–January 18, 2005, at a news conference laying out his platform during his first mayoral election campaign.
“Everyone on the council has received briefings on this project for months as we’ve progressed down this line. This isn’t something that just hit our desks last week.”
–December 15, 2008, at a City Council meeting, explaining why we needn’t be worried about the council spending $40 million of our tax money on a private hotel a mere 72 hours after the project was officially revealed to the public. No opportunity for public input was provided, despite the project having been in the works behind closed doors “for months.”
Here’s one more quote — this one is from the September 20, 2004, “Word on the Street” column by Jennifer Davis:
“It frightens me that asking public officials to get input from the people who put us here frightens you,” at-large Councilman Jim Ardis in response to Civic Center Authority Board member Jane Converse at Tuesday’s council meeting.
Rumor is there is definite fear among Civic Center board members about public hearings on the proposed $55 million redevelopment of the Civic Center, especially letting the public weigh in on continued commitment of hotel, restaurant and amusement taxes as a revenue stream.
Mayor Ardis, you once felt like I and many of your constituents feel now. Excluded. Marginalized. Left out of the process in the spending of our tax dollars. You once fought for the kind of transparency I and many of your constituents want now — the opportunity to voice our concerns and be listened to. You promised us a “new generation of leadership” in 2005, but I’m still seeing closed-door, top-down leadership.
Ask yourself how the 2005 Ardis would have felt about the way the 2008 Ardis handled the hotel deal. How would you have felt if the mayor then would have told the public, like you did on November 10 at a City Council meeting, that “no development plans have been presented to City Hall” when the mayor had actually been discussing development plans “for months”? How would the 2005 Ardis have felt about public officials leaving the public entirely out of the process of spending $40 million of their money?
I like you, Mayor Ardis. I think you’ve done a lot of good things for the city. I even think the hotel deal has a lot of good points, frankly. But Dave Ransburg had a lot of good ideas, too. He couldn’t sell a lot of them because he lost the confidence of the people by going down the dead-end road of secrecy and exclusion. You ran against him because of it. Please don’t follow him down that road. Have faith in your constituents. If you think they made a smart choice in electing you, consider them intelligent enough to be included in public discourse.
Show us the 2005 Ardis again. You know — the one we elected.
I agree. This council’s decision to approve this so soon after the details of the financial agreement were revealed to the public strikes leaves me feeling disappointed and disregarded.
I’m not sure the vote would have been any different. I’m not sure that anything anyone said could have dissuaded them. And had this vote happened after a full public vetting, I would have a batter time accepting the vote. I’m not one of those people who think it’s not democracy when the votes goesn’t go my way. But I want more transparency and grass roots politics than we were getting here.
CJ – My guess is he DID hear you, he just didn’t agree with you.
This is the most brutal, vicious, atrocious, barbaric, brutish, coarse, cruel, ferocious, heartless, ignorant, inhuman, inhumane, monstrous, primitive, rough, rude, ruthless, sadistic, truculent, uncivil, uncivilized, uncouth, uncultured, unsophisticated, vicious, vulgar, wicked, wild……
post I have ever read.
I am however, forced to agree with you.
New Voice, please put away your thesaurus.
C.J.:
In my head I’m picturing you face to face with Ardis saying “C’mon man… you used to be cool…”
(Please know that I’m not trying to mock you. I think this is one of your best posts… very nicely written.)
What makes you think I was using a thesaurus?
I think it was the listing of the adjectives in alphabetical order… (once you got past brutal and vicious)
On a side note, I laughed out loud this afternoon when I heard the Mayor’s “the economy in Peoria is good” commercial right after the afternoon news talked about another 800+ CAT layoffs….
Diane, not too long ago, on your own blog, you said:
Why are you in favor of transparency and engendering community support when it comes to the school district, but unconcerned about it when it comes to the city? Is it simply because you agree with the city’s decision, but disagree with the school board’s decision?
CJ – We are talking about a pattern of behavior. The city government does not seem to have that perception problem. District 150 on the other hand… well, just read your own blog.
Another point to consider is that to substantiate your concerns on your “Wonderful Development” thread, you point to one failed (or failing) hotel. You did not mention the 1000’s of Marriotts all around the country, and in fact around the world that are wildly successful. On the contrary, I’m not sure that you can point to a hotel franchise with an overall greater success rate.
The fact that the motion passed almost unanimously should speak volumes that the city of Peoria is ready for substantial, quality, downtown development. It would be a shame to let this opportunity pass by because a few insist on looking at the glass half empty. Hasn’t that happened enough already?
Finally, if I understand you correctly, one of your principle objections is that the proposed architecture is not historically compatible with the rest of the downtown. (I know at least Billy feels that way). It should be quaint and cutesy and… Victorian?? First, I disagree. Secondly, I would point out that as one who is fairly active in the Peoria Historical Society, I can honestly say I have yet to see a blogger or commenter (other than PeoriaIllinoisan) participate in a Historical Society event. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
People are either going to embrace their history or they are not. Unfortunately, the latter seems to be more common. It’s commendable that you seek these lofty ideals, but the question is, are they practical or more importantly, do-able.
