the Plisen/Little Village Communities

1852 - 1900

1933 - 1979

1901 - 1932

1980 - 2008

35Recommendations

1. create a Green Building Improvement and Training Zone.

2. remediate the crawford and Fisk power plant sites to repurpose the buildings while preserving their historical nature. The Fisk power plant would serve as a center to the Urban Freight Village and the crawford power plant site would be a business and community organization innovation hub.

3. Make green streets and green alleys a standard in the GBITZ. Focusing on “road diets,” green design and technology, and permeable materials used to prevent stormwater runoff.

4. Invest in the housing stock by making home improvement and quality affordable housing.

5. Ensure that buildings within the zone satisfy LEED standards.

working Green community strategies

35TH

26TH

KED

ZIE

31ST

PULA

SKI

HA

LSTE

D

16TH

KO

STN

ER

OGDEN

WES

TER

N DA

N R

YAN

BLUE

ISLA

ND

ASH

LAN

D

RA

CIN

E

16TH

43RD

CERMAK

Pilot District

GBITZ Expansion Area

LVP Expansion Area

Existing Parks & Open Space

Chicago sanitary & Ship Canal

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

Information coordinationInformation regarding green build-ing and related financial resources will be gathered, analyzed, and distributed to residents within the GBITZ through a grass-roots style campaign. A working database of partners and supporters of the GB-ITZ will be utilized. The research will provide a comprehensive list of resources and ways to navigate organizational structures in order to maximize efficiency for GBITZ projects.

Education + the financial connectionA strategic connection to grants and funding for the GBITZ will bring to the area external resources. Invest-ments in the community will not only be made through sweat equity, social economy, growth, and energy saving practices; it will also come from federal sources earmarked for sustainable and local development. Through the formation of a new collaborative of existing communi-ty organizations, GBITZ will aggre-gate information and financial re-sources to provide GBITZ services in a financially sustainable manner over time.

The work being done in the GBITZ is a training opportunity for resi-dents. Unemployed residents will have the opportunity to learn high-ly specialized and in-demand skills. Connecting graduates of the GBITZ training program to local employers is a way to ensure equity and sus-tainable economic growth.

pipeline to prosperity

36 Recommendations

objectives:

By 2014:1. Gather and analyze data for an environmentally prioritized land-use

map in order to restrict development in the most environmentally sensitive areas and protect the natural environment and the people living within it.

2. Gather resources and information on growing local and native plants. Link with community organizations and neighborhood associations to provide training and education for xeriscaping practices within LVP.

By 2015:3. Implement curbside pickup for all recyclables.

4. Transform at least five vacant lots owned by the city into rain gardens and at least eight vacant lots into community gardens.

5. change building codes for new developments to require the incorporation of rain gardens into their plans.

By 2020:6. Work with GBITZ projects to locate and define the high-, mid-high-,

and medium-development zones in order to guide development accordingly.

By 2025:7. Implement curbside pickup for compostable materials composted

within the LVP corridor.

Environment + HealthGoal: critical strategy:

Environmentally prioritized Land useCritical to achieving the goal of En-vironment + Health is an environ-mentally prioritized land use map. This recommendation will begin by identifying the most polluted and toxic areas in LVP. The brown fields and other environmentally sensi-tive areas such as the canal, are the clearest examples of those areas. Ensuring that those sites are pro-tected and set aside for remediation will guide the development of the land use map. The remaining areas will be zoned for development in a smart and sustainable manner.

Additionally, this strategy is focused on determining what will be done with these sites. The following anal-ysis identifies four major possible types of development within the community areas with the environ-mental future of the area in mind. This land use system restricts further industrial development in the vicin-ity of the canal to revive its commu-nal use and natural cleaning efforts. Additionally, it will terminate fur-ther pollution of the canal. The four defined categories are as follows:

1. Immediate Remediation cat-egory: This category consists of lo-cations that are flagged by the EPA as environmentally dangerous and need immediate attention. These locations are; H.Kramer, Fisk Gen-eration Station, Loewenthal Metals, People’s Gas, Light, and Coke/22st, Celotex site, People’s Gas Crawford Station, Crawford Station.

2. High development priority: Re-development of vacant lots and the two coal plants can fit into the GB-ITZ and its mandates, the Fisk and Crawford plants are closed and their closing has been the main catalyst for this plan.

