February 12th 2023
Do we really want a “destination real estate and development consulting firm” doing the economic impact study on Ryan Field?
Joint Statement from the Community Alliance for Better Government, Most Livable City Association, Northwestern Graduate Workers, and SOLR(Students Organzing for Labor Rights)
Only a few weeks after our community asked the City of Evanston to carefully consider how to conduct a critical independent analysis of Northwestern’s Ryan Field Project and not approve a no-bid contract with Hunden Strategic Partners, City staff is already trying to rush approval of the same firm through the City Council this Monday February 13th at 5:00pm.
The Community Alliance for Better Government, Most Livable City Association, Northwestern University Graduate Workers, and Students Organizing for Labor Rights are calling on the City Council to oppose the approval of this contract and instead hire a qualified firm that will focus on equitable economic development and the potential impact of Northwestern’s proposal across our entire community.
At the January 23rd Administration and Public Works Committee meeting, the City’s Economic Development Manager Paul Zalmezak recommended using Hunden Strategic Partners—a “destination real estate and development consulting firm”—to perform an economic impact study of the Ryan Field Project. APW voted to table the recommendation and directed Zalmezak to look at other proposals, including a joint one from Civic Economics, based in Evanston, and Community Allies, which has an Evanston office. Staff also considered a third proposal from AECOM.
Despite coming in at a bid more than twice as high as the other firms ($98,000 versus $40,000) Zalmezak is again recommending Hunden.
There are serious concerns with using this firm. The City staff’s memo touts Hunden’s experience with stadium developments and the founder Robert Hunden’s “passion” for the industry. Yet Hunden, a “Chicago-based premier destination real estate development advisory firm,” is part of the industry. In fact, “Hunden presents the annual State of the Industry for pro stadiums at the ALSD (The Association of Luxury Suite Directors) Design and Build conference. In the past year, Hunden has worked on NFL, NBA and NHL deals and districts plus numerous minor league stadiums and districts.”
Given this background, it is difficult to believe that Hunden will be truly objective. Although they claim to give fair minded advice based on the data, it’s clear from their prospectus and their website that they generally favor such developments. They do mention a few projects they recommended against, but the thrust of their proposal and of Robert Hunden’s presentations is definitely on the benefits of developing arenas as multi-use venues.
Zalmezak does express concerns about bias, but not from Hunden. Instead, he suggests that Civic Economics will be biased because they prioritize progressive community values:
Progressive Independence (good or bad?) – Civic Economics independence and advocacy for progressive economic causes (i.e., anti-big box, minimum wage, etc.) may not provide the objective results the City seeks or may be exactly what is needed here. The answer will vary among councilmembers and community members.
Zalmezak also faults the Civic Economics/Community Allies proposal for emphasizing community input:
Redundant Community Process – The proposed community engagement process led by Community Allies may be redundant, considering the number of community meetings already held with residents led by Councilmember Revelle. There will be many more opportunities for community engagement. These are in addition to the required Land Use Commission meetings, Planning & Development Committee meetings, and City Council meetings.
So in other words, Zalmezak downgrades a proposal that emphasizes progressive community values, worker rights, and community input, and he favors the proposal from an industry insider who has built its reputation on developing projects like the Ryan Field expansion.
It’s also notable that whereas the rejected AECOM firm typically includes “social impact” in its economic impact studies, and Community Allies looks at equitable development, the Hunden proposal mentions only the economics of stadium projects—while at the same time disclaiming any responsibility for investigating the potential costs to our community. As stated on page 9 of Hunden’s proposal, “Hunden will not report on impacts related to noise levels, in-depth traffic impacts, street and infrastructure deterioration, etc.”
We don’t have to accept City staff’s disparagement of our community’s progressive values and their elevation of a firm like Hunden with questionable motives and priorities.
Please join us in urging the City Council to oppose the approval of this contract with Hunden Strategic Partners and to instead choose Civic Economics and Community Allies or other qualified firms whose values are aligned with our community.