OK that’s weird.. somehow a whole paragraph disappeared in my post above. Please amend the 2nd paragraph to read…
Another point to consider is that to substantiate your concerns you referenced one failed (or failing) Marriott Hotel, neglecting to mention the 1000’s across the country and in fact the world that are wildly successful. In fact, I doubt that there is a more successful hotel franchise than the Marriott Corp.
Geez its back. You are purposely trying to make me look like a fool! ha ha. Feel free to delete these last 2 posts. I hate not being able to self-edit!
Dianne, were these 1000 successful Marriotts’ backed by 40% taxpayers dollars as proposed in Peoria? Whatever happened to private unsubsidized enterprise? And how many of these Marriotts cost more than $100 million and are in cities the size of Peoria?
Thanks.
Not sure, Merle. I’ll admit I’m not privy to nor overly interested in the details. I guess I’m putting my faith and trust in our elected officials and those they choose to consult with.
Diane — You’re confusing the project with the process. Forget about my concerns about the project for a moment — say I’m in 100% agreement with it. That still doesn’t mean the process of secrecy and exclusion is healthy or appropriate. 2005 Ardis was talking about the process of leadership and decision-making when he said he wanted it to be “open, not closed; inclusive, not reserved for the select few; and bottom-up, not top-down.”
The only thing you say about the process is:
So, secrecy and exclusion are okay some of the time? What’s the criteria for when it’s okay and when it’s not?
Except when you disagree with them, like our elected school board officials, right?
Diane: I have no objction to people building any ugly building they want.; It’s THEIR money.
But theya re building that hotel with MY money — and your’s and C.J.’s and Merle’s — and I ought to have a say.
The City of Peoria didn’t really give anyone much of a say.
If this is such a wonderful, can’t lose deal, then it ought to stand up to scrutiny and rude comments from bloggers.
Diane-
I’d like to jump in here and add to the discussion. First of all, there was no public process provided in this public private partnership. No one was asked for their opinion, input or guidance. They expect the public to pony up the money and absorb the risk but without any input- that is a major problem and should be a red flag.
The new hotel tower and renovation of the Pere Marquette represent several layers of impact to the city and they all need to be considered carefully.
I am all in favor of a restored /renovated hotel. I think the rooms and bathrooms should be comfortable and meet the standards of any upper-end full service land mark hotel you would find in another city. The hotel needs to have amenities that are considered standard in the 21st century and obviously they were never considered necessary in the late 1920’s. All of us, not just CAT, will benefit if we have an upper end full service hotel in Peoria.
Additionally, preserving the historic character of the hotel will offer a competitive advantage and I am happy the new owners appreciate this value. With that said, any building no matter what its use has an intrinsic relationship to both the street and to the other buildings in its proximity. This relationship and connectivity eventually builds a city full of life and energy. Buildings do not operate in isolation and the cities that are guided by these principles are the most successful.
You are a real estate agent and you know that subdivisions typically have a set of covenants dictating many aspects of design and what is physically permitted. The reason these guidelines exist is so that residents have some measure of confidence that their subdivision will remain consistent to a vision- they have a certain guarantee if you will. They want these predictabilities to protect their investment- the same principles apply with city development.
City centers need similar protection and yet, last Monday, our city council felt confident they could approve this hotel even though it does not meet the bare minimum of great urban form. It looks more like a 1980’s version of a big suburban hotel- think hotel in- Oakbrook- good for suburban Oakbrook but not for Peoria’s city center.
I can not think of one Chicago hotel with two curb cuts as large as the ones shown in the rendering of this building unless they are in the suburbs. Why is there a need to face the corner at a diagonal and set the building that far back? Additionally the sky bridge is unnecessary and presented with faulty assumptions.
If you were asking people to cross a dangerous stretch of roadway- then perhaps you could justify the construction of the sky bridge. In this case it is a waste of money. I would suggest a city full of life with ample retail would trump a sky bridge in the city attractiveness category. I would guess convention planners would willingly forgo a sky bridge hotel connection if the city is an awesome destination.
Would you rather go to a convention in a dead city (City Council persons recent description of Peoria) with a sky bridge or go to a city with lots of retail, restaurants, and entertainment without sky bridge? The answer is obvious and yet our Civic Center leadership and City Council are confident all we need to attract more convention business is a sky bridge…only time will tell.
To learn more about what makes a city tick- read The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs or read The American City; What Works and What Doesn’t by Yale professor and a past member of the New York Planning Commission, Alexander Garvin. These books are two great works with lots of insight into what really makes cities come alive.