3. Mid-High development priori-ty: This category includes structures older than the 1920s that are unin-habitable and/or need major repair. With respect to their location, den-sity of the area and their proximity to transportation centers, these re-developments can become a way to promote the Urban Freight Village and the TOD planned in them. Of course such developments will have to adhere to environmental regula-

37Recommendations

0 1 20.5 Miles

Special Development

Immediate remidiation

Medium Priority

Mid-High Priority

High Priority

Development Priority/Suitabilty

N

tions provided by the “Green Build-ing Improvement & Training Zone” section of the Green Development Zone.

4. Medium development priority: structures older than 1920s that need minor repair and/or mainte-nance. With provisions of the Green Development Communitys’ “Green Building Improvement & Train-ing Zone” in mind, this category will improve the living condition, reduce the harmful environmental impacts and affect the quality of life within the communities. This category is a particularly important one, because of its potential low cost and the wide spread of this category within both communities.

Analysis was also created based on the street network of the commu-nity area has been done showing a five and a ten-minute service area (quarter and half mile, respectively) around transport stations, which are identified as higher prioritized development sites. Because of the focus on connectivity within the community, a higher density and a mixed use of buildings are needed in proximity of the transit stations. Also this will have an effect on the

adaptability of the community areas to the changing environment and the understanding that more shared transportation has to be used rather than personal transportation in or-der to be able to adapt to the chang-ing environment.

In addition a quarter and a half-mile reach area, based on the street net-work is highlighted as to have been effected by the indicated polluted

sites. Due to proximity and inclu-sion of residential spaces within this reach area monitoring and mea-surement of harmful material and preventive actions are paramount.

figures 4.8: Environmentally prioritized remediation map.

0 1 20.5 Miles

Special Development

Immediate remidiation

Medium Priority

Mid-High Priority

High Priority

Development Priority/Suitabilty

N

38 Recommendations

1/2 Mile Reach1/4 Mile Reach


CTA STATIONS POLLUTED AREAS

This recommendation is inextrica-bly bound to the Working Green Community and its critical strat-egy. The evaluation is tied to final land use and how much of the de-velopment satisfies the green space requirement per capita.

Implementation of the land use recommendation outlined above can be measured by years or time frames, and should be segmented relative to the expansion of the GB-ITZ and other proposed changes in the future introduced by this plan including a separate evaluation system for the sites in need of im-mediate attention, as these sites can become potentially harmful both environmentally and to the area residents.

Figures 4.9: Walking network around CTA stations and EPA identified polluted areas. These sites contributed to designation of first priority development sites.

determine Evaluation criteria + procedure



CTA STATIONS POLLUTED AREAS

39Recommendations

1. Develop and use an environmentally prioritized land-use map, so that the most contaminated areas within LVP are set aside for natural remediation over time.

2. Promote and educate about xeriscaping throughout LVP to reduce chemicals and water needed for lawn maintenance and to promote local biodiversity.

3. Provide large-scale composting and recycling on a city-block scale to reduce or eliminate waste and foster a sense of community.

4. Promote rain gardens on public and private land to allow nature to treat the water and prevent further contamination of the canal and other nearby water bodies.

5. Promote home gardens for residents of LVP to provide greater access to nutritious and locally grown food.

6. Encourage a renewable energy policy throughout LVP. Use the area’s history of energy innovation as a catalyst to create more sustainable energy practices.

7. Incorporate grey water treatment practices in buildings throughout LVP so that water from baths, showers, hand basins, and laundry do not go through the city’s water treatment systems; grey water can be recycled through nature.

Environment & Health strategies:

objectives:By 2015:1. Establish a committee consisting of local officials, businesses, and

residents to evaluate existing research into energy production methods, particularly renewable energy.

2. Assess feasibility of introducing such production methods into LVP by communicating with stakeholders and possible investors.

By 2020:3. Produce a report on current and future energy needs for LVP and

the feasibility of reducing energy demands. create a campaign to drawing attention and investment to local renewable energy production companies and related government agencies.

4. collaborate with Midwest Energy regarding the existing crawford and Fisk coal Plant infrastructure to assess the ability to redevelop both sites into “innovation and learning” hubs centered on energy development and education.

By 20215. Hold public meetings and educational platforms to educate LVP

residents and local industries on renewable energy and reduction strategies to serve their energy needs for their homes and businesses.

