EAC Statement on the Adoption of Housing4All
Evanston Action Coalition supported important amendments to Housing4All, but opposed final adoption because the plan continues to move Evanston in a concerning legislative direction: toward broad zoning changes, expanded by-right development intensity, and land-use deregulation before the City has completed the baseline analysis, geographic targeting, preservation review, and public accountability that such consequential changes require.
At the same time, we recognize that resident advocacy made a meaningful difference. We thank Ald. Clare Kelly (1st Ward) and Ald. Parielle Davis (7th Ward) for proposing important amendments that would have strengthened the plan’s accountability, narrowed its zoning implications, better protected existing residents, and better respected Evanston’s historic built environment. We also thank them for opposing final adoption when the plan remained too broad and unresolved.
Thanks to sustained public engagement and the work of councilmembers willing to raise these concerns, several important amendments were added before adoption. Most importantly, the final plan now makes clear that Housing4All does not itself approve any zoning text amendment, zoning map amendment, overlay district, or increase in by-right development intensity. Any such land-use change must still go through separate review, public process, and legislative approval by the City Council.
That guardrail matters. It prevents Housing4All from being treated as a blank check for future zoning changes. We were pleased to see its unanimous adoption.
The adopted amendments also moved the plan in a better direction by strengthening language around resident retention, anti-displacement, preservation of existing affordable housing, housing-cost impacts, and program accountability. These changes reflect core principles advanced by residents: housing policy should protect current residents, preserve existing affordable homes, and be evaluated based on who actually benefits — not simply whether more units are produced.
However, these improvements do not resolve EAC’s fundamental concerns.
Regrettably, several stronger safeguards proposed by councilmembers were not adopted. These included requirements to prioritize transit-served corridors, downtown, mixed-use areas, institutional sites, and underutilized properties before considering broader changes in lower-intensity residential districts; a baseline capacity analysis showing how many units can already be built under Evanston’s existing zoning; special review before applying by-right intensity increases in R1, R2, and R3 districts; transition and compatibility standards for any expanded missing-middle zoning; and a requirement that City staff obtain clear Council policy direction before drafting zoning text or map amendments.
Those omissions are significant.
Evanston should not proceed toward broad zoning deregulation without first answering basic questions. How many units can our current zoning already accommodate? What affordability levels would new units actually serve? What are our workforce housing needs? Which areas face the greatest displacement pressure? What infrastructure, stormwater, tree canopy, parking, preservation, and built-form impacts would result? And how will the City ensure that any zoning changes advance affordability rather than simply increasing redevelopment pressure?
EAC is especially concerned that Housing4All does not adequately protect Evanston’s historic built environment or its lower-intensity residential areas. Evanston’s older homes, two-flats, courtyard buildings, small-scale multifamily structures, coach houses, tree-lined blocks, and historic districts are not obstacles to housing policy. They are part of the city’s existing housing infrastructure, environmental sustainability, architectural inheritance, and civic identity.
A serious housing plan should begin by asking how to preserve, repair, adapt, and reinvest in that existing fabric before encouraging broad redevelopment pressure. Historic preservation is not separate from affordability. In many cases, preserving existing buildings, supporting small-scale landlords, helping homeowners maintain older structures, and protecting naturally occurring affordable housing are more direct anti-displacement strategies than relying on speculative new construction.
This is why EAC supported amendments that would have required future zoning changes to account for preservation districts, surrounding development form, infrastructure capacity, environmental conditions, tree canopy, stormwater impacts, and transitions to adjacent lower-scale buildings. Those safeguards are especially important in R1, R2, and R3 districts, where broad by-right intensity increases could alter long-established residential patterns without adequate neighborhood-level review.
Housing4All contains some valuable goals, including preserving existing affordable housing, reducing displacement, and expanding housing opportunities for lower- and moderate-income residents. EAC supports targeted, evidence-based housing action. We support preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing, rehabilitation assistance, anti-displacement tools, property tax relief for vulnerable homeowners, adaptive reuse, public and institutional land strategies, and careful efforts to expand affordability where the need is clearly demonstrated.
We also support strengthening historic preservation as a housing strategy. Evanston should expand tools that help homeowners, small-scale landlords, and nonprofit housing providers maintain older buildings, weatherize historic homes, preserve naturally occurring affordable units, and adapt existing structures without unnecessary demolition. Housing policy should protect the city’s architectural and cultural inheritance while helping residents remain rooted in their homes and communities.
But housing policy must not be reduced to a generalized mandate for more density everywhere.
For that reason, EAC opposed adoption of Housing4All as written. The adopted amendments are important, and residents should be proud of the guardrails they secured. But the zoning debate is not over. Any future zoning proposal must stand on its own merits, with full public process, baseline capacity analysis, neighborhood-level impact review, clear affordability objectives, preservation review, and final accountability resting with the elected City Council.
Evanston deserves housing policy that is targeted, transparent, preservation-minded, respectful of existing built form, and grounded in real affordability outcomes — not broad land-use changes adopted first and justified later.
— Evanston Action Coalition Steering Committee
Related Coverage
Apr. 14, 2026 — Evanston RoundTable: With divisions on display, City Council delays vote on housing plan
Coverage of the 5–4 vote to delay adoption, including concerns about displacement, affordability, public review, and the relationship between Housing4All and Envision Evanston 2045.
Apr. 14, 2026 — The Daily Northwestern: City Council tables Strategic Housing Plan in 5-4 vote
Reporting on the initial delay vote, including Ald. Clare Kelly’s concerns that the plan did not sufficiently address gentrification or include concrete initiatives to prevent displacement of current residents.
May 12, 2026 — The Daily Northwestern: City Council passes Strategic Housing Plan in 7-2 vote
Coverage of the final adoption vote, noting that Council accepted at least part of 25 of the 64 proposed amendments while rejecting several amendments aimed at limiting density in lower intensity areas currently zoned by-right for single and two-family homes (R1, R2, and R3).
May 15, 2026 — Chicago Tribune: Evanston adopts major housing plan aiming to boost housing affordability, availability
Coverage of the final 7–2 vote, the 64 proposed amendments, and Ald. Clare Kelly and Ald. Parielle Davis’ dissent after debate over displacement, gentrification, and future zoning changes.
May 19, 2026 — The Real Deal: Evanston moves forward with housing plan focused on raising housing density, cutting red tape
Regional real estate industry coverage placing Housing4All in the broader Illinois debate over housing density, zoning authority, state/local control, and rejected amendments limiting redevelopment in lower-density areas.