The sky bridge is necessary because 95% of out of town folks could really give a damn about the “new urbanism” that Beth Akeson espouses.
All they care about is getting from their hotel to the civic center without getting wet, cold, or sweating profusely.
Beth’s dream of Peoria does not jibe with the population we have. Not overly educated; too much poverty; certainly not with a large disposabal income. Those that are educated and reasonably well-off, for some reason, want to live and do business as far north of the center of the city as possible- that’s what they WANT.
You cannot create a Beth Akeson Peoria without transposing a large chunk of the population of Peoria. Opportunities have existed in the downtown area for twenty or more years, to try and make it user-friendly, historical, and exciting. It hasn’t happened. Why? Because the vast majority of the population does not want it. That’s Peoria. That’s the way it is, Beth.
And, that’s why a sky bridge has to be part of the equation. Out of town folks don’t give a damn about mingling with mimes any more than our population does. I recommend that you move to Boulder, Colorado or maybe the upper peninsula of Michigan. Those folks get you. Peoria doesn’t.
I don’t want a skywalk either. Mingling w/mimes? And the majority of peorians do not want a user friendly,historical and exciting downtown.I would take that.Saying 95% of out of town folks only care about getting to the civic center without being wet,cold,or sweating could be true.But the skywalk isn’t the answer to the civic centers problems,it only solves the problem for the new hotels guest.If they can figure out how to regulate the temps and who is paying the bill for it.Every hotel that has van or bus service provides free transportation to and from the civic center,or anywhere else in town.That is the #1 way guest get around in any city. I liked what B.Akeson said about public discussion, I feel the taxpayer should have been involved from the start and transparency on any officials who might have a politcal or financial stake in the bldg of this burden.Also I agree w/her that the 5 million,or so,dollars could go to help w/making the downtown area a great place for mimes. Just kiddin. For something to help make the area more exciting. Thats my opinion do I have to move to Boulder too? Good Day.
“I’ll admit I’m not privy to nor overly interested in the details. I guess I’m putting my faith and trust in our elected officials and those they choose to consult with.”
“All they care about is getting from their hotel to the civic center without getting wet, cold, or sweating profusely.”
Somehow, I know these two people are related….
CJ said: Except when you disagree with them, like our elected school board officials, right?
CJ, Wether this is a good or bad thing, I and probably the majority of citizens tend to trust our elected leaders until they give us a good reason not to. I think most will agree that D150 at this point needs significant oversight. This little “gotcha game” although fun for you, is not accurate.
Beth said: Would you rather go to a convention in a dead city (City Council persons recent description of Peoria) with a sky bridge or go to a city with lots of retail, restaurants, and entertainment without sky bridge?
…Classic chicken or the egg question. Apparently the city council disagrees with you. You each have a 50% chance of being right.
I think Bentone makes an interesting argument with a somewhat extreme point of view. Again, it is comendable that Beth would seek a higher standard, but the relevant question is 1. Is it practical? and 2. Is it do-able? If she continues to hold out for that higher standard, how much opportunity may pass us by in the meantime?
Kcdad – I can definately see the connection! Lol!
Diane writes:
I think Bentone makes an interesting argument with a somewhat extreme point of view. Again, it is comendable that Beth would seek a higher standard, but the relevant question is 1. Is it practical? and 2. Is it do-able? If she continues to hold out for that higher standard, how much opportunity may pass us by in the meantime?
Please ask yourself, is what Peoria has done for the past 5, 10, 15, 40 years practical? Mmmm …. no.
Is it do-able? Yes, if we have the guts to stick to the new urbanism plan.
Is it do-able? If we continue to have no consistent vision or plan and hopscotch from one idea to another as our vision is that do-able? Another Yes.
Pick your yes.
Let’s review all the opportunity we have have already embraced. Restaurants on stilts, parking decks, the Gateway Building, the Riverplex (city’s portion), the ball stadium, One Technology, Civic Center Expansion — did I miss anything — did these projects pan out as promised? Mmmmm ….. no.
Who has been left holding the bills — the taxpayer? Mmmm…..YES! 🙁
There will always be opportunities. The usual political Friday to Tuesday Blitzkrieg was actually shortened by one day for this wonderful hotel development.
Was this the right (correct) process
for the right(correct)reasons
for the right correct) project?
Mmmmmm….. no on all three counts.
So, I would agree to disagree with you Diane, that citizens have a lot of trust in their elected officials. I feel and think that the apathy, why bother they are going to do what they want to do anything mantra and “You can’t fight city hall” mindset is becoming more deeply ingrained. People were already tired and stressed about life and expected their elected officials to actually represent them. Now, there is a recession/looming depression and people are using their energies to keep their lives and families together.
If you read the books which Beth recommended, you would see what can become. And if we never set higher standards AND ACTUALLY STICK TO THE PLAN WITH ALL THE BUMPS OVER THE LONG HAUL, we would actually get somewhere. When you engage the public and then actually carry out that engagement, real energy is created and utilized to make amazing outcomes occur.