By 2025:6. Identify possible funding mechanisms to support energy

development efforts within LVP. By 2035:7. redevelop the crawford plant into an “innovation hub” to support

local businesses, entrepreneurial services, workforce development, and clean energy development.

8. Provide 15% of LVP energy from local renewable energy production sources.

Energy

“Chicago is continuing to invest in the industries of tomorrow in order to create the jobs we need today. Leading in alternative

energies supports the kind of sustainable economic development and cost savings for our homeowners and businesses that we need.”

- Mayor Rahm Emanuel

Goal:

40 Recommendations

critical strategy:Energy Innovation HubThe Little Village and Pilsen En-ergy Innovation Hub (EIH) is an integrated center to support col-laboration among technology and science research centers, businesses, and local residents to solve critical energy issues and support localized economic development. Chicago is a leader in “green” and carbon-neu-tral practices that also encourage

economic development. The EIH builds on these policies and helps ensure a sustainable and prosperous community, region, and world.

Similar innovation centers exist across Chicago and Illinois. The Chicago Center for Green Technol-ogy is the most comprehensive en-vironmental design and educational resource in the Midwest, promot-ing sustainable homes, workplaces,

and communities. The center hosts tenants such as Greencorps Chi-cago, WRD Environmental, and Neighbor Space. Other innovation centers include the Batteries and Energy Storage Hub in the Chicago area’s Argonne National Laboratory in partnership with four other De-partment of Energy national labo-ratories, five universities and four private firms.

The Chicago Sustainable Indus-tries Report illustrates the City of Chicago’s desire to support envi-ronmentally-focused industrial development in the LVP corridor. Furthermore, the EIH directly sup-ports the City of Chicago’s Innova-tion Delivery Team’s mission. This team is funded by Bloomberg Phi-lanthropies and aims to create en-ergy-efficiency target zones. Energy Innovation Hubs are integrated

• stakeholders submit proposals for the establishment of the EIH. • stakeholders include: local community organizations, residents, public institutions,

federal and local governing bodies, the private sector, investors and tenants for EIH. • setting up an EIH governing body that will include representatives from the public

sector, private sector, and community.• EIH governing body applying for grants and securing funding.• A governing body picking a site location, remediating the site, and constructing

buildings.• EIH governing body creating an operation and management plan.• EIH management recruiting tenant firms to locate in Hub.

EIH will accelerate product innovation in the field of renewable energy with the required efficiency, scalability, and sustainability to be economically viable. Science and industry will work together to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions of both new and existing buildings, while stimulating private investment and the creation of quality jobs. This will be implemented through the following steps:

41Recommendations

research centers that combine basic and applied research with engineer-ing to accelerate scientific discovery in critical energy issue areas.

new companies and individuals will join EIH. As this occurs, the following will happen:

• research on new products, processes, and services for the next stage of development.

• EIH receives support from university research.• Installation and repair services are in greater demand,

fostering training by the workforce development arm of the EIH.

• EIH connects to the green development zone.• New firm and individuals join EIH while engaging and

collaborating with existing firms.• As companies develop products and new tenants

join, the EIH may need to expand to accommodate growing projects.

• With the expansion of EIH, more full-time workers will be hired. Hiring locally will be a priority.

As firms move through the R&D phase it will be necessary for the governing body to review progress and assess options including:

• research and development of new products that will lead to commercialization, production, and possible distribution.

• EIH expanding its staff to accommodate the companies’ requirements including marketing and logistics.

• Some firms leaving EIH due to unmet needs or failure to achieve goals.

• Distribution challenges allowing the EIH to research logistics. • successful distribution creating more local jobs. • Firms successfully reaching distribution phase and moving on

to develop new products at EIH.

figure 4.10 workers installing vertical urban wind turbine.

42 Recommendations

In Toronto, Canada the Evergreen Brick Works (EBW) provides an example for EIH to follow. It shows that an innovation hub focused on environment, energy, entrepre-neurialism, and community can be a viable solution for brownfield re-development in a dense city. EBW stands on the site of a former brick factory and represents the coales-cences of community, energy, en-trepreneurial, and environmental interests. EBW’s goal is to help cre-ate green cities through providing a site and framework for tenants and individuals working on urban in-novation and green economies.

