Monthly Archives: August 2007

Caterpillar, City of Peoria, Heart of Peoria Plan, HOPC, Traffic

Cat wants traffic patterns unchanged downtown

13 Comments

One Way SignI meant to post this awhile ago and just never got around to it. One of the things the Heart of Peoria Commission is focusing on these days is fixing the streets. That doesn’t just mean filling potholes. It means making the streets more balanced thoroughfares — streets that comfortably accommodate not just cars, but also pedestrians, bicycles, and mass transit.

Downtown, there are a few street changes that the Commission would like to see and that the Heart of Peoria Plan advocates. In the Warehouse District, the Commission would like to see the Washington Street corridor improved by widening the sidewalks, allowing on-street parking, planting street trees, lowering the speed limit, and narrowing it from five lanes to three. IDOT put the kibosh on that plan, but there are efforts underway to change their mind. The Heart of Peoria Plan advocates changing Adams and Jefferson streets to allow two-way traffic again.

All of this talk about changing the streets downtown has led Caterpillar to publish their position, which can be summed up thus: status quo. They like things just the way they are, thank you very much. Here’s their full statement:

Caterpillar Inc. supports maintaining the existing traffic patterns on Adams, Jefferson, and Washington Streets in downtown Peoria (specifically one-way traffic on Adams and Jefferson, and two-way traffic on Washington).

We oppose any change that would reconfigure Adams Street or Jefferson Street for two-way traffic.

We oppose any change that would result in shifting heavy truck volume through downtown Peoria from Washington Street to other streets.

We believe that one-way traffic flow on Adams and Jefferson is smoother, less disruptive and consistent than would be the case if the streets were changed to two-way traffic. This is particularly true in front of our world headquarters on Adams Street. In order to properly host Caterpillar visitors, VIP vans, buses, and cars must be able to park conveniently and safely in front of our headquarters. Adams Street accommodates this activity effectively and safely in a multiple lane, one-way configuration.

Moreover, the image of Adams Street is a valuable component of the overall image conveyed by Caterpillar’s headquarters. We consistently receive positive comments from dealers, customers and visitors on the pleasant qualities of this area, and we attribute this ambience, in part, to the smooth, one-way traffic flow on Adams Street.

The current street routing in downtown Peoria, coupled with new and efficient links to Interstate 74, allows heavy trucks serving ADM and other industries to use Washington St. This pattern results in lower truck traffic volume on Adams and Jefferson through the most congested downtown areas.

The safety of Caterpillar employees is of the utmost importance. A key concern of our workers in downtown Peoria is pedestrian safety. In addition to our numerous buildings, Caterpillar employees occupy office space in many downtown office buildings and generate a large amount of pedestrian traffic during the typical business day. Changing streets from one-way to two-way
would create more vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at intersections. This would be especially true at the intersection of Adams Street and Main Street, which is traversed by hundreds of Caterpillar people daily. Although one of the busiest in downtown Peoria, it is easier to navigate because Adams Street is one-way. Our employees are familiar with the traffic patterns as they exist today
and know what to expect.

Caterpillar operates several parking lots for employees in downtown Peoria. In some cases the entrances and exits to these lots are located to accommodate current traffic patterns. For example, the exit from our parking lot in the 200 block of Northeast Adams allows for safe discharge in one direction on Adams Street, avoiding the safety issues associated with a left turn onto a two-way street.

We believe that any revisions to the current traffic patterns on Adams, Jefferson, and Washington Streets in the downtown Peoria area would be detrimental to our employees and visitors.

For a company that touts fact-based or measurement-based decision making (Six Sigma), this statement sure is full of a lot of conjecture. Who would have thought that the “pleasant qualities of this area” could be attributed to one-way streets? Or that cars and vans cannot park conveniently or safely in front of a business unless the street is one-way?

I agree that we don’t want heavy truck traffic diverted from Washington to Adams/Jefferson. Preferably, the truck traffic would be diverted instead to the Bob Michel bridge for I-74 access, bypassing the most congested part of downtown altogether.