For example,in the 90’s, when I was opposing the Riverplex, I brought up the looming CSO problem. I was given the usual pat on the head and told to sit down and be quiet. Hum, now more than 10 years later, the CSO problem can no longer be ignored coupled with the increased cost by putting one’s head in the sand for a decade or more. Meanwhile, our ‘trusted’ elected officials have spent our tax dollars on the dessert projects listed above — and drained taxpayer’s dollars.
Now, let’s add in the other taxpayer funded projects —- the Riverplex (PPD portion), zoo expansion, new schools, library rehab and expansion, add in the proposed museum to nowhere, and we are in a world of economic pain. Meanwhile, how are families to meet their own basic economic needs let alone the looming tax bill for the above projects? It will not matter whether you own or rent as the cost will be passed onto renters too.
And to the county board — please do not ask us to spend our tax dollars on a mess of pottage — the museum to nowhere. If there is to be a referendum, please have the integrity to ask for the museum to nowhere without coupling it with any other public service or public issue.
The mess we are in, will not be solved overnight nor by burying our heads in the sand. Our elected officials spent a pile of taxpayer dollars and used charettes to engage the public for new urbanism. Now, we need to continue with that plan to be successful.
Bentone,
Just to set the record straight this is not “my” vision for the city of Peoria. What I describe is the vision articulated by hundreds of Peorians who came together in 2002 and voiced their desire for Peoria’s future. They let the DPZ team know what they loved about Peoria, what we needed to change and described the very frustration I hear in your comments. Many of the participants were from the social conditions you mention. This exchange of ideas was eventually distributed as the Heart of Peoria plan.
The recommendations in the plan benefit everyone, but they actually foster a higher level of value to people who are poor, young, or elderly. The very people you say this does not “jibe” with are the ones we must do this for. If we fail to do so we will continue to have problems. Just take a day and try to do everything you need to do without using your car. You will find yourself physically spent and most likely angry and humiliated.
Assuming everyone has a car, or has access to a car produces a city with Peoria’s troubles and it becomes a viscous circle. Curb cuts, pedestrian bridges, wide streets, drive thrus and city buildings required to have attached parking garages are great if you never expect or need to walk on city streets.
Two internationally acclaimed transportation and livable cities experts, were asked by the World Bank in 1999 to study 32 global cities to help the World Bank determine what type of infrastructure investment would be wise for years to come.
The study concluded among other things that there is an inverse relationship between the vitality of the city and the number of parking spaces a city provides in its central business district. Take a guess where Peoria is on this scale. Yes, we have more parking spaces in our downtown area than people who work downtown. The ideal ratio is 200/1000.
New York City on the other hand has 75 spaces for every 1000 people. New York has their fair share of poor people, uneducated people, young people, old people, working class people and wealthy people. The city has done a good job of designing the city knowing not everyone has a car or wants a car. Automobiles are just so expensive to buy and maintain that if you are just starting out or fall on hard times it is better to not need a car just to survive. Cities that minimize the need for automobile dependence are more compact and provide more transportation choices. Well designed cities are more livable and successful. People who want to work can work regardless of whether they own a car.
The Heart of Peoria Plan suggests we can change our city over time once we recognize there consequences of designing only for the auto. More of us need to understand that great cites just don’t happen because of luck or because their residents are better educated or have more money. Cities become great places because they are designed to serve all users equally well. They do attract highly educated and wealthy people- but isn’t that a good thing?
You mention other cities that have done this- Peoria can too.
In my previous post I mention Jane Jacob’s book The Death and Life of Great American Cities. This book is required reading at many US colleges and universities in one discipline or another. Perhaps you would consider reading her book and then let me know if you still believe Peoria should stay on this auto centric course.
I do not think the answer is to move away- I would prefer to work on finding solutions and gathering support for the ideas in the Heart of Peoria Plan.
As I sit here working on my Christmas cards, I am overcome by a giggling fit imagining Beth, CJ, Merle, Billy and Karrie all sitting on the city council together. No offense… all in good fun.. but OMG I can’t stop laughing! Oh, and how can I forget Gary Sandberg? Lol!
A little more history on Marriott International. (Mar) On 5/5/08, MAR stock was trading at $35 dollars. Then profits started dropping and today it closed at $18. So investors have lost half the worth of the stock if they were to sell as one insider just did.
Some insider selling is going on, no buying, one officer sold 1,500,000 shares of stock at $19.12.
Sizeable block of insider selling is usually taken as a sign that the stock is going to decline or in the case of MAR, already has declined rapidly. Especially if there are several sellers. If the economy stays in a recession, expect less building except for priority projects. Expect more people swhopping at Walmart type hotels and motels. The downtown hotel could be an asset. It could also be a liability. If it were all privately funded except for street infrastructure, etc., I would be a supporter. See my blog site
Beth, this is your vision for Peoria. No matter what spin you put on it, it is YOUR vision. The vast majority of the people don’t agree with it. That might be sad (and I think it is to a degree), but those are the facts.
