All posts by Beth Akeson

Peoria Public Schools

Guest Editorial: Under the Radar Screen

26 Comments

Editor’s note: This is a guest posting from my friend and fellow commissioner on the Heart of Peoria Commission, Beth Akeson. Please note that the comments you leave on this post will be forwarded to Beth.

Tuesday, I attended a District 150 Building Committee meeting. They reviewed the schematic design of the new Harrison Birth through Eighth Grade Community Learning Center.

It was noticed as a “public” meeting since more than two school board members would be in attendance. The meeting was scheduled to last two hours starting at noon and was located in the Superintendent’s conference room at the administration building. I was the only member of the public in attendance except for a couple of people from a local news station and they left early.

Attending the meeting were members of the building committee; Rachael Parker, Jim Stowell and Debbie Wolfmeyer. Ken Hinton, Guy Cahill, Dave Ryon were there representing the administration. David Walvoord, District 150’s attorney, and Julie Cramer, the school board secretary sat in as well. I have no idea why they were there. David Walvord made no comments and was asked no questions. I did not see Julie Cramer taking notes.

Each person at the table was either a paid administrator, outside paid advisor (attorney and architects) or an elected official. What is the purpose of having a public meeting if the public is not in attendance in significant numbers, unable to watch from home and not able to offer suggestions?

The plan for the new Harrison school is definitely suburban in concept. After the meeting I talked with the local LZT architect, David Henebry, and I asked why the suburban design? He said the area is not urban and never will be. Funny, that is not how it appears if you base urban versus suburban on whether there is a grid pattern of streets. Did they ask the PHA what they are planning or have they read the Heart of Peoria Plan? We need to be building for the future with less dependence on automobiles.

The proposed Harrison Birth through Eight Grade Learning Center is a one story building, set back from the street with on-site parking [see artist’s rendering at the top of this post]. The price of gas is now over $4.00 per gallon and it will climb higher. Childhood obesity and limited auto ownership are prevalent in poor neighborhoods and yet there was no discussion about creating a walkable environment; the plans are totally auto centric. There was no mention of sustainability and LEED certification.

District 150 is planning an unremarkable, factory type school building and the only guiding principle given to the architects seems to be building as inexpensively as possible. The building is suburban and uninspiring. As the presentation went on Ken Hinton asked the architect about a tower depicted in the rendering and the architect responded:

…it represents a feature to give some importance to the entrance, since this is a single story and economical building…

Could it be he was trying to say in a diplomatic way that the building’s envelope is just run of the mill?

After the schematic renderings were presented there were few questions. Jim Stowell asked about “water reclamation” which stumped the architect since reclamation is the “reuse” of the building’s water. Eventually, the architect realized Stowell was asking about storm water runoff management. The architect assured him they would be meeting the city’s requirements

Jim’s question made me think: If he is really concerned about conservation maybe he could investigate how District 150 determined it to be more desirable to build new buildings and not restore and modernize the existing buildings? There are many examples in other cities of older buildings restored with well designed new additions. I have attached a PDF for examples [see below]. The problem with Peoria is we have not had good experience with either.

If the building committee had consulted an architect familiar with school restoration or renovation, as I have, they would have been told that as much as twenty-five percent of the cost of building a new building lies in preparing the site, laying the building’s foundation, and installing utilities. Another twenty-five percent goes toward the building structure—its framing, walls, and roof. With an historic building, you already have those components in place. Wouldn’t that translate into cost savings and conservation?

The citizenry needs to weigh in on this design and the building’s siting. Commenting during the obligatory public hearing will be too late. District 150 officials hand picked people to give programming suggestions and they have not given the public any opportunity to discuss how the building meets the street. If they are worried about too much community push-back then maybe the design deserves the scrutiny. However, if the designs are truly impressive why wouldn’t they want to show the public the renderings at every step? I think the answers are obvious.

Additionally, I do not believe they have anyone in house with design expertise to give necessary guidance.

