Bradley University submitted its new institutional plan to the City on Thursday (1/25). Since I was downtown yesterday for a meeting anyway, I stopped by the Planning & Growth department to take a look at it. It’s a comb-bound collection of mostly artistic renderings of the physical changes the University wants to make to their campus. I was able to get a copy of their introduction and key elements — the only textual part of the plan — but the illustrations will have to wait until they’re released in PDF format because they’re too large and detailed to photocopy well. (Here’s a copy of the Introduction and Key Elements in PDF format.)
An open meeting has been scheduled for the public to review and discuss Bradley’s expansion plans Monday, February 5, at 6:00 p.m. in the Marty Theater (lower level of the Michel Center).
There are just a few observations I’d like to make after my initial view of the plan.
First, the university states their reasons for expansion in their introduction thus:
This plan represents a 10-15 year view of proposed physical changes to Bradley University’s campus facilities. These proposed changes evidence the university’s commitment to maintaining and improving its competitiveness in the upper echelon set of universities in the region and the country. These changes are not intended to facilitate undergraduate enrollment growth; the university does not have plans to grow its undergraduate enrollments or curriculum. Rather, Bradley’s services and programs require improved infrastructure support.
This was a little surprising to me because I was somehow under the impression that they were trying to grow enrollment-wise. It turns out that they are just wanting to upgrade their infrastructure to provide better facilities for their current enrollment levels and stay more competitive with similar universities.
Under their “Key Elements of the Plan” section, they have this to say about the arena they are planning to replace Robertson Memorial Fieldhouse:
It is believed that both this facility and the parking facility have been designed with consideration for New Urbanism architectural concepts given their proximity to Main St.
I would be interested to hear more about this particular aspect. To my knowledge, the Heart of Peoria Commission has never looked at or been asked to look at Bradley’s plans or comment on how well they conform to the principles of New Urbanism or the Heart of Peoria Plan. But I’ve only been on the Commission a short time, so I’ll have to check on that.
That said, they are correct that by building the proposed arena up to the sidewalk along Main street, they are in that sense following the principles of New Urbanism. They’ve also chosen to use pre-cast concrete made to look like limestone as their building façade for both the arena and the parking deck so they will blend with the existing architecture. This is durable and reflects a sense of permanence, which is desired in an urban environment. And while there’s only so much one can do with a parking deck, they’ve tried to make it look as nice and blended with surrounding architecture as possible.
However, a five-story parking deck right across the alley from single-family homes is not exactly the kind of form that’s desired in New Urbanism or in form-based coding. Setting aside the reasons for its location for a moment, a structure of that size would be better placed further into the campus’s interior or, if placed on the perimeter, it would be better placed along an arterial road like University where it fits better with the surrounding commercial context.
But, of course, the purpose of the parking deck is to provide parking primarily for the arena, recreational center, and new student housing, so it needs to be close to those structures. I think it would be better placed between the arena and recreational center on the east side of Maplewood behind (or possibly around) Morgan Hall. Right now that is designed to be another quad to the rear of Bradley Hall. Moving the parking deck there would make it equidistant from the three structures it’s primarily designed to serve and would keep it further away from the Arbor District. It would also relieve the necessity of razing all the houses on Maplewood — only those that need to be removed to make space for the new student housing would need to be torn down.
My last observation is about this part of their plan:
With the proposed campus changes, vacation of both Maplewood Ave. and Glenwood Ave. from Bradley Ave. to Main St. is requested.
The reason they want to vacate these streets and have the university take over maintenance of them is so they can terminate them at the newly-envisioned quad behind Bradley Hall. Essentially these two through-streets would become four dead-end streets. This is possibly my biggest concern about their plan. This will significantly limit the ability to get around and through Bradley’s campus and put more strain on the other streets.
If Glenwood and Maplewood are terminated, the only street that passes completely through campus will be Elmwood. Elmwood, while still a through-street, is essentially the university’s front parking lot. Through traffic will be more likely to use University to the east of campus or Cooper/Rebecca to the west of campus, meaning in the latter case that more traffic will be funneled through the Arbor District. More traffic on University means that an already busy street will get even busier, making it that much more unfriendly to pedestrians.
The next step is for the Zoning Committee to review the plan over the next few weeks and then make a recommendation to the City Council, which will make the final decision on approval.
