Today, I’m pleased to be able to share with you pictures I received in digital format (JPG) from Bradley’s new institutional plan. They include aerial views, elevations, and other interesting information. Take a look and tell me what you think (hover over image for description; click to enlarge):
And, just in case you missed it in the last two posts, here’s the intro and key elements in PDF format.
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.
“As long as I’m president, we will not move farther west than Maplewood,” Broski, 61, said in addressing [Arbor District] neighborhood fears that the landlocked school wants to keep expanding that way.”
— August 24, 2006, as reported in the Journal Star
In an e-mail sent to faculty and staff Thursday, David Broski said that he planned to retire in June.
— January 25, 2007, as reported by WEEK.com
That didn’t take long, now did it?
Actually, I have no idea what Bill Dennis dreams about at night — nor do I want to know — but I found this video about Peoria Wireless on YouTube and it immediately made me think of Billy. It’s a project that was done at Bradley University and uploaded to YouTube by our old friend Kevin Reynen, and it presents a utopic vision of what Peoria could be if only we had citywide WiFi:
My wife is an alumnus of Bradley University, so we got an e-mail today announcing that, while Bradley will be keeping the name Braves, they apparently are considering ousting the Bobcat mascot in favor of a new one:
[T]he University is currently considering developing a mascot to accompany the Bradley Braves name. A mascot and associated athletic logo may enable the University to better capilitize on the University’s strategic marketing capabilities.
Bradley President David Broski has appointed a mascot selection committee to solicit ideas for a Bradley Braves mascot from students, faculty, alumni, and the community.
The committee has established two requirements: the new mascot:
- must equally represent both genders and
- must not have any Native American representation. Ideally, the Braves’ mascot would be representative of Bradley University’s and the region’s history or tradition; original (not used by many schools); visually aggressive but not frightening; and compatible with the university’s colors of red and white.
The time has come to ramp up the campaign again for the perfect BU mascot:
Picture credit: Peoria Pundit
Kudos to WHOI for hitting the pavement and actually getting some local reaction immediately instead of just parroting back the news conference on Bradley’s expansion plans.
Carl Bloch, who lives on Cooper and will be looking at a five-story parking deck in his back yard soon, explains what’s happening as a result of Bradley’s covert expansion plans:
Bloch lives on Cooper Street, just a block from where the new sports complex will be built. As the university’s borders expand, Bloch says more families are leaving the area.
“It seems like more and more of these houses are going for rental properties and families are moving out,” said Bloch.
That’s what I mean by Bradley’s actions destabilizing the neighborhood. Stable families move out and the area becomes more transient, and less attractive to stable families. That’s what happens when people don’t know what to expect from their 800-lb. gorilla neighbor to the east.
The funny thing is, I don’t know what Bradley is afraid of — a lot of people are actually quite understanding. They know Bradley needs to expand. They just wish the university would “work with the neighborhood” ahead of time, instead of waiting until the planning is all completed, like they have in fact done.
Not too long ago, there was an unofficial Bradley campus map floating around that showed all the same stuff that was announced officially today. Back then, the map was pooh-poohed as highly speculative. I decided to compare the two maps to see how much they differed, and the answer is — not much! Other than different coloring and legends, the only striking difference is the new arena, highlighted here:
Old “Unofficial” Map
New “Official” Map
Notice the comparative size of the prospective arena. Since the unofficial map was produced, the arena has been made twice as large, unless the old map was showing the current Field House. Thankfully, the parking lot was not doubled in size. None of the artists’ renderings show elevations of these buildings compared to the houses just across the alley. Imagine having a 5-story parking deck in your back yard. Pretty hard to “buffer” a massive structure like that.
The more interesting feature from my point of view is that the Institutional Zoning boundary (blue line) is shown in the old map, but conspicuously absent from the new map. That’s probably wise, considering Bradley hasn’t actually asked for permission from the Zoning Commission or the City Council to expand the boundaries yet. Updating their Institutional Facilities Master Plan, as required by ordinance before they can expand, clearly is not a big concern of theirs.
The funniest line in the whole Journal Star article about this expansion, though, was this zinger: “[Vice President Gary] Anna said the university wants to work with the neigborhood and plans a meeting with them in early September.” I cannot make it through that sentence without laughing my head off every time. Just what, pray tell, is there left to “work with the neighborhood” about? The houses are bought, the plans are made, the money is coming in…. Perhaps the neighbors will get to choose whether they get arbor vitae or a stone wall between them and the parking deck. Whoopee!
Did you hear that Bradley is building a replacement arena for Robertson Field House?
Of course you have. Everybody has.
Well, it’s official now:
The arena would be the new home for BU women’s basketball and volleyball and would also include a weight-training facility for all student-athletes and a dedicated practice gym for men’s basketball.
My wife asked a good question tonight regarding that last item — the “dedicated practice gym for men’s basketball.” Is it going to be on ice?
Every year, one of the excuses given whenever Bradley is losing is that they don’t get to practice at the Civic Center where the hockey floor (ice) is covered with the basketball court, and they’re not used to all of the condensation and slippery surfaces that result.
So, since the school is spending in excess of $100 million, can we expect them to replicate their actual playing surface so they’re prepared for that first icy step on the court and can have a huge advantage over their opponents?
Bradley University first filed an Official Development Plan (ODP) in 1991 when the city created the N1 (Institutional) zoning designation. Since then, it has been amended four times, expanding their institutional boundaries each time, but the balance of the plan is still in effect. The largest addition was the St. James apartments east of campus.
There are several things that are notable about the university’s ODP, which you can read in its entirety by clicking here (1.71M PDF).