But the paragraph about worker safety is the one that really takes the cake for me. “Our employees are familiar with the traffic patterns as they exist today and know what to expect.” So, if we were to change Adams to two-way, Caterpillar is telling us that their management employees — most if not all of whom have advanced degrees — will become confused or disoriented by the change, resulting in pedestrian accidents and casualties? If so, maybe traffic patterns outside shouldn’t be their biggest concern right now. Personally, I believe Cat employees are sharp enough to be able to navigate the crosswalk with little difficulty were traffic to change to two-way. I guess I just have high expectations.

The Cat lot in the 200 block of NE Adams is on the southeast side of the street, which means that traffic out of that lot can continue unchanged simply by making it a right-turn only exit, were the street to ever change to two-way.

Suffice it to say, I don’t find Cat’s objections compelling. I’d like to see them have an open mind as Councilman Sandberg works with them and other stakeholders regarding the possibilities for these downtown corridors (Washington, Adams, and Jefferson) and how they can be improved.

City Council, City of Peoria

City wants its oldest commercial building to be commercial again

4 Comments

Peoria Riverfront Visitors CenterThe city wants to see a private retail business occupy Peoria’s Riverfront Visitor’s Center:

The City of Peoria and the Peoria Area Convention and Visitors Bureau (PACVB) operate the Riverfront Visitors Center. Conveniently located on the Peoria Riverfront off of 1-74, the Riverfront Visitors Center is a great first stop for visitors to the area. The Riverfront Visitors Center is housed in the former John Schwab Grocery that was built by John Schwab in 1852; the pre-Civil War building is the city’s oldest commercial building. In 1997 the building was renovated to recreate the 1850s grocery store and it was moved to the Peoria Riverfront as the Riverfront Visitors Center.

The City of Peoria and the PACVB are interested in returning the city’s oldest commercial building to its previous use by recreating the 1850s grocery store. We are looking for a private sector partner to share space with the Riverfront Visitors Center and to operate a small retail operation in the building. The store would have the ambiance and sentimental feel of the 1850s and continue to be a place where visitors could come and get information about the City of Peoria.

If you’ve ever been in the visitors center, you know that it’s not just small — it’s tiny. So what kind of business are they thinking would be a good fit for this 1850s-era building?

There is a large outdoor pavilion that is suitable for tables. The inside space on the first floor is small but there are a number of possible ways to fit the retail operation into the building. Proposals in the nature of an old time ice cream parlor, coffee shop or the sale of soda, hotdogs, pastries, etc. [emphasis mine] will be looked upon favorably.

Not a bad idea. It would get the building on the tax rolls, and it would be another amenity on the riverfront. I like it.

You know what would really make it successful, though? If close by — say, on the Sears block — there were apartments or condos. People aren’t going to come from Dunlap (or even Fake Dunlap) to downtown to have some ice cream, but people who live downtown will. And since museum officials have assured us that their patrons will not walk across the street (hence the absolute necessity of on-site parking for the museum to be successful), we know they’re not going to support it.

The more people you have living downtown, the more successful retail businesses, restaurants, etc., are going to be.

Caterpillar, City Council, City of Peoria, Museum Block

Museum Partners tip their hand: retail unlikely

15 Comments

PRM LogoThis week’s council agenda has a fascinating account of the city’s efforts to negotiate with the museum partners and Caterpillar over changes they want to make to their development agreement for the Sears block. They never reached consensus:

The Museum wanted total control over development of the retail space. Conversely, we believe that the City’s Office of Economic Development is in a better position to market and negotiate the deal. It was clear from this meeting that the real issue was the Museum wants architectural and functional (what the building could be used for) control. We suggested that a rendering could be included that would define the architecture; however, the Museum declined that alternative. It was even mentioned by a representative of the Museum that perhaps the idea of commercial/retail needed to be reevaluated. [emphasis mine] We advised them that was a Council decision. The architectural discussion also mentioned the possibility of extending the plaza over the retail/commercial space. We have attached the original site plan presented in February, 2006. While this is a wonderful idea and is what was originally proposed by the Museum, it will not be financially affordable as a standalone project. We agree that the function needs to be compatible with the Museum (i.e. no adult entertainment uses), however, believe acceptable function can be defined. The discussion then moved to the issue of parking (i.e. where would these individuals park). Riverfront Village was discussed as one option for parking. It appears that a concern of the Museum is use of the parking developed to support this project. [emphasis mine]

We offered, as a follow up to that meeting, to allow the Museum to have exclusive development rights for three years following completion of the Museum with the City’s Office of Economic Development having development rights after that time. If the property was developed by the City, architectural and functional control would be determined by City Council. The Museum declined that offer. [emphasis mine] The City could still recommend tenants during the first three years.

