The sight of bulldozers clearing the way for homes has become commonplace amid the fields of Cook County’s southwestern rim, where sprawling subdivisions have steadily replaced farms in recent years.
So few passersby will likely pay attention when workers this spring begin preparing land along Orland Park’s western edge.
But the project now beginning is not just another subdivision; it is one of the most ambitious housing developments in the county’s history, and it is promising to reshape this slice of the southwest suburbs forever, its economic impact possibly reaching far beyond.
The ground-breaking also will mark the culmination of a drawn-out and bitter dispute-one filled with name-calling, politics, lawsuits and countless threats-over just how one of the last large pockets of vacant Cook County will be developed.
The 1,500-acre project, which two years ago was given a $1.1 billion price tag, is known as Spring Creek. The developer is Robert Gallagher, whose company, Gallagher & Henry, has built mid- to upper-range homes across Chicago, the south suburbs and Du Page County for more than 40 years.
“Spring Creek,” said Gallagher, a man of few words and extremely guarded when it comes to talking with the media, “is just another big project.”
Still, it is only now happening because of a hard-fought deal reached last fall between Gallagher and Orland Park officials. The agreement will allow Gallagher to build 4,195 housing units-considerably fewer than the 5,755 for which he had originally asked-on land bounded by 175th Street on the south and 135th Street on the north.
Under the agreement, Gallagher plans to build 250 units a year for the next 17 years. The development is planned to be a mixture of single-family homes, townhouses and apartment complexes. Three small commercial districts are planned, along with more than 90 acres of parks and, if needed, two additional schools.
All told, 12,000 people are expected to move there, boosting Orland Park’s population by a third. Spring Creek could constitute a village by itself.
More than half of Spring Creek’s homes will be built on 8,000-square-foot lots, or a little more than a one-fifth of an acre. That’s larger than the 5,000-square-foot lots for which Gallagher had originally asked, but it’s still smaller than what Orland Park’s master plan had intended for the area; it’s also smaller than nearly all other Orland Park developments.
That issue alone-the question of density and “affordable housing” that has become so sensitive in many suburban areas-is primarily what kept this part of the southwest suburbs mired in conflict for more than two years. And for many residents, the issue continues to rankle.
“There’s just a lot of anger all around here that Orland just gave Gallagher what he wanted,” said Cassandra Moran, whose group, the Palos-Orland Conservation Committee, led the fight against the development. “I have not talked to one person who thinks that Orland has anything to gain.”
“You’re going to be driving for eight miles on Wolf Road and you’re going to be seeing Spring Creek,” she said. “It’s really going to be the look of Orland. I think that’s why people were calling it Gallagherville.”
Orland Park Village President Dan McLaughlin, who helped reach the agreement that became official in January when the village annexed the land, took issue with Moran’s assessment of the deal.
“I’ve had a lot of positive comments,” he said. “People are pretty much glad it’s over and pretty much in our favor. People were really pleasantly surprised.”
The patterns of growth in Chicago’s suburbs in the past couple of decades made it clear that the area could not be protected from development. Indeed, most people knew that the tinge of rural flavor that remained would not last long.
Gallagher said he had been assembling the parcels over the past decade or so. At first, his plan was to repeat the kind of developments he had been building in recent years-one-quarter acre or larger lots arranged in typical subdivisions.
But, at the urging of his consultants, Gallagher decided to stray from that formula to build a development that would incorporate elements of neotraditional planning, a concept that includes smaller lots, living spaces above attached garages, a town center, limited cul-de-sacs and a series of pedestrian paths linking the community.
That sort of development, though slow to come to the Midwest, has gradually become popular nationwide as planners try to undo sprawl and create a sense of community.
For sprawling Orland Park, such a plan made good sense, said Stephen Lenet, whose firm, the Lenet Design Group, helped prepare the original Spring Creek plan. The idea, Lenet said, was to provide an alternative to the new-growth, car-oriented development that dominates much of the Chicago area.
The idea was also to offer less expensive homes that would sell quickly. Lenet and Schaumburg-based marketing analyst Tracy Cross, who continues to work for Gallagher on Spring Creek, sat down with Gallagher to sell him on the idea.
“Bob Gallagher is 60-something and he knows what has worked for him in the past,” Lenet said, explaining Gallagher’s initial resistance. “But Tracy and I were able to convince him over a long period of time that this was the right thing to do.”
The point they stressed, Lenet said, was simple.
“We said, `If you build 1,500 acres of one-quarter acre lots, you just can’t market that big a development. That wouldn’t happen in anybody’s lifetime. If you do this kind of mix, we think you can sell it out in 20 years.’ As we showed him, he became an advocate for it,” Lenet said.
Despite the plan, opposition was fierce, beginning as soon as Gallagher submitted a request with Cook County to have the land rezoned. Spring Creek would bring a congested mess, the critics screamed.
Among the predictions: water supplies would be insufficient for fire fighting and trucks would not fit down the narrow roads, the sewer system would be inadequate, schools wouldn’t be able to handle the influx, traffic would be unbearable, property values would drop and taxes would soar.
Orland Park officials said they received thousands of letters and phone calls opposing Spring Creek. Cook County commissioners, who were to vote on the proposal, also were barraged with complaints. Overflow crowds attended public hearings on the proposal.