The transformation of the former industrial site into EBW came through combining the efforts of

the Evergreen organization, phi-lanthropists, and the private sec-tor and stands as an example for EIH. The process started with Ev-ergreen selecting a site and creat-ing a business plan and proposal for development. After receiving $50,000 in funding from a private philanthropist, Evergreen was able to secure $55 million in loans from

the private sector; eight years later, EBW opened. The building now is home to over 20 different tenant firms working on everything from community gardens to advanced

biomaterial manufacturing. A similar project can be success-ful in the LVP community. The Crawford and Fisk sites represent the same challenges that the EBW overcame. The EIH plan tries to replicate the best practices of the EBW from their organizational structure, funding, and mission. BW now stands as a self-support-ing and profitable venture. EIH could represent the same for LVP.

case study: Evergreen Brick works

The EIH represents the goals and values of the community, public institutions, and private interests and the EIH will be evaluated on its ability to create living-wage jobs, produce innovative products, fos-ter positive environmental impacts, provide equal representation of all involved stakeholders, while allow-ing the production of energy for community use.

The EIH is being created in a politi-cal environment that will facilitate its creation. Mayor Emmanuel’s administration is actively seeking to create opportunities like the EIH in Chicago and has already created an Innovation Team and a number of other initiatives focused on innova-tion and job creation. Funding the EIH may be the largest challenge; however, by leveraging some pub-lic funding with private investment it will be possible to secure the ad-equate funding.

Evaluation of Energy and Innovation Hub

figure 4.11 Historic brick factory prior to rehabilitation.

figure 4.12 Evergreen Headquarters, the historic brick factory after rehabilitation.

43Recommendations

1. Energy production and innovation hub located within either the Fisk or Crawford Power Plant site to provide educational, financial, and entrepreneurial services to local businesses and energy producers.

2. Assess feasibility of energy production efforts by community leaders to collaborate with local businesses, residents, political officials, as well as city, state and federal public and private organizations to discern opportunities for local energy production.

3. renewable energy policy: create a regulatory environment supportive of renewable and passive energy production methods within LVP, such as wind or solar power.

4. Home energy efficiency: provide incentives and education to support the retrofitting and improvement of individual households for more efficient heating and cooling.

5. Funding development of energy production: devise a method of providing incentives and assistance to private investors to support energy production within LVP.

6. Energy production: generate energy within LVP.

Energy strategies:strategies

figure 4.13 urban wind turbine, a potential source of energy for LVp.

44 Recommendations

objectives:By 2015:1. release a formal policy through the city of chicago favoring

compact transportation, logistics, and industrial development through lobbying via planning and community organization and industry stakeholders. This represents a crucial first step and an effort at preliminary relationship building between private businesses and government.

By 2018 2. Establish and charter a local planning board.

By 2025:3. Publish a strategic plan through the local planning board that

details issues facing all stakeholders within LVP, evaluates possible interventions, financing mechanisms and also considers the possibility of transitioning the planning board into a formal management agency to oversee project construction and revenue collection.

By 2035:4. 25% of locally-based (non-travel jobs) transportation workers will

commute to their job in LVP by public transportation through better interconnectivity among transit schedules.

5. congestion delays, including freight, transit and at-grade highway-railroad crossings, will be reduced by 20% through collaboration among all transportation facility operators.

urban freight VillageGoal:

critical strategy:

Establish a Local planning Board

Intermodal Net Ton(in millions)

< 1.81.8 to 6.16.2 to 16.5>16.6

figure 4.14: An urban freight Village in the LVp area will maximize freight efficiency and minimize congestion in Chicago

A local planning board is a key de-terminate in the success of an ur-ban freight village. Whereas trans-portation modes, especially private modes, tend to operate within an information vacuum, a planning board would provide a method of allowing dialogue among all stake-holders to support understanding of goals, viewpoints, efficiency, safety, and seamless interconnectivity be-tween all modes of transportation and their users.

Stakeholders within the proposed LVP freight village include the Chi-cago Transit Authority (CTA), Metra, local residents, freight railroads, local logistics centers, trucking operators, warehouses as well as municipal gov-ernment and planning organizations.

It will meet monthly and will rep-resent, at a minimum, the follow-ing relevant stakeholders within LVP, including but not limited to: resident representatives, all Class I railroads, 50% of local trucking,

Intermodal Net Ton(in millions)

< 1.81.8 to 6.16.2 to 16.5>16.6

45Recommendations

centerpoint Intermodal centerFreight villages are a relative-ly new planning, policy, and land-use concept. Most ur-ban freight movement is cur-rently done by truck. How-ever, with the resurgence of the freight railroad industry, the expansion of intermodal shipping, greater attention to environmental issues, and increasing fuel costs, governments and businesses have looked to coordinating logistics and freight movements to support efficiency and cost cutting.