Virtually everyone on this blog blames the City and its elected officials for the lack of the Beth Akeson Peoria. They are not to blame. The private sector people have not invested extensively into downtown, the bluffs, or into the Beth Akeson model, because frankly, there is no market for it.
You can keep dressing the pig up like Sarah Palin wanted to do, but in the end, the pig is named “Peoria,” and it is still just a pig.
Many people like the pig just as it is. Many more don’t give a damn one way or another. But, because it takes interest, money, and education to create the Beth Akeson model of Peoria, it cannot happen. Not at our trough, anyhow.
Diane: Ha ha — that is funny! That would make six of us — a voting block who would stick to the Heart of Peoria Plan and Vision created by the citizens. Maybe we would be known as the ‘Markopolos Six’! 🙂 Still laughing!?? 🙂
bentone: — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
“Treat a man as he is and he will remain as he is. Treat a man as he can and should be, and he will become as he can and should be.”
or
“Treat people as if they were what they ought to be, and you help them to become what they are capable of becoming.”
As a man thinketh so he is…. (or woman, or child).
Same old same old gets the same old same old.
Elected officials seemingly have money for developer welfare, vision creation, but not for vision implementation, even during economic downturns.
We understand that the Heart of Peoria Plan vision is not “bentone’s” vision. Nevertheless, there were many people at the Charettes where it was their vision too,including Beth.
Bentone,
Ok, so let’s let Peoria go to hell in a hand basket. I’ll give up and we can call it a day. Never- as long as I live in Peoria and my children call this place home I will work to make it a better place for everyone- not for just a few – but for everyone.
You see I get no pleasure is sucking the city coffers dry and flying off to a warmer climate and reaping the benefits on the backs of hard working people. We are here for a lifetime and it is for that reason I can not sit back and watch bad decision after bad decision affect our future.
Beth I guess were not moving to Boulder?
Many people like the pig just as it is.
Oink, oink.
Beth Akeson and Karrie Alms: You are fighting a losing battle. Why? Because those who choose to live in the central part of the city; those who choose to shop in the central part of the city; the vast majority of them do not care if you put together the Beth Akeson and Karrie Alms Peoria or not.
Those who might find some interest in what you’d like to see, have already chosen to move to Morton; East Peoria; Metamora; Dunlap; and way out north; and they choose not to come to the central part of the city for most any reason.
I guess that I sort of admire your tenacity, but you are not only barking up the wrong tree- you’re in the wrong forest.
To have what you two would like (and all of the others who went to the “charrette” or however you spell it), you need a population that is: well educated; somewhat eclectic; lots of singles in the 25-35 age bracket; sense of adventure; a good deal of disposable income.
That doesn’t describe the majority of Peoria. And, it doesn’t even describe the majority of the former Peorians who have moved away, but still live in the Tri-County area.
The private sector has not stepped up to do all of this because, for the last time, THERE IS NO MARKET FOR IT HERE.
There have been spots of it now and then downtown: Main Street looks relatively decent and eclectic in areas; some former warehouses have been fixed up for living and shopping in; but, by and large, there has not been the expansion of this sort of Peoria that many of us thought might begin, back in the early 90s or so. Why? Because THERE IS NO MARKET FOR IT, except for a very few.
That being said, I don’t know that Peoria is going to “hell in a hand basket,” if it’s left to go as it is. That might be your definition of “hell,” Beth, but it isn’t mine. I find it interesting that if Peoria doesn’t turn out to be Beth Akeson’s and Karrie Alms’ Peoria, then it might as well be called “Hell.”
“bentone” says about the Heart of Peoria Plan, “The vast majority of the people don’t agree with it.” And about downtown residential opportunities, “bentone” says, “There is no market for it.”
Those assertions are not rooted in any facts or objective evidence. Tracy Cross, a market research firm, just did a study here in February of this year that found that there is, in fact, a market for downtown residential units.
As for the Heart of Peoria Plan, Beth is right — it is “the vision articulated by hundreds of Peorians who came together in 2002 and voiced their desire for Peoria’s future.” You can ignore the facts and continue to say it’s only Beth’s and Karrie’s plan, but that doesn’t make it true.
You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If you’re going to continue to assert that there’s no market downtown and that a “vast majority” of Peorians are against the plan, please provide your market studies and surveys to prove your assertion.
Perhaps a study of the Peoria Heights, Prospect Ave business district could give us some insights as to the desireability and demand for the “Beth Akeson” Peoria.