Since Bradley has been made aware of the ugliness of parking decks in the past, why don’t they do the obvious and put the darned thing underground? Everyone is aware of the parking issues on campus. They ARE sitting ON the HILLTOP so I don’t think groundwater will be a major construction issue. Then they can go and build something really useful on top of it. That would be forward thinking which is what one expects from an “institution of higher learning”.
Can it still be in the spirit of new urbanism without getting the blessing of your commission?
Dude: Yes. But part of the ordinance creating the Heart of Peoria Commission does state it is our responsibility to “analyze, review and provide comment on proposed initiatives and key projects of interest to the Commission within the HOPP Area.” Bradley is in the HOP Plan area, so I don’t think it would be inappropriate for the commission to have reviewed Bradley’s plans.
Does the HOP commission plan to issue some sort of guidance on BU’s plans?
My understanding of what I have seen is:
a) they want to replace the field house with a newer building that occupies pretty much the same footprint that the current building occupies. Fair enough, the field house is old, no AC, etc.
b) The rec center of theirs is apparently aging too. This is also supposed to be replaced with a similar structure occupying the same footprint. Neither of these structures cross over or into Maplewood. I have not been inside the current rec center but ok… fair enough.
c) So what are the homes on Maplewood for? Parking. I guess I have a problem with this. Parking for who? Well they say its so that peeps can park there during events. Nevermind that there is not nearly enough spaces for all of them. So essentially the garage becomes parking for commuting athletic faculty, commuting athletic entertainers (oops I mean students), and athletic VIPs. Enabling commuting is a bad idea for the city and frankly is not New Urbanist. We need to encourage less use of cars. If people do not have places to park they will move closer. What about the commuting students? So basically we will have athletes who live over in St. James Apts driving over to Maplewood for practice. They can’t um… walk or jog that distance? More traffic for the already overloaded roads. We already got a bunch of micro commuters already. Some of which live in the Uplands I might add.
So… we are going to tear down a street of beautiful houses for a parking lot. Its not for the field house nor for the rec center. Both of those building already have space for themselves. Its for a frikken garage. No amount of landscaping will hide that.
d) They do mention the possibility of new student housing as some sort of long long term potential use, but that is a big maybe. It also contradicts some of their own statements about zero growth.
Then there is the whole matter of the Institutional Zoning ordinance or whatever it is called. Does this ordinance matter anymore? If the city lets Bradley move forward it essentially makes this already poorly worded ordinance utterly meaningless. Those living around OSF and Methodist should be very scared.
It’s my understanding that the parking garage is for the new arena. Are they going to play Bradley Men’s basketball games there instead of the Civic Center? If so, that parking deck will be needed. What other types of venues may we expect? Concerts? IHSA games? If they move the deck, that will only spare part of the Maplewood homes and if the city vacates Maplewood, that street will be a deadend. Who will want to live across from the new fieldhouse on a dead end street anyway?? The parking headaches and access will be a nighmare.
Emtronics: No, they’re not going to play Bradley Men’s basketball games at the arena because its capacity will only be 4,500 seats. It’s simply not large enough. Men’s basketball games draw twice that many people. They will continue to play at the Civic Center. Here’s what the arena will be used for:
As for what the parking structure is for, here are a few quotes from Bradley’s document:
CJ: I realize what the mission of the Commission is, but they have no formal authority. Sure, it might be nice, but I think that the folks at BU can believe they are being consistent with New Urbanism, and even actually be, without an approval.
Dude: I thought I pretty much said that in my original post. Here’s the first part of what I said:
Notice that I said nothing about HOPC needing to give BU “approval” or being required to bring their plans before HOPC. I simply mused that I didn’t think they had. I then said (emphasis added):
And I went on to express a couple other ways they were consistent with those principles. I also expressed a couple ways I thought they were not consistent with New Urbanism principles (parking deck location and termination of through-streets).
So, I guess I’m not exactly sure what you’re arguing about.
Sorry, to me it sounded like you were a bit put off by not being asked your opinion. “Bradley is in the HOP Plan area, so I don’t think it would be inappropriate for the commission to have reviewed Bradley’s plans.” That line sounded like they should have come to you. My apologies.
Wouldn’t turning Maplewood and Glenwood into deadend streets instead of one way through streets make the west part of Bradley’s campus safer and more friendlier to walkers? It’s a wide road and people, including myself, tend to speed through there.