Centerpoint Intermodal Center, located in suburban Joliet, IL, is a pre-mier local example of a freight village. Billing itself as the world’s “largest inland port,” Centerpoint stands as a successful redevelopment effort of a former military base and brownfield. Situated between the I-55 and I-80 along a major BNSF railway connection, Centerpoint has hosted great economic development and boasts high-profile tenants such as Wal-Mart, Cargill, LaFarge, Home Depot, Maersk, Union Pacific Railroad, and BNSF Railway along with numerous other smaller businesses.20

Through collaboration between the State of Illinois, the Department of Defense, the City of Joliet, and numerous private transportation and logistics corporations throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, Cen-terpoint -- which was previously a brownfield site -- has morphed into a $1 billion facility supporting 8,000 local jobs. The site is managed by Centerpoint Properties, which fosters collaboration, multimodalism, congestion mitigation, and economic development at the site through extensive planning and collaboration with a wide variety of public and private stakeholders.21 Numerous similar examples of freight village development exist in New Jersey, Florida, and Texas.22

warehousing, and logistics facili-ties within the area that employ 25 or more full-time employees, CTA, and Chicago Department of Trans-portation (CDOT). This board would allow dialogue and encour-age collaboration and understand-ing among all stakeholders, which previously operated in an informa-tion vacuum, to support efficient operations among all modes. The essential functions the local plan-ning board would be numerous. The board would provide the foster-ing of agreement, cooperation, and collaboration among LVP’s various stakeholders. Through critical re-lationship building, strategic plan-ning, financing development strate-gies, and community outreach, the urban freight village concept could be undertaken.

In its most mature state, the local planning board would transition to a formal management board. Whereas the planning board provides a forum for dialogue and fosters collabora-tion between stakeholders, a man-agement board would have compara-tively more responsibility and power. The board would consider, approve, and oversee physical transportation-related projects aimed at economic development and/or externality mitigation. The board would also implement and coordinate funding mechanisms and sources for proj-ects. The implementation of a man-agement board should result in the establishment of a trusting relation-ship among all stakeholders over a period of many years, underscoring the importance of establishing a lo-cal planning board.

case study

46 Recommendations

1. Public Outreach: residents, businesses, and transportation operators must be involved, educated, and empowered to provide input throughout the entire planning and construction processes.

2. construction of Western Avenue and/or Ashland Avenue Bus rapid Transit (BrT) routes: establish high speed, high capacity buses on separated rights-of-way to provide a higher level of service than traditional local bus service, thereby positively impacting commuters.

3. Public/Private Partnerships: atone for a weakened state and federal funding sources for transportation projects by collaborating with private companies and investors to develop shared funding, construction, and/or operating mechanisms for transportation-related projects.

4. Transportation Projects Transparency: motivations and logic behind transportation and freight village development projects must be made clear and easily accessible to all stakeholders, including the public, to ensure their needs and goals are met.

5. Transit Oriented Development (TOD): establish compact and dense development around existing and planned fixed-guideway transit systems, such as rail and bus rapid transit, as an economic-development and land-use goal that supports commuters, residents, government, and businesses.

urban freight Village strategies:

PiotrowskiPark

Little VillageLawndale

High School

Load Consolidation

Center Office Space & Commercial

Office Space & Commercial

Worker Support Services

Mechanical

Wa

reho

usin

g&

So

lutio

ns

Industrial Real estate

Intermodal Services

Truc

king

Fre

ight

Utilities

35th

33rd

36th

Pula

ski

Cic

ero

figure 4.15 map of proposed urban freight Village with actively managed intermodal coordination, load consolidation, distribution centers, worker support services, & commercial activities to enhance existing warehousing, mechanical and business solution services in the Little Village area.

UFV Features

Proposed Streets

Major Streets

Existing Business

Rail

Chicago Sanitaryand Ship Canal

figure 4.16 – Existing stakeholders.

Little Village

Pilsen

47Recommendations

objectives:By 20151. Fisk and crawford Power Plants will be remediated and transformed

into useable sites and gateways to the community.