Can I be agreeing with bentone? I think I am. The emphasis here does seem to be dressing up the pig. There are much more fundamental problems here that need to be addressed before we start handing out green sunglasses to all the visitors to our “emerald city”.
bentone: Is your name ben tone or bent one or something else? If it is the middle one, then perhaps you are bent on marginalizing the Heart of Peoria Plan by labeling it the Beth and Karrie Plan? If yes, that technique does not work well with tenacious persons.
As I recall, it was the City of Peoria who commissioned at least two ‘consultants’ to come up with a plan for Peoria and these two consultants came up with virtually the same plan. Just because the various city councils do not have the ‘tenacity’ to rock the status quo of their buddies for the long term well-being of our community does not mean that we should not do it.
You can keep telling us that we are wrong and it will never happen, nevertheless, it is our agency to continue to advocate for what we know and feel would ensure a healthy future of Peoira. I would rather follow in the footsteps of Markopolus. If the SEC had only listened to him in 1999, or even 2005, then the Madoff debacle would have been halted much earlier.
As for Peoria, what many advocates has stated for years has come to pass because of poor policy decisions. An ostrich can stick its head in the sand and ignore what is going on around it. At the end of the day, the ostrich still has its head in the sand and the citizens and long term health of our city are the losers. You can ignore the facts, it does not make it true as CJ already stated.
Let’s just agree to disagree.
C.J. and the rest, I can say that there is no market for what you think Peoria can be, because it has not happened yet. It will not happen. The seeds were planted years ago with a few of the warehouses, and some of the businesses in downtown, but the public overall was not attracted to it. It did not snowball. You can point to study after study after study; those guys write one up and move on to the next city. If you don’t have the population to put the study into reality, it just is not going to happen.
Many of the folks in Peoria just want decent sidewalks. Stricter code enforcement. Better jobs. Jobs, period. Good schools. These things have to come first. “New Urbanism” won’t bring people in, if it’s not safe to be there at night, and the surrounding population is poor and desperate.
I believe your focus is on the wrong things for Peoria. It will cost millions of dollars to produce the “look” you all want for “New Urbanism.” We don’t have it, and if we did, we should put it into other services. The private sector would be doing all of this stuff already IF, once again, THERE WAS A MARKET FOR IT IN PEORIA. There is not.
We certainly can agree to disagree. A “charrette” (sp) is a good example. Why not just call it a “meeting”? Giving it a French name (or wherever it comes from) only makes it seem more foreign and unattainable for the rest of us just wanting better services. We had all that you say you desire back in the early 60s and before in Peoria. If it was going to work, all of that would have stayed. Why didn’t it? Because the population changed. That population is worse now. Don’t read “racism” into that. That applies to white, black, yellow, red, and all others. I’m talking poverty and lack of education. That’s the Peoria of today. The pig will just eat the lipstick if you put it too close to its mouth. We need to make the pig as clean as it can be, and able to walk safely through where it lives. Everything else will be just gravy. Pigs love gravy.
The “charrette” might work in Paris. Peoria ain’t Paris.
Devils advocate here.
“hundreds of Peorians who came together in 2002”. – – That’s an arguably negligible amount.
And as for the downtown residential units. What? A hundred or so? And for who? Professionals or more subsidized housing?
Hundreds of people make for a very, very small market and an opinion or study not necessarily accurate.
I think Peorians are just tired of being sold a bill of goods by city leaders whose visions never materialize as stated to the population. Remember Southtown? Remember the civic center tax (whatever its title is).
Southtown became a village of subsidized housing. Right? The civic center tax is still with us. So is this garbage tax Ardis was to rid.
If the city leaders could get something right or deliver on their proposals, promises and objectives at least once during one of these decades, maybe people would be more open to the changes proposed by officials and commissions.
kcdad: The fundamental problems are due to poor policy decisions — urban sprawl, developer welfare and lack of public inclusion and trust…… Talk about being in the wrong forest.
The urban sprawl decisions have helped to destabilze and rot the core of our Peoria forest. When will that stop? Mmmmm… that will depend on who is elected to office.
When our representatives make poor decisions, the outcome usually cannot be undone for decades, we are locked into a certain development course. As our policy continues to erode public comment and conducting information gathering in private for more than a year and allow for three days of public scrutiny — there is no relationship of trust developed between citizens and leaders. Apathy results in large swaths except for the tenancious few. Now, the economic downturn has led more people to increase their focus on the imminent task of preserving hearth and family.
Build a school in a place which provides neighborhood stabilization and it can help to be a key component coupled with other components to turning a neighborhood around. Design buildings which compliment each other and synergy results. We need to discontinue our current planning which is akin to Dorothy’s house falling from the sky when each new developer tornado come to town or faulty bureaucratic decision is made in a vacuum. As we continue down the same path which has been championed for the last 40 years or more, we will get more of the same — the core of the forest continues to rot. The sprawl can continue to sprawl and that which was once new will become old in the 5th District and we will not have addressed the underlying issues.