What do you think? Does it sound like the Museum/Caterpillar is seriously interested in developing retail along Water street? First, they floated the idea of getting rid of retail altogether. That’s an indication of how committed they are. At best they don’t care whether it’s there or not; at worst they have no intention of developing it and are including it in the plan for appearance’s sake.

Next they bring up parking. Now let me ask you, why is this an issue? There’s going to be on-street parking along the museum side of Water, there’s already on-street and lot parking across Water, and museum square itself is getting a parking deck. This was the configuration that Cat and the museum partners agreed was adequate when the museum was larger and all else was equal. Why, now that the museum is shrinking would parking for retail somehow become a problem? Setting aside the fact that there’s a glut of parking downtown making the new deck completely unnecessary in the first place, the mere fact that the museum is significantly smaller should lower concerns about adequate parking — unless the museum is looking for ways to put the kibosh on the retail element.

Finally, the city offers to give them exclusive development rights for three years following completion of the museum — if all goes according to the new plan, that would be years 2011-2014. But the museum folks rejected that idea. That tells me that they lack confidence that they’re going to be able to develop it in that time frame. Now remember that museum officials believe that they’re going to get 360,000 people a year visiting the museum. With all that traffic, and with low lease rates (the museum agreed to lease the retail space for $1/year), they don’t believe they can develop 15,000 square feet within three years? How many years do they think it will take? Until 2015? 2020? The fifth of never?

It all adds up to a decided lack of interest on the museum’s part in developing the retail. They don’t want to do it, and they don’t want the city to do it either. They apparently prefer the whole museum block be dedicated to the museum and Cat visitor’s center. That would be the worst of all scenarios. The block needs more mixed use development, not less. It needs a residential element added, not the retail element removed.

If the council is serious about wanting retail development on that block (and I think they are), they should reject this amendment.

Peoria Park District

Bradley Park going to the dogs?

33 Comments

Dog RunningAt the Peoria Park District’s Planning Committee meeting Tuesday night, they heard a report back on the possibility of establishing a dog park in Peoria. The idea is to fence in approximately five acres of Bradley Park (it was unclear from the picture shown at the meeting exactly what part of Bradley Park is being considered) as a dedicated place where dogs can run free and “socialize.”

Of course, there would be certain restrictions, including, but not limited to: the dogs must be licensed and up to date on their shots, can’t be in heat, can’t be aggressive, and must be well-behaved (e.g., come when called). No explanation was given as to why Bradley Park was chosen for the dog park which will also have an invisible fence for dogs added.

Supporters spoke of how they take their dogs to the dog park in Morton and wished their home town offered the same amenity. They also said that it’s a feature desired by young professionals moving into the area. If you are planning to own dogs, make sure to visit the AmericanListed webpage for more options.

If approved by the full board, the district would have to bid out the job of fencing in the area. The plan is to use chain link fencing.

City Council, City of Peoria, Peoria Public Schools

School consolidation could lower property values

3 Comments

While the city explores using its enterprise zone to help incentivize reinvestment in older neighborhoods, any potential benefit may be undermined if the school district continues to consolidate and realign its neighborhood schools.

District 150 tells the Journal Star that in order to use $32 million in Health Life Safety bond money, they’ll have to close not only White and Glen Oak, but Kingman and Irving schools as well. That has the district contemplating replacing all four schools with one big building:

The new school was originally supposed to house students from Glen Oak and now-closed White Middle School. But [District treasurer Guy] Cahill said Wednesday it could also potentially serve as a replacement school for Irving and Kingman. He and district spokeswoman Stacey Shangraw also left open the possibility of more than one school being built.