By 20202. Two service-oriented community centers will be created, to

strengthen the community and provide resources to improve the quality-of-life of the residents.

By 20253. The remediated Fisk and crawford sites and Park #553 will be

developed as community activity centers.

By 20304. The land along the canal will be consolidated to create a riverwalk

to connect the two power plant sites.

5. A series of strategic pathways throughout the community will connect the activity centers of Fisk, crawford, and Park #553 to the already existing boulevard system.

connecting + Building communities

Goal: critical strategy:develop strategic pathways for Enhanced Livability

value

INCREASE

beauty + function + comfort

CREATE

figure 4.17: placemaking in action

Reports provided by LVP commu-nity organizations make it clear that building and fostering a sense of community is a priority. For exam-ple, the Quality-of-Life Plan created by LISC for the Pilsen neighbor-hood describes the need for more public social space. Open and green space in LVP needs to be increased in order to foster activities that sup-port the goal, Connecting + Build-ing Communities. The development of strategic pathways is a way to re-spond to this need with an approach that reflects this plan’s overarching goal of improving the community’s adaptability, connectivity, and vi-tality. Here, the practice of place-making can be adopted to leverage both the existing assets of the com-munity and their expressed desire for improvements in a way that not only enhances its beauty, form, and function, but more importantly cre-ates economic, environmental, and social value.

Generally, infrastructure, especially sidewalks, in the LVP communi-ties is in a state of disrepair and im-provements must be made to for the

betterment of the communities. The current networks should be exam-ined and redeveloped so that there are more internal connections. In order to adhere to the principles of the Living Loop plan, pathways that foster connectivity should be supported and upgraded in ways that showcase existing community assets, bring attention to redevel-opment opportunities, and bring people out into their communities in new open and public spaces.

The theory of placemaking aids the development of the strategic path-ways. By focusing on the needs and desires of the residents within the area, empty or unused spaces can

48 Recommendations

figure 4.19: cermak rd. green infrastructure improvements (Images Adapted from cdoT 2012)

street Amenities Enhance safety, Aesthetics, & function

- solar-powerd lighting- consistent signage/banners- Trash/recycle Bins- Transit facilities

natural Landscaping & stormwater management

- Bioswales- Native Plantings

surface Improvements & stormwater management

- Bioswales- Native plantings- Non-auto striping

!h

!h!h

!h

!h!h!h!h

D

A

B

C

26TH 26TH

KED

ZIE

PULA

SKI W

ESTE

RN

BLUE ISLAND

BLUE ISLAND

ASH

LAN

D

RA

CIN

E

CERMAK

GREEN STREETS

CHIC

AGO

P/LV

RIVER ACCESS/WALK

EXISTING PARKLANDS/BLVDs

CHICAGO SANITARY & SHIP CANAL

EXISTING BUILDINGS

CTA RAIL STATIONS

N

figure 4.18: pilsen & Little Village community connection: Locating strategic Interventions

be turned into places that have a sense of identity and improve the quality-of-life for residents. This is a multifaceted approach to redevel-oping LVP with a common vision that enriches the place and the lives of those living in it by establishing a network of green pathways, the Liv-ing Loop plan, and developing stra-tegic points of community access.

In light of these priorities in LVP, placemaking will not only build and connect communities, but it will also create social, economic, and environmental values within the community. To build this type of value into LVP’s targeted spatial

interventions that focus on develop-ing strategic pathways and connec-tions, these pathways will:

• Connect nodes of activity• Increase safety and walkability• Connect and create open green

spaces• Foster healthy lifestyles for

residents• Promote investment in

infrastructure• Increase value and investment

activity• Enhance the environment

The green pathways planned for LVP are shown in the Living Loop

plan as it pertains to Connecting + Building Communities. Strategic pathways are a multimodal form of ingress and egress to the commu-nity. They serve as both gateways to the community and forms of connectivity within it. These path-ways value the concept of complete streets and are designed with many forms of transportation in mind, especially pedestrian-oriented pas-sage.

The pathway is configured along Racine Avenue, Cermak Road, and Pulaski Road, with a proposed riv-erfront path between Racine Avenue and Pulaski Road. These pathways form a loop around the community with the Crawford and Fisk plants, the river, and the aforementioned streets as foundational elements. Supporting the connectivity of this loop will allow it to serve as an ex-ample to surrounding areas and cre-ate interconnecting self-sustaining loops throughout the region.