We are accepting mediocrity. We accepting that the way it has always been is the way it should always be. Quaint provencialism. The exclusive public process. The next silver bullet project which does not meet projections. The project approved because we need to have construction jobs (short term-18 months) vs. long term impact to our community, because of connections of developers to the system and so on. Meanwhile the cancer spreads and the patient (city) gets sicker.
Please let me sum that up.
The wrong process ….
for the wrong project ….
for the wrong reasons.
Again, let’s just agree to disagree.
I applaud Beth and others like her that continue working towards, improving Peoria and I hope in time it will work out, but I doubt that it will. I agree with Bentone that, much of the population of Peoria (and surrounding communities) is not that hip and happening of a crowd, and that is born out by the restaurants, shopping, and other services that ultimately succeed in the area. Bentone is spot on, in that you need a much different population to live in the central part of the city in order to create Beth’s vision, than currently exists.
I would much prefer to live in the heart of Peoria, but not is some down trodden neighborhood without convenient services nearby. More importantly, not with the public schools as they currently exist.
I used to dream that District 150 would be a different kind of educational experience, just like Beth dreams about a different neighborhood landscape for Peoria, but like bentone suggests, for that to happen, I need the families that have already chosen a different path, i.e. Morton, Dunlap, Metamora, or private school in Peoria to choose Peoria Public schools. I hate to “give up” but as my children now approach the high schools years and there is no change in sight (in fact Dist. 150 has further declined in the years my children have attended) I cannot wait for change that will never come. I always swore I would never live in a cornfield community but that is likely where I am headed. I just find myself increasinly “frustrated” with Peoria and the lifestyle is offers for its residents.
Frustrated: You and I are on the same page on this issue–I stayed loyal to District 150 for so very long and hoped for change. Now that there are little kids in my life I know that District 150 cannot provide the environment or education that their parents (and I) want for them. The oldest will be opting for Richwoods’ baccalaureate program next year (even though Manual is West Peoria’s school). So far Whittier is good–hope it continues to be. The prospects for middle school in 150 are not so good.
What a ray of enlightenment one gets when they have a vested interest (other than a paycheck) in the operation of this or any other bureaucracy!
It appears that “bentone” and others have a common misconception about New Urbanism. They seem to think that it’s only concerned about aesthetics — i.e., how the city looks. That’s not it. New Urbanism is primarily concerned with how the city works. The current development pattern of disaggregation of city components and complete dependency upon the automobile is unsustainable. This development pattern leads to all kinds of negative and expensive consequences. It segregates residents by income/economic status; it isolates those who cannot drive for whatever reasons (the very young, the poor, the elderly, some of the disabled, etc.); it causes inefficiencies in public transit and public works as they try to serve a large but sparsely populated geographic area (the population of Peoria is not very different now than it was fifty years ago, but the difference is that back then the city was only about 15 square miles, and now it’s over 50 square miles). I could go on and on.
New Urbanism is interested in addressing these problems — which are ultimately city planning issues — through better town planning. It’s not about putting up pretty buildings or marketing to one particular segment of the population.
As far as the public costs that you think are so high — New Urbanism isn’t about the city developing new buildings — that’s left up to the private sector. The city just writes prescriptive codes for the form of development they want to see. The public costs are for infrastructure — those streets and sidewalks that you say need to be fixed anyway. It’s about raising the importance of public spaces.
You asked why, if we had this kind of development in the past, it didn’t continue. The answer is that traditional neighborhood development was outlawed by the passage of Euclidean zoning laws. Cities do not look the way they do today because of a market-driven process. They look the way they do today because that’s the way they legally had to be developed.
We only recently (about a year ago) changed the zoning rules in the Heart of Peoria Plan area. The city didn’t go from traditional town to suburban sprawl overnight — it took decades of development to look the way it does today — and it’s not going to change to “New Urban” development overnight either.
Before you write off the Heart of Peoria Plan, I would suggest you read it first, and do a little research on New Urbanism in general. Our city cannot long survive by continuing to do the same things and expecting a different result.
Wow, CJ, that was mostly brilliant! May I use part of this in my Sociology class?
I do have one correction:”Cities do not look the way they do today because of a market-driven process. They look the way they do today because that’s the way they legally had to be developed.”
This should make note that the city zoning laws ARE market driven. The relevant market happens to be white upper middle class executives and professionals. I suspect the zoning laws do not just appear in a political or socio-economic vacuum.
C.J., that last posting of yours was absolutely bonkers. It’s scary that you think it made sense.
Bentone — Did you ever consider the possibility that the reason you can’t understand what I wrote is because of your own ignorance?
CJ- In all honesty, your last post was difficult to follow and comprehend. Can you give us some examples of what you are talking about?
Let’s see… I understand your post and Diane and bentone don’t… I have a Master’s Degree and teach college… I don’t know… maybe I am all confused.