NEIGHBORHOOD COLLABORATION
First, there was considerable collaboration between Bradley and the surrounding neighborhoods. An institutional planning committee was established through the West Bluff Council, which included representatives from Bradley-West (Arbor District), Moss-Bradley, and the Uplands neighborhoods, as well as representatives from Bradley University.
This process of collaboration was praised throughout the document, such as these statements:
The Committee frequently acknowledged that the University will not be as prominent an institution, nor will the Neighborhood maintain or improve its character, without cooperation and consideration of the needs of each other.
The University is furthermore committed to continue to exchange information and have open dialogue with Neighborhood representatives which will hopefully lead to further improvements toward resolving quality of life issues.
The document concluded by saying the process “reaffirmed the need for ongoing dialogue between the Neighborhoods and the University.” I wonder at what point the university decided to start stonewalling the neighbors until they’d acquired a critical mass of properties in the area where they wanted to expand?
PARKING UNDER ELMWOOD?
Another fascinating part of the document is their plan to solve Bradley’s long-term parking needs. They hired a consultant to assess the immediate and long-term needs and come up with solutions. The short term solution was to reconfigure existing lots (including widening Elmwood Ave.), lease space from owners of nearby lots, and better utilize on-street spaces within the institutional district. That added 305 spaces by the Fall of 1992. But the long-term solution was really interesting (emphasis mine):
Subject to further specific study and of course financing, the ultimate solution for additional parking supply appears to rest with construction of a parking structure. The proposed structure concept would lie underground from Main Street to Bradley Avenue under what is now Elmwood Avenue. The facility, which would be at least one level underground, would be accessible only from St. James (the campus entranceway). Surface parking would be retained.
In providing this solution, there is the related effect of improving parking to the central campus without encouraging additional neighborhood traffic. The plan would also allow the University to remove campus internal parking on the ODK circle (in front of Bradley Hall). Furthermore, the additional capacity of approximately 600 spaces could allow the University to vacate Fredonia Avenue for use as a pedestrian mall and also alleviate (or eliminate) the need for ancillary lot usage of the St . Mark and Newman Center lots.
Now that’s an ambitious plan, isn’t it? I wonder whatever became of it? I’m going to guess that cost was a major factor. In 1997, Bradley built an above-ground parking deck near the Global Communications Center instead. This provided an additional 690 parking spaces — almost a hundred more than the underground deck plan — and cost $4.5 million to construct.
LONG-TERM BOUNDARIES
The plan, and specifically the boundary of the N1 district, was designed to be “useful” for “at least 20-25 years.” That would be at least until 2011-2016. Now, I realize that no one in 1991 had a crystal ball, and that significant changes could have occurred between 1991 and 2006 that require the plan to be modified. But that begs the question: What has changed? Enrollment hasn’t dramatically increased.
The only thing that’s really changed is that the men’s basketball team gained nationwide recognition this year when they made it to the Sweet Sixteen. The university wants to take this opportunity to attract top-caliber athletes, and the way to do that is to have top-caliber training facilities. That means (to the university) replacing the aging Robertson Memorial Fieldhouse, which began life as a WWII airplane hangar.
But the replacement building will be larger and wipe out what little parking exists, thus the need for a new parking deck. The university wants to put that on the west side of Maplewood, where those big, historic homes stand now.
THE BOTTOM LINE
In the end, I think a lot of controversy and hard feelings could have been averted if the university would have continued their dialog with the neighborhoods instead of quietly buying up homes along Maplewood and keeping their plans a secret. They may have had to compromise — only use half of the frontage along Maplewood, for instance — but would have formed a stronger bond of trust with the surrounding neighbors.
The university’s plans, as far as I can discern them, are pretty modest as far as expansion goes. But they’ve created a climate of suspicion now that won’t be easily overcome. That’s unfortunate.
Only three council members voted in favor of the zoning commission’s recommendation to require a supermajority of the council to expand the boundaries of an institutional district. The general consensus was that the system isn’t broken, so they didn’t want to “fix” it.
One of the council members trotted out the popular notion that there’s no harm being done by Bradley because they’re buying out their neighbors at above-market prices — in some cases, five times the property value. It sounds like they’re a really good neighbor, doesn’t it? Wouldn’t you just love to get a cool half-million for your $100,000 house?
The problem with this reasoning is that it doesn’t take into account the whole neighborhood. Take the example of Bradley University buying the houses along Maplewood across from the Fieldhouse. Yes, the people on Maplewood are getting a great deal, but what about the rest of the Arbor District? What about the properties on Cooper or Rebecca?
The answer is that the neighborhood as a whole is destabilized.
Why? Because who wants to buy in a neighborhood when the university is expanding west and that beautiful historical house on Cooper may be the next to be acquired within a few years? It’s not the family who wants to put down roots in the neighborhood and raise their kids there. It’s someone looking to buy a property for $100,000 and hopefully get $500,000 for it when the university decides it wants it.
And for those neighbors who are already there, how many of them want to put new landscaping around their house? Or put in new windows? Or new siding? Or even a new paint job? If the residents reasonably expect the university to keep moving west, it would be silly to put a lot of capital improvements into their houses.
Speculative purchases. Deferred maintenance. This is what happens when institutions disregard the boundaries of their institutional district.
But the council, judging by the rhetoric of the “nay” voters, thinks everything is hunky-dory with Bradley’s property acquisitions. They’re not interested in taking any action against Bradley’s encroachment into the Arbor District, let alone enacting the modest proposal that came before the council tonight. As far as they’re concerned, Bradley’s doing the neighborhood a favor by disobeying the city’s own ordinance.