I hope they’re more than open to the possibility of building more than one school; I think they should advocate it. According to a study published in the Journal of Urban Economics (2000), “disrupting neighborhood schools reduces house values by 9.9%, all else being equal.” While the authors don’t specifically study the reasons why changing boundaries and closing schools lowers home values, they have a pretty good hypothesis: “by making it harder for parents to get involved, it harms the quality of schools. It also makes it more difficult for students to participate in after-school activities relative to the case where they can walk to and from the school.”

Lower home values wouldn’t just be bad news for the city, it would also hurt the school district itself, since it relies heavily on property taxes for funding. In their attempt to save money through consolidation, it may turn out that the school board actually loses revenue because of it.

Peoria Public Schools

D150 site criteria raises many questions

4 Comments

Peoria Public Schools logoKudos to Clare Jellick for her most recent blog entry on the school district’s plans to get community feedback on possible East Bluff school locations. She has posted information that the school district distributed at their recent news conference, which includes a page I found most interesting called “Site Selection Criteria.”

Let’s take a look at it. It begins with their requirement for size:

“SIZE”

The site(s) should be large enough to accommodate the District’s 120,000 sq. ft. birth through eighth grade educational program, including fitness and wellness spaces, parking, and loading/unloading zones for buses and parents. The minimum site(s) size depending upon what is adjacent to the school is 8-15 acres for a one story school and 6-12 acres for a two story school.

On the positive side, it appears they’ve relaxed their acreage standards somewhat. The low end is now just 8 acres for a one-story and 6 acres for a two-story school. (Incidentally, it’s also nice to see they’re considering a multi-story school, too.) However, the operative phrase here is “depending upon what is adjacent to the school.” Based on the rest of the site criteria, I take that to mean that they’ll need more acreage if the school is not next to a park or similar amenity.

It has never been explained how we went from a Kindergarten through eighth (K-8) to a “birth through eighth grade” (B-8) program. The district’s own Master Facilities Plan never speaks of a B-8 program. I can find no record of a vote on changing the program either. This change is significant, since it means the inclusion of space and staffing for day care and pre-school services.

Are the “fitness and wellness spaces” for students only, or are they still going on the “community center” model where these spaces would be opened for public use? I’m hoping it’s the former because, again, making this a “community center” with fitness equipment open to anyone is really beyond the scope of the school district and just adds unneeded expense.

“AMENITIES”

There are both “desirable” and “undesirable” amenities sought in the areas of a new school building(s). Preference would be given to a site(s) having a greater degree of desirable amenities.

Desirable:

  • adjacency to parks and programs, libraries, recreational centers, not-for-profit community organizations providing–as part of their mission–services to school-age youth, and/or other similar such service providers
  • adjacency to police, fire, and/or other public service agencies
  • adjacency to other schools, including institutions of higher education

Undesirable:

  • adjacency to commercial enterprises with a high concentration of vehicular traffic
  • adjacency to commercial enterprises in the sale or trade of alcohol, tobacco, and/or firearms
  • adjacency to areas with a high incidence of crime

Here we see that they’re still interested in being next to a park, as it’s first on the list. I’m not sure why they would need to be next to a library (doesn’t the school have its own?) or a recreational center (aren’t they planning to have their own fitness/wellness spaces?). I also have to wonder why it’s desirable to be adjacent to “police, fire, and/or other public service agencies.” Is this just for public safety purposes, or are they seeing this as places the kids could tour as part of their education?

And what’s the advantage of being adjacent to other schools? That looks like to me like a step toward more consolidation and away from a neighborhood-school concept. Consider two of the suggested locations: Next to Kingman school, which is down in the north valley, and next to Woodruff High School, which already has Lincoln School adjacent to it. If the latter site were chosen, you’d have a large, consolidated campus with three schools right next to each other.

The “undesirable” list makes sense. Although, one wonders how the Peoria Stadium made the list of possible locations if they’re worried about a “high concentration of vehicular traffic.” Putting the school there would not only put it next to one of the busiest highways in the city, but would guarantee that all the children would have to be bused or driven to school by their parents, thus added even more traffic to the roads.