Harrison’s Budget

Next, they presented the building’s confirmed budget, but the cost estimate will not be determined until it is let out for bid. The architects suggested that the board make a list of what they would be willing to give up in the event of cost overruns.

The architects suggested they could eliminate the health clinic, room partitions, adult education space, and outdoor basketball courts if the bid is over budget.

The group made no decisions and someone suggested the school board’s committee of the whole would have to be included in this decision. There was no mention of asking the public for their opinion and since it will be discussed during a committee of the whole meeting it will not be televised and it will most likely be during the middle of the day.

The real kicker came when the board was told the budget would not provide for interior furniture, technology, phone system, community garden, water playground, and outdoor amphitheater. The budget only covers the hard costs of construction and soft costs of design.

For me, witnessing this meeting was frustrating. I ran for the school board, and since I lost, I do not want to appear as if I am being hypercritical of District 150. I do not want to give heartburn to our volunteer school board. Yet, after today’s meeting someone needs to start asking some questions and raise the level of expectation.

Our school board has to be informed in order to make the best decisions. When the architects opened the floor for discussion only a few basic questions were asked and no comments were made, except for the usual thank you. Guy Cahill ran the meeting and Ken Hinton continued to say over and over again something to the effect of “I will keep quiet,” “I will not talk.” I was puzzled why the superintendent would make such a comment and say it more than once.

No one questioned the design, the layout, or asked for comparables. Unfortunately, the public’s window of opportunity to weigh in is shrinking and decisions are being made by individuals with limited appreciation of the urban planning task at hand. They are missing a major opportunity and the city will suffer the consequences.

Yesterday, I attended the building committee meeting where the plans for Glen Oak School were presented. I am working on a post to summarize that meeting too. Let’s say for now I was equally unimpressed.

Resources for further reading:

Great Schools By Design (Akron Report)
Historic Neighborhood Schools Deliver 21st Century Education
New Schools for Older Neighborhoods
Planning Schools to Fight Obesity
The Case for Renovation
School Design Guidelines
School Siting Handbook

City of Peoria

Guest Editorial: Is Peoria desperate for development?

49 Comments

[Beth Akeson is Vice Chairman of the Heart of Peoria Commission, a former candidate for District 150 School Board, and a friend of mine. She wanted to comment on my recent post about the proposed South Peoria grocery store, and I felt it would actually work better as a Guest Editorial. More people will see it and can comment on it directly this way. –C. J.]

There is more to the visit and if CJ doesn’t mind I would like to add the following…

CJ and I met yesterday for lunch to talk about the Heart of Peoria Commission. In conversation the grocery store topic surfaced and I said Councilman Gulley suggested I visit and talk with Mr. Abud and I suggested maybe we should do it together… CJ agreed and on we went.

During our visit, Mr. Abud told us in addition to the grocery store he had plans for a full scale truck stop (phase three), a Laundromat (phase two) and he told us the grocery store (phase one) was dependent on securing a liquor license. He warned us that if he does not get a liquor license for the grocery store he would be forced to stop his work on the grocery store and move the business to Ohio. He claims it would not make financial sense to continue. Mr. Abud indicated he was currently in negotiations with the city to secure incentives for the truck-stop phase of the project and that he spoke with City Manager Randy Oliver and Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger that morning, at the site, regarding the truck-stop.

I asked Mr. Abud if he could rank the importance of each component of this project and he said the most valuable would be the liquor business followed by diesel gas sales and the grocery business would be last. He mentioned a Laundromat in passing, but CJ and I did not ask for Laundromat details.

Mr. Abud presented some good arguments for why he should be allowed to sell liquor. Many of these arguments CJ has articulated on his blog. Mr. Abud also mentioned a couple of places that currently sell liquor, one that sells beer at very high prices and the other that according to Mr. Abud sells liquor without the required license using a pass code system (what ever that means).