Area A shows Cermak Road. With recent green infrastructure im-provements along a 1.5 mile seg-

strategic Interventions in space

ment, it has been called the “green-est street in America” and serves as a model for the remainder of the roads in the Living Loop, primarily Pulaski Road and Racine Avenue. The green infrastructure employed in this initiative spans a wide array of new technologies and construc-

49Recommendations

tion techniques. In the short term, not all elements will be able to be incorporated throughout the entire network due to right-of-way limi-tations, but the community should view the green-infrastructure op-tions as essential to the improve-ments suggested here for expand-ing the Cermak Road “green mile” through the green-street network and the Living Loop overall.

The area highlighted around point A also serves as a strategic point of community access. This boulevard serves as a gateway to the commu-nity and connects it to the expansive city boulevard system, surrounding communities, and region. Since the late 1800’s, Chicago’s boulevard net-work has provided strategic path-ways that have connected the city’s residents to a broad network of open green spaces for social gath-ering and recreation. The boule-vard system, once referred to as the “Emerald Necklace,” illustrates the priorities of this strategy and the Living Loop overall by connecting residents and communities to areas of community interest.

Sites B and C show the location of the former Crawford (B) and Fisk

(C) coal plants, respectively. These sites serve as important nodes on this strategic community-wide pathway and the Living Loop. They also serve as gateways to the LVP community and as important visual elements. They highlight the his-torical importance of the area and are reminders of the innovation and energy production that has taken place in the area.

By improving the community con-nections to these areas through beautification and infrastructure improvements proposed here, the redevelopment potential is en-hanced and the sites’ true potential to be reimagined and repurposed as economic engines can be realized.

The area immediately north of the Fisk plant, at the intersection of Ra-cine Avenue and Cermak Road, has

the potential to be recreated. Look-ing south on Racine Avenue towards the plant site, this vision shows how the area surrounding the plant can be enhanced to allow for the site to be reintegrated into the communi-ty as a functioning social and eco-nomic driver. Focusing on fostering a vibrant and comfortable street life in this area will draw attention to the area’s redevelopment potential and will serve the community with

figure 4.20: placemaking can be used to enhance the physical, social, and economic environment.

50 Recommendations

connecting + Building communities strategies:1. Develop strategic pathways for enhanced livability.

2. redevelopment of the areas surrounding Fisk and crawford plants: create an area where the area residents and visitors alike can take full advantage of the presence of these historical industrial sites that delve into the identity of the community.

3. creation of community center: increase the connectivity and support for the area residents through a center where community talents are fostered to their full potential. community members will gain useful insight into the inner workings of their community, raising awareness of their surroundings.

4. Focus on developing strategic points of community access and activity aimed at improving the communities’ connectivity by creating social urban hubs, connected through the pathways to enhance both livability and vitality within the place.

5. Develop a network of green, walkable, and safe streets and paths which will complement the already existing boulevard system.

more safe, walkable, and connected rights-of-way.

Site D is located along the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, which is an arm of the Chicago River. To complete the looping connection throughout LVP that has focused on the street connections between the Fisk and Crawford plants (Ra-cine Avenue, Cermak Road, and Pulaski Roads), it is recommended that new public access points and pathways be configured along the canal, thus connecting the two sites (B and C). The proposed riverwalk further connects the community to its natural assets, the river, and ex-isting open spaces.

In addition to the proposed river-walk and access points, immedi-ately adjacent to point D, is a new park and community space that is currently being designed and con-structed. The site that is officially referred to as Park #553, is located on top of a former superfund site. Its remediation and repurposing as a public space is the result of dedi-cated community organizing and engaged community members, fur-ther illustrating the community’s proven capacity to achieve its goals.

The proposed riverwalk will do this by directing its path toward it and thus connecting it to the river and the community overall through the Living Loop. By engaging active community members and current property owners, this element can be achieved.

The model of Cermak Road should be applied to the remainder of Cer-mak Road, Racine Avenue, and Pu-laski Avenue to complete the road-ways of the Living Loop by 2020. Upon completion of Park #553, col-laboration of property owners along the proposed riverwalk would be-gin and be completed by 2030. By implementing this critical strategy, LVP is provided greater connec-tivity and vitality in a manner that supports the places within the com-munity and its residents.

figure 4.21: potential opportunities for placemaking and strategic pathways in LVp.