“COST and TIMEFRAME”

The District received the order of effect from the State to allow the District to issue Health Life Safety bonds toward the construction of a new school(s). The costs associated with the assemblage and acquisition of property shall not exceed the budget set forth by the Board of Education and ideally should require no more than 6 months to procure the land once the site is selected.

Obviously the pertinent information missing here is “the budget set forth by the Board of Education.” What is that budget? And does that include the $877,500 they’ve already spent on properties along Prospect? They may not have much money left for property acquisition.

Here’s something else to think about. You know how the museum folks told us that construction costs have increased dramatically over the past year? How does that impact the school’s plans to build a school? At first they said it was going to cost $15 million to build a school, then it was $21 million. That was several months ago. What is it now? What will it be next year? It may cost $30 million to build this new school by the time they figure out a site. At that point, is it still more cost effective to build new than to restore existing structures?

“OTHER CONSIDERATIONS”

The District shall consider such other factors when weighing the relative merits of two or more sites of equal value as defined by size, amenities, cost and timeframe noted above.

  • proximity to student population displaced with the closure and consolidation of multiple intra-attendance area buildings using the guidelines established by the State for free bus transportation
  • accessibility to site by walk, car, bus, public transportation
  • traffic volume and congestion
  • preference of the City of Peoria
  • neighborhood stabilization and revitalization

Note that these only come into play when evaluating two or more sites “of equal value” as defined in the previous sections. In other words, they’re literally and figuratively at the bottom of the list when it comes to picking a site. I find that rather sad, because it seems to me that one thing that can really improve education is neighborhood stabilization. After all, that’s where the kids are for 2/3 of each school day, all day on the weekends, and all day over the summer.

I think the stability of the neighborhood has a great deal to do with education. It affects whether the kids are worried about gangs, violence, drugs, etc., or are free from those concerns and able to focus on their studies. It affects whether they have pride in their homes and surroundings, which will affect how they look at school property. It affects whether they can walk to school or whether they have to be driven or bused.

Conclusion

The way I see it, the school board should be getting public input on more than just the location of the school. The public forums should also cover whether we want our tax dollars paying for daycare, fitness centers, and other questionable amenities. They should be focusing on whether we want big consolidated schools or smaller neighborhood schools. These are the root issues that are driving the whole push for replacement buildings.

Museum Block

Embracing the river

19 Comments

I’ve heard the Museum Partners (specifically Jim Richerson) give their presentation on the new museum square site plan with the smaller museum building a couple of times now. One phrase has really stuck with me — the idea that the Water Street side of the museum has a lot of open space so that it can “embrace the river.” Just to show what they mean by “embrace the river,” they have this really nice artist’s rendering they show:

See how the obtuse angle of the building opens up toward the river and the Murray Baker bridge, and all that shimmering, reflective water? There’s just one problem: this is an aerial view. When you’re on the ground, and when the buildings along the riverfront aren’t grayed out and diminished in size, the reality is that you can’t see the river — the open space opens up and embraces riverfront village and the River Station.

I took a walk down Water Street the other day and snapped these photos from the sidewalk right on “museum square”:

Water Street Scene 1

Water Street Scene 2

Water Street Scene 3

Water Street Scene 4

The only place where you can kind of see the river is when you’re standing about mid-block, looking between the River Station and Riverfront Village:

Water Street Scene 5

Something else to consider is this: Whereas the underground parking deck was hidden in the original plans by the street-level retail shops along Water Street, the new plans have removed the retail element, lowered the elevation of the plaza and exposed the parking deck to the Water Street side. So, in the fourth picture above, for instance, if we were to turn to the left and the museum were built to current specs, we would be looking at a parking deck.

The last council communication on this topic indicated that city staff doesn’t believe the retail portion will ever be built if it isn’t part of Phase I. They were proposing that it be taken out of the museum agreement — in other words, out of the museum partners’ control. Then the city could ensure that project gets built.

The museum folks are reportedly worried about that scenario because they’re afraid the city might allow something to be built that would block the museum’s view of the river. Perhaps they should take a walk down Water Street and see for themselves that the river view is already blocked.