I could be completely wrong about this, but the reason that Bradley may not be looking for increased enrollment numbers might be already-inflated numbers of students. For the last few years, many colleges have been recording record numbers of applicants. Bradley’s current enrollment could mark a significant increase in number of students, thus necessitating larger facilities without increasing enrollment.
What about the institutional boundaries? Are they the law or are they just suggestions? It appears that Bradley has taken the dishonest backdoor route to avoid them. Are they meaningless? What will are elected officials do about this?
The problem with the Institutional zoning ordinance is that there is no consequence if one of the institutions were to violate the letter or the spirit of the ordinance. No doubt this was an intentional omission on the part of the Council as it was made up way back when. It is an ordinance with no teeth.
I say it is up to the current city council to put teeth to it and refuse Bradley’s request to rezone the houses on Maplewood and refuse to vacate streets. The city might not be able to force Bradley to sell the houses but they sure can deny Bradley the privilege of demolishing them and making a garage in their stead.
Chris: what will the elected officials do about this
answer: not a damn thing. Everyone runs on older neighborhoods, speak loudly for the cameras, only a small minority actually do something and amazingly it’s not the most vocal at the council. Choose wisely in this upcoming election.
There was shouting from the roof tops during the elections about how Bradley will never move beyond its boundaries and now the Arbor District is losing a street. I guess the hope is that people will forget those promises and move on to something else, perhaps deal behind closed doors to get the larger buy out amount for a few people, but respect the neighborhoods. ha.
How long will it be before the houses adjacent to the alley turn to Bradley owned student housing? ….and the cycle continues…. Seriously who wants to live with a parking deck in their backyard???
Clayton asked, “Wouldn’t turning Maplewood and Glenwood into deadend streets instead of one way through streets make the west part of Bradley’s campus safer and more friendlier to walkers?”
Perhaps, assuming the students are going to remain confined to the university’s boundaries 24/7. However, one has to look at the whole area — cutting these two streets off will move the traffic elsewhere — Bradley Ave., Main St., and University street. Many students live off-campus and must cross one of these streets. Adding more traffic to already busy streets puts pedestrians at greater risk — especially those who don’t cross at the light.
stop light? I’m guessing if a 600 space parking garage is going to have ingress/egress limited to Main via Maplewood another stop light on Main will be a requirement. I’m sure the neighbors and local residents will love the sound of another light.
Bradley has experienced record number of applicants (something they have been proclaiming almost every year for at least the last 15) but their actual undergraduate enrollment has not fluctuated greatly since the late 80s. To expand enrollment would require even more revisions than their master plan seeks: more faculty (or risk their losing their low student/teacher ratio)and more academic facilities (which would require MORE LAND.)
All this expansion of “high-demand, low-density” housing is going to accomplish is strengthening Bradley’s role as master landlord. Students don’t want to live in dorms for their entire academic career, and SAC was to horribly inadequate, so the St James apartments were created. And similar apartments will continue to be developed.
The construction of a large parking deck on the west end of campus next to a large quad with cul-de-sacs in lieu of real streets will do nothing to aid in the safety of the student population. I remember the attacks that plagued the campus in the late 80s-early 90s. It didn’t matter where you were walking or at what time of day — you were at risk. It got so bad that organizations on campus handed out mace to students who requested it. Having a large, wide open quad away from most of civilization — academic buildings, the Stupid Center and library, or Greek Row — will make people less likely to want to walk. Consequently, there will be more movement of cars. And since there’s only one N-S route through campus, imagine the congestion and the risk to the pedestrians on Elmwood.
In the world of regulations that won’t ever get enforced, Bradley needs to crack down on the use of cars on campus: expand the hours that a parking permit is required; have different parking decals for “real” commuters (those who live at home) and have designated commuter lots; students who live in St James or on Greek Row have a sticker which prevents them from parking in the center of campus; all students on campus must register their car with the university parking patrol so they have a record of to whom each car belongs and whether or not they are allowed to have cars on campus. But the university won’t crack down because that might offend a student or a parent, so they try and accommodate everyone which, in the end, makes everyone’s life a little more complicated.
The problem would be traffic going into Cooper or Rebecca Streets for people going to that side of campus. I’m sure there can be ways to keep traffic on Bradley Ave and Western/Main.
Crossing Main or University has always been a problem. These two new deadends won’t change or increase that.