51Recommendations

A spatial recommendation map provides a more concrete explana-tion of the future envisioned for LVP. The urban freight village (in red) lies in the far southwest corner of Little Village, taking advantage of existing businesses, rail, and road infrastructure to provide economic vitality and connectivity to regional, national, and world markets.

Redevelopment of the Illinois and Michigan Sanitary Ship Canal wa-terfront, Park #553 (in yellow), the Fisk and Crawford Power Plants, and enhancements to the green bou-levard system provides LVP with more open and public space. This offers residents greater opportuni-ties to connect within the commu-nity and to nature. It also highlights the area to employers and increases economic opportunities.

The Working Green Development Zone (WGD), which spans both Little Village and Pilsen, counter-acts the building deterioration and environmental degradation within the neighborhood. Through effi-ciency enhancements to buildings, green focused economic develop-

realized recommendations

Urban Freight Village

Immediate Remidiation

Workforce Training center



River

Green street system

Freight rail system

BRT

RiverwalkHa

lsted

Ashl

and

Wes

tern

Kedz

ie

Pula

ski

26th

31st

Rail Transit






River

Green street system

Freight rail system

BRT

Riverwalk

Halst

ed

Ashl

and

Wes

tern

Kedz

ie

Pula

ski

26th

31st

Rail Transit






River

Green street system

Freight rail system

BRT

Riverwalk

Halst

ed

Ashl

and

Wes

tern

Kedz

ie

Pula

ski

26th

31st

Rail Transit


Immediate remediation


Park 553 + riverwalk

Energy Innovation Hub

Green Building Improvement + Training Zone

ment, educational programs, and greater access to resource the WGD will create an economic growth cycle that also improves the en-vironment. Additionally this will

promote connectivity to nature and greater adaptability when respond-ing to environmental and energy is-sues.

Implementation

54 Implementation

5 10 15 20 25 30

Streamline the Path from Education to Workforce

Little Village and Pilsen Education Summit

Educational programs focused on env ironmental & resource awareness

Increase small business access to credit

Fisk Education and Business Center

Target business incentives towards the growth and development of formal local small businesses

Guide informal businesses through business formation and development processes

Energy Innovation Hub

Assess feasability of energy production

Renewable energy policy

Home energy efficiency

Funding development of energy production

Energy production

Green Building Improvement and Training Zone (GBITZ)

Remediate the Crawford and Fisk power plant

sites to repurpose the buildings while preserv ing

Create a GBITZ as a means of economic development through community investment

Make and alleys a standard in the zone

Invest in housing stock home improvement / affordable housing

Ensure that buildings within the zone are up to LEED standards

Pip

elin

e to

Pro

spe

rity

Ene

rgy

Wo

rkin

g G

ree

n C

om

mun

ity

Stakeholder Principles of the Living Loop

Goals Strategies

Polic

y

Go

vern

me

nt

Co

mm

un

ity

Priv

ate

Co

nne

ctiv

ity

Vita

lity

Ad

ap

tab

ility

ec

alP

Years Implementation

5 10 15 20 25 30

Type


55Implementation

Establish a Local Planning Board

Public Outreach

Construction of Western and/or Ashland Bus Rapid Transit

Public/Private Partnerships:

Transportation Projects Transparency

Transit Oriented Development

Environmentally Prioritized Land Use

Promote and educate about Xeriscaping

throughout LVP

Prov ide large scale composting and recycling

Urb

an

Fre

ight

Vill

ag

eEn

viro

nme

nt +

He

alth

Promote rain gardens on public and private land

Promote home gardens

Encourage a renewable energy policy

throughout LVP

Incorporate grey water treatment

Develop strategic pathways for enhanced

livability

Redevelopment of the areas surrounding the

Crawford and Fisk

Creation of community center

Focus on developing strategic points of

community access and activ ity

Develop a network of green, walkable, and safe

streets & paths

5 10 15 20 25 30

Type Stakeholder Principles of the Living Loop

Goals Strategies

Polic

y

Go

vern

me

nt

Co

mm

un

ity

Priv

ate

Co

nne

ctiv

ity

Vita

lity

Ad

ap

tab

ility

ec

alP


Co

nne

ctin

g +

Bui

ldin

gC

om

mun

itie

s

upp 505/506 – spring 2013