The dispute hinged not only on density but on another key issue: annexation. Orland Park wanted to annex the land so it could make Gallagher build within its demands, which would have meant about 4,000 units-roughly 1,700 units fewer than Gallagher wanted.
Gallagher fought to keep Spring Creek unincorporated.
Last Spring, Orland Park officials distributed petitions asking the unincorporated residents to annex-something for which many of them had long been waiting. The idea was to drag Spring Creek into Orland Park’s boundaries.
In response, Gallagher filed a $100 million lawsuit against Orland Park, claiming the village was interfering with his rights to develop his land. The suit also sought $500,000 from each village board member and village president.
Gallagher also sent letters to the residents wanting to annex, saying that signing the petition could involve them in a lawsuit. That effort, opponents said, backfired: Many previously quiet residents starting passing out anti-Spring Creek literature.
“That sort of woke a lot of people up,” opponent Moran said.
The fight grew increasingly bitter. At one meeting, Gallagher accused the residents of being “elitists” because they were trying to block a project that was offering “affordable housing.”
Neither side wanted the county to vote on the matter. Cook County Commissioner Herbert Schumann (R-Palos Park), who was a loud Spring Creek opponent, at one point said he had the five votes needed to kill the proposal.
But Orland Park officials feared Gallagher would make good on his promise to take the issue to court, where the village might lose any chance to shape the development.
It was then, at a fact-finding meeting before the county board last May-jammed with supporters saying the project would bring jobs and opponents saying Gallagher was out to ruin their quality of life-that both sides agreed to resume negotiations.
Five months later, following the election of McLaughlin as the new village president and a new village administration, an agreement was finally reached.
As part of the agreement, Gallagher dropped his lawsuit against the village.
The village touted the deal as all but perfect. Sure, the village gave a bit and allowed a higher density, officials said, but the agreement slowed the pace of development by setting a 250-per-year limit on building permits.
And because the property is now part of Orland Park, the village argues it can oversee the development of each parcel, the roads and the infrastructure.
Orland Park requires developers to give either money or land to the school system when they build. Gallagher is giving a nearly 46-acre plot that, if needed, will be an education/recreation complex.
In addition, Gallagher is giving 370 acres to the village, some of which will be for parks.
About 205 acres of that land will be left untouched because it is environmentally sensitive.
At least one point of controversy continues to dog the property.
Protecting its many wetlands has been a key concern for opponents. As Environmental Protection Agency enforcement officer Greg Carlson put it, “We consider Gallagher a complete and flagrant violator.” Carlson said Gallagher owes $125,000 in back fines for filling in wetlands elsewhere without a permit.
Gallagher denied the charges, but declined to discuss the matter because he’s fighting it in court.
Although McLaughlin says he has received few negative comments, many people say that once the agreement was announced the village was not receptive to hearing outside opinions.
“The general feeling is that even though people might not like it-because of the negative impact on the schools, the library, the taxes-the deal had been struck,” said Gale Gogolew, a resident of Creekside, a Gallagher & Henry development that borders Spring Creek.
“A lot of people felt disappointed and that what they said didn’t really matter.”
Gogolew, like many residents, said she feels cheated. Her family moved to the area with an understanding-after checking with the village-of what the area would eventually look like.
“The majority of people realized this would be developed-all this open land wouldn’t be open forever,” she said. “(But) we expected it to be similar to what the village already had. And we did our research.”
Gallagher and marketing analyst Tracy Cross, on the other hand, argue Spring Creek will make the area more desirable, causing property values to rise where opponents contend they will fall.
They also say the development will lure businesses because of the range of work force available, a factor that will bring additional tax revenue to the village where opponents say only a burden will exist.
“If they’re good developments,” Gallagher said, “they’re going to increase surrounding values.”
Gallagher said it’s too early to put a price tag on Spring Creek homes. He estimated that the single family homes would be around $150,000 and up; the townhouses would be less.
If all goes well, Gallagher said he hopes the first residents will move in next fall.
Development is beginning around 143rd and Wolf Road.
Gallagher said the homes will be similar to what he’s built before.
One of the consequences of the protracted annexation battle is that, as it stands now, the neotraditional elements of Spring Creek have largely been scrapped.
And that disappoints Lenet, the original planner.
“We’re just going to get more of the same sprawl and further deterioration of the concept of neighborhood,” he said. “Spring Creek is turning into a pretty traditional Gallagher & Henry subdivision. (But) Gallagher’s happy and Orland Park is probably happy.”
For all the village’s praise of the deal, Gallagher clearly is pleased as well.
The area is in a prime location. It has quick access to Interstate 80, an extension is planned for I-355 that will improve access to job-rich Du Page County and Metra has said it will improve its southwest rail line.
“You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going to happen out there in the next couple of years,” said William Hennessy, Gallagher’s attorney. “This area is primed to take off.”
For his part, Gallagher won’t discuss the fights, or whether he still thinks the opposition to Spring Creek is rooted in elitism.
He doesn’t want to talk about the “Save Palos Orland. Just Say No To Gallagher & Henry” bumper stickers that still dot area cars, or the negotiations themselves.
“The war is over,” he said flatly. “I just want to put it behind us. Now we’re going to go about our business.”