My view, of course, is that the Heart of Peoria Plan should be the guidepost as projects are proposed. Amenities for families living in the Heart of Peoria Plan area should be accessible without needing to own or have access to an automobile. The walk to the grocery store should be nice; in fact, it should be inspiring. All citizens should be able to walk out their front door and feel the world is a wonderful and safe place. Our city’s built environment should convey to each and every one of us, “You matter and we care about you!” That feeling should be felt everywhere in Peoria and yet, I am sad to say, that is not the case.

CJ and I spent more time speaking to Mr. Abud than we planned and I left with conflicted feelings about this deal. I know this area is desperate for a grocery store, but I believe Peoria’s number one problem is that we always appear desperate. We were desperate for riverfront development, desperate for Campus town, desperate for Cub Foods, desperate for…you name it. Could it be that Peoria’s desperation prevents successful long term real population growth and prevents truly quality projects from being developed in the older sections of our city?

As time goes on we have witnessed solid quality businesses moving north and the buildings they once occupied are now housing predatory (my opinion) operations which do nothing to enhance the neighborhood’s quality of life or we see the buildings sit vacant adding to the sense of despair. A truck-stop in this part of town will reinforce the current blighted conditions. Would any of us choose to live next to a truck stop? And if we wouldn’t want that for ourselves why would we knowingly allow this to be developed near Harrison Homes? I asked Mr. Abud if he would want to live near a truck stop and he said no.

Development for development’s sake is not a good idea. My favorite quote is from Winston Churchill who said, “We shape our cities and then they shape us.” Enough said.

City of Peoria

It’s not a “film” if it’s a DVD

5 Comments

There was a big article in the Central Illinois Journal Star’s Cue section yesterday about the Apollo Theater showing several Alfred Hitchcock “films.” However, buyer beware! They’re not really showing the films — they’re showing DVDs.

I went to see “White Christmas” last December at the Apollo and was shocked to find out that they weren’t showing an actual film print of the movie, but rather a DVD (the same one I have at home, as a matter of fact) projected on their screen using a large LCD projector. I felt duped. Here I had paid $5 and trudged downtown to see one of my favorite movies in glorious Technicolor, and instead I see… the DVD on a giant TV screen, essentially. We already solved this problem in our backyard, when I researched how to choose a projector that works in daylight for our kids playdates and picked something out on Amazon.

I’m sorry, that’s not a film. It shouldn’t be billed as a film, and it shouldn’t be listed in the CIJS under the “film” heading. When I go to the theater, I want to see an original film print. If I want to see it on DVD, I’ll go to Blockbuster. I asked the gentleman at the Apollo that night why they don’t show film prints anymore, and he said that most theaters were “going digital.”

First of all, playing a DVD through an LCD projector can hardly be considered “going digital,” as if that’s the technology Lucas is using for “Star Wars.” This is not digital film. Secondly, I don’t know of any theaters around here that are digital (Rave may be an exception — I’m not sure). But one can hardly say that most places are “going digital.” They all still show film prints. Even the Normal Theater in Normal shows film prints, and they’re in the same situation as the Apollo — a restored theater showing old movies, charging $5 a ticket. I saw “The Music Man” in Normal a couple years ago and let me tell you, there is a difference between DVDs and film prints.

Now, I realize that the word “film” can be used to describe the medium (flexible strip of plastic) and/or the motion picture itself. But it’s not fair to hide behind technical definitions like this. The clear connotation of going to a movie theater to see a “film” is the expectation that one will see a film print. Otherwise, one could just as easily set up a 20″ TV in a movie theater and play a VHS tape of “Gone With the Wind” and still say they’re showing a “film.” It’s misleading.

Just to make sure that this was still the state of affairs, I called the Apollo and Normal theaters today and verified their media. Apollo: DVD. Normal: film. The Apollo should stop marketing their presentations as “films” if they’re not going to be using film prints, or at least provide full disclosure.