Peoria Park District

21 landmarks proposed for historic preservation

7 Comments

Park District LogoThe Peoria Park District Planning Committee today heard testimony from Mike Baietto, Superintendent of Parks, on why 21 district-owned landmarks should be preserved under the district’s new Historic Preservation Ordinance. More will be added over the next 30 days as park district staff work on including notable omissions (such as the Christopher Columbus statue in upper Bradley Park) and the public weighs in with other suggestions.

The initial 21 landmarks that were presented are:

  1. Decorative Stone Fort, a.k.a. the parapet, including the canon (Glen Oak Park, 1899)
  2. Kinsey Memorial Fountain (Glen Oak Park, 1905)
  3. Small Animal House (Glen Oak Park, 1905)
  4. Iron Suspension Bridge (Glen Oak Park, 1902)
  5. Triebel Lions (Glen Oak Park/Zoo, 1903)
  6. Glen Oak Park Pavilion (1896)
  7. Old Settlers’ Monument (Glen Oak Park, 1899)
  8. Pergola (lower Glen Oak Park, 1917)
  9. Robert Ingersoll Statue (lower Glen Oak Park, 1911)
  10. Historic Grand View Drive Park (already on National Historic Register)
  11. Trewyn Park Pavilion (Trewyn Park, 1913)
  12. Kinsey Sundial (Luthy Botanical Gardens, 1905)
  13. Proctor Recreation Center (1913, already on National Historic Register)
  14. Iron Bridge (Bradley Park, 1898)
  15. Japanese Bridge (Bradley Park, 1921)
  16. Detweiller Park Nature Preserve
  17. Forest Park North Nature Preserve
  18. Forest Park South Nature Preserve
  19. Robinson Park Nature Preserve
  20. Singing Woods Nature Preserve
  21. Giant Oak Park (High Street)

It was mentioned during the presentation that the sundial had been in storage for several years before being put on display in the Luthy Botanical Gardens, so I asked if there were any other historical items in storage that should be added to the list. Mr. Baietto and Bonnie Noble both said that there is not — at least, not that they are aware of.

Other people who were at the meeting included City Councilman George Jacob, a couple members of the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, neighborhood activist Sara Partridge, and the chair of the Junior League.

At the next meeting, a final list will be proposed and if the Planning Committee approves it, it will go to the full Park Board at their next scheduled meeting, and then there will be a public hearing…. It takes a while to get things added to the park district’s historic register.

If you would like to make a recommendation for historic preservation, you can pick up a “Resource Nomination Application” form at the park district offices (Glen Oak Park Pavilion, lower level). It was mentioned that the form will be available on the district’s web site, but it doesn’t appear to be there yet (unless I just couldn’t find it). You can also pick up a copy of the district’s historic preservation ordinance at the office.

The nomination form asks for the name of the landmark; its location; the applicant’s name, contact info, and signature; a description of the “present and original (if known) physical appearance and characteristics”; “statement of significance”; and photographs.

Peoria Public Schools

D150: “We really want the community’s input and the parents’ input”

6 Comments

This is an encouraging story out of District 150.

The school board wants the community’s and parents’ input on where to put a new school in the Woodruff High School attendance area. Thankfully, Glen Oak Park is not one of the options, and they still appear willing to consider the current Glen Oak School site. So there is reason to hope.

Here are eight options the school board unveiled:

  1. Peoria Stadium site
  2. Von Steuben School site
  3. Glen Oak School site
  4. Site adjacent to Woodruff High School
  5. White School site
  6. Adjacent to Morton Square
  7. Adjacent to Constitution Park
  8. Kingman School site

They say the list is not exhaustive and that the public can nominate locations not on the list. Here’s a map of the locations, corresponding to the numbers in the list above. The red outline shows the attendance area for Glen Oak and White schools — the ones that are being replaced:

Location Map

I’m willing to give any location a fair shake, but if we’re looking for the one that’s closest to everyone in the attendance area among the sites currently under consideration, I think it’s obvious from the map that the best location is the site of the current Glen Oak School.

I mean, can you imagine busing all the children from the Glen Oak/White attendance area to the stadium? Or Kingman school? Besides, the school board already owns the Glen Oak School property, so they wouldn’t have to spend money on land acquisition — that is, unless they haven’t abandoned their arbitrary 15-acre minimum site requirement. Let’s hope they have.