Planning Chicago

by D. Bradford Hunt, Jon B DeVries

In this volume the authors tell the real stories of the planners, politicians, and everyday people who shaped contemporary Chicago, starting in 1958, early in the Richard J. Daley era. Over the ensuing decades, planning did much to develop the Loop, protect Chicago’s famous lakefront, and encourage industrial growth and neighborhood development in the face of national trends that savaged other cities. But planning also failed some of Chicago’s communities and did too little for others. The Second City is no longer defined by its past and its myths but by the nature of its emerging postindustrial future.

This volume looks beyond Burnham’s giant shadow to see the sprawl and scramble of a city always on the make. This isn’t the way other history books tell the story. But it’s the Chicago way.

Genres: Cities, Nonfiction

352 pages, Hardcover

First published April 16, 2013

Reviews

[Zak Yudhishthu · Rating 3 out of 5]

Any book that sets out to provide an all-encompassing overview of a topic will struggle to be a truly great book. Although Planning Chicago was full of interesting nuggets of information and history, it did not overcome this challenge. Each topic — historical plans, neighborhood-specific narratives, transportation, industrial policy — felt kind of undertreated, which I suppose is the natural consequence of this book’s attempt to be a reference book. To be sure, I still learned some interesting things, but the book wasn’t a very satisfying read content-wise.

However, my bigger complaint was that I felt this book to be over-focused on planning per se, as opposed to discussing whether plans were good or bad. For example, we learn that the Lakefront Protection Ordinance, industrial policy, and neighborhood revitalization efforts are all some examples where a lot of planning was involved. But were these plants good or bad? The authors often don’t offer a full judgement on the question, instead just saying “this involved planning” and “that didn’t involve planning”.

Worth reading if you want a primer on Chicago planning, somewhat less worth reading if you’re already familiar with the core Chicago nonfiction canon and city history.

[Mike Horton · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is obvious that Hunt and DeVries are using this book as a text to promote the importance of the profession of urban planner and the agenda therein. While much of their statistical evidence is accurate, the conclusions they make from those numbers contradicts many other urban economists, like Edward Glaeser and Richard Speck, who I've studied and researched while finishing my thesis. Hunt and DeVries do make some good points, yet it seems they want to regard Chicago as underperforming and in trouble. Moreover, it seems they have an issue with the political leadership and want to publicly assert that their perceived downfalls of what is happening to Chicago is a result of that political involvement, and therein lies the real problem: Chicago relies on its politics instead of planners, a conclusion that professional planners, like the American Planning Association, who published this book, will applaud. But really, who are they kidding? Chicago is not going to change, and it works for the region. Do the methods create problems? Sure. No system is perfect. However, this book would have been much better if more objective rather than a snake oil salesman-type promotion the authors, and the Anerican Planning Association, want it to be. The subjectivity is a veil that falls too thin here, and that is a disappointment. What could have been a really good resource tool falls flat of earning a recommendation.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very comprehensive, deep dive into urban planning (or lack of) in Chicago. The book touches nearly all aspects of planning. However, I found it to be quite dense, with lots of acronyms and jargon, which made some sections difficult to follow. The numerous figures and images were helpful. Overall interesting, but not an easy read.

[Denny Troncoso · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book about planning and the history of Chicago. It has a lot real estate, politics and so much more. Well written and well researched.

[Aaron · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh, some interesting anecdotes about planning in Chicago, but trying to hard to focus on theme of “we don’t make big plans anymore” and poorly written tbh

[Art · Rating 5 out of 5]

August update: Since this book published last year, George Lucas announced plans for his big Museum of Narrative Art, which will locate in the Museum Campus. Obama's presidential library also may end up in the area. These two big traffic generators will add to the congestion. … Two articles now discuss big transit ideas: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/articl... also http://politics.suntimes.com/article/...

July review: Excellent book. In 2008, Chicago made the short list of global cities, which includes New York City, London and Paris as well as five others. But from the 1950s to '80s, crime, blight, white flight and deindustrialization drained the city of hope and population. "The dying capital of the Frost Belt," some called it in 1983.

This book traces Chicago's planning, challenges and growth from the '50s to today. The 1958 Development Plan for the Central Area, which took years to realize with an impact lasting for decades, helped the city rise to global status, thanks in part to an active growth coalition.

I grew up in Chicago during this period. We took the city for granted. So it was interesting to learn about the social, cultural and political forces of the era through the experience of professional city planners.

Born and bred in Chicago, I moved to Milwaukee in 1978. These days I know Chicago more as a tourist with deep roots in the city. Navigating comes easily when going from Union Station to the Art Institute, Museum Campus, Wrigley Field and similar places.

But this book laments missed opportunities for improved transit, especially in and around the Loop. In particular, planners continue to work on quick transit from the West Loop/Union Station to east of Michigan Avenue, including Navy Pier. Always an interesting journey, but extreme congestion through the Loop slows the trip to an excruciating pace. Plans for light rail, surface or subway, as a circulator continue. Transit, already operating at capacity, needs to expand and rethink, which will help fuel growth in the central core of Chicago.

(My parents insisted that the Loop included only the area encircled by the downtown elevated train tracks. But the definition loosened over the years. Adjacent neighborhoods now include East Loop, West Loop, South Loop, North Loop, although these names and boundaries evolve over time.)

Railroads dominated and defined downtown Chicago's area since the 1800s. Millennium Park, which now covers tracks, became a successful project that reclaimed the yard space and redefined that area north of the Art Institute.

Over the years, planning evolved from autocentric to a transit, pedestrian and bicycle orientation. Chicago and other cities planned their infrastructure around the automobile, which played out as a haunting decision in downtowns as cars dominate, often as SOVs, single-occupant vehicles.

The book focuses on central Chicago, sparkly and shiny now, now that Millennium Park gives the city its finished look. But there's no downtown without the neighborhoods that feed it every day. The book examines several communities in the city and their plans over time. And then there's tourist Chicago, which includes Navy Pier as well as McCormick Place with all its many planning mistakes, including its location. And then there's industrial Chicago …

There's another urban laboratory just ninety miles up the road, included in megapolitan Chicago. Milwaukee, the other big city in the region, enjoys similar successes and faces similar challenges.

Each city traces its roots and development to rivers feeding into Lake Michigan. Milwaukee began developing its riverwalk over twenty-five years ago while Chicago began more recently, hampered by development on the riverfront. Milwaukee enjoys ten miles of shoreline on Lake Michigan while Chicago's runs for thirty miles.

The American Planning Association published this book and a similar one about Los Angeles. A book about Milwaukee would make a good read. While this book focuses on planning in Chicago, readers in any big city will find parallel concerns.

Many illustrations help tell the story, including maps, graphics and tables as well as photographs, many in color. Thoroughly documented with fifty-eight pages of notes, appendix and index.

An impulse buy at the Chicago Architecture Foundation, across from the Art Institute.

Planners and urban professionals may quibble with the book, but as a lifelong city dweller, I found it an intriguing study. Five stars, just like the flag of Chicago, but one more.

[Charles Denison IV · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting history and analysis of planning efforts in Chiacgo from the 1950s to today. I don't necessarily agree with all the authors' conclusions, but I respect their take on the current state of affairs. They do make a compelling case, however, that comprehensive community-based planning needs to happen at a city-wide level.

[Lorraine Wille · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very concise history of modern chicago