Diane, I’ll try, since you asked nicely. 🙂
What makes up a city? If you break it down into components, a city is made up of places to live, work, shop, eat, worship, and perform civic functions. For thousands of years, these components had been integrated in cities. Just since about World War II in America, we’ve been disaggregating (separating) them. We now put the residential in a cluster over there, and the retail shops over here, and the office parks in still another place, etc. They’re spread far enough apart that the only way a resident can get from one component to another is by driving. That makes residents of the city dependent on some sort of motor transportation to get around town: car, bus, taxi. I’m arguing that this arrangement is non sustainable or healthy for the city.
The establishment of single-use zoning led to the establishment of monocultural subdivisions. Residential zoning was further subdivided into higher- and lower-density zones. The properties in the lowest-density zones have the largest parcels, and thus are the most expensive. The properties in the highest-density zones are the smallest and the least expensive. Thus, you have the poorer residents living in the heart of the city with the highest density, and the wealthiest residents living in the far north of the city with the lowest density.
If you’re a child and you live in a mixed use neighborhood, you have the ability to walk or bike to the store or to a movie or to the park or any number of city components that would be within walking distance of your home. If you’re a child and you live in a cul-de-sac in a residential subdivision, you can’t go anywhere without your parents driving you there. Your cul-de-sac connects to a collector road that is wide and has higher-speed traffic on it. That collector road connects to an arterial street (like War Memorial Drive) that is a highway with very high-speed traffic and no sidewalks or any amenities for pedestrians or bicyclists. It’s inhospitable for anyone, but certainly children. Even if you were to brave this hostile environment, the nearest commercial zone is a couple miles or more away. Hence, you’re isolated from the city and have no sense of independence. The same thing happens to the elderly. That’s why we build places like Independence Village — a center that puts different components of city life into one building so the aged can have some sense of “independence.” If they lived in a city that was accessible in ways other than the automobile, they could enjoy real independence. And as for the disabled… well, just try getting around this town in a wheelchair.
The miles of streets that have to be maintained, swept, salted, scraped, etc., puts a strain on the public works department. We just got a report not too long ago that it takes six times as long to plow snow on a cul-de-sac than on a through-street. That should give some idea how inefficient that street design is from the standpoint of public infrastructure maintenance.
In order to have adequate public transportation, the buses need to come frequently. But when you’re covering a 50-square-mile city, it would take a large number of buses to accomplish that much frequency — more buses than can be sustained by the ridership. This hurts the poor and car-less the most, of course.
And I didn’t even get into how much energy is wasted (gas, emissions, etc.) by this inefficient design.
Cities have private and public spaces. Public spaces are things like streets, sidewalks, intersections, pocket parks, green space, monuments, civic buildings, etc. Private spaces are private property, of course. All zoning codes regulate private spaces to some extent. They tell the property owner what the single-use for their property will be, like we discussed earlier. They legislate how much parking they need to provide and how far back the building needs to sit on the property.
New Urbanist codes are “prescriptive,” meaning they prescribe how they want the built environment to look — not for mere aesthetic purposes, but for function. The way these principles are applied are different depending on whether an area is urban, suburban, or rural. But to give you an example from an urban standpoint, we want to keep the businesses compact and easily accessible without an automobile, so we want them to come right up to the sidewalk to form a street wall. We want customers who do visit by car to have easy access to them, so we provide parking on the street. Each of these design decisions creates a public space that is comfortable and safe for the pedestrian. People patronizing the store are either on or can see the sidewalk and the street, which provides built-in surveillance against crime. Having the building on one side of the sidewalk and street parking on the other provides the pedistrian with a safe walking path separated from speedy traffic. If the street is designed properly, traffic will travel at slower speeds, as well, further improving the public space. I can give further examples if needed.
Contrast this with single-use zoning and the kind of environment it creates. In single-use zoning, everything is separate, so you need your car to get anywhere. And you need a place to put your car once you get to where you’re going, right? So, the natural outcome of this is that each business has to have its own parking lot. And each lot has to have enough spaces to handle the most cars they would ever have — enough to handle the number of cars they’d have, say, the day after Thanksgiving (“Black Friday”). So now it’s not just a parking lot, it’s a large parking lot that must be maintained and lighted. And every business has to have one. That kind of development has consequences — water runoff becomes a factor, so now we need large water-retention ponds at each business to keep the storm sewers from being overwhelmed. Each of these decisions/requirements gobbles up more land and pushes businesses/strip malls further apart. Each requires more energy — more energy for light and surveillance to make the parking lot safe, more energy to maintain, more energy for people to get to the place to begin with. It increases traffic, which leads to wider, faster arterial roadways, which comes with a high public cost.
Bottom line, New Urbanism is not about putting up pretty buildings. It’s about recognizing that current zoning practices result in inefficient use of land and resources. It’s about trying to find a better way to plan cities so that we get a city that is sustainable and accessible to all residents.