Besides the double-taxation outrage that was deferred for a month, there were two other notable items passed by the council tonight:
- Boots for parking ticket scofflaws — The council passed the ordinance that would allow an immobilization device (commonly referred to as a “boot”) on a car that has five outstanding, unpaid parking tickets on it. There were two amendments made to the ordinance — one was to allow 48 hours (instead of 24) for the tickets to be paid before impounding the car after the boot is applied; the other was to send notice to scofflaws that their car will be booted if they don’t pay up via certified mail instead of just regular mail.
- Phase II of Riverfront
StonehengeVillage approved — Riverfront Village has not been successful. Every year for the past six years, on average, the city has taken $100,000 from the Central Business District TIF and used it to pay for Riverfront Village losses instead of using it to pay off the bonds of the TIF. That’s $600,000 it’s lost over six years.Nevertheless, based on the City Manager’s projections, the new three-story office building that developer Mike Wisdom wants to erect on the stilted concrete pad will make that deficit disappear. I’ll believe it when I see it. Projections don’t mean much — the original project was supposed to break even, not lose $100,000 per year. We’ll see if these new projections are any more accurate than the last ones.
One thing they’re going to do is apparently build a new pedestrian walkway that will take visitors right down to the new museum square. Considering how much money the museum project hasn’t raised, this walkway could be our own personal “bridge to nowhere.”
Update (3/28): A couple of things about the Riverfront Village project. If I could wave a magic wand, I would get rid of it as it’s currently configured. I’m not philosophically opposed to having development along the riverfront, but I think you should be able to actually see the river and enjoy the river view from said development, that it should be pedestrian-friendly, and it should be aesthetically pleasing. But, considering the monstrosity we know as Riverfront Village is already there and we can’t feasibly tear it down, we should take this lemon and try to make lemonade if we can. Perhaps this “Phase II” is a way to do that.
Regarding the pedestrian walkway, it’s come to my attention that my post made it sound like I was saying it would span Water street and the train tracks — no, no, it doesn’t do that. It’s just that it’s supposed to “connect” (the City’s word) with Museum Square eventually. Essentially what it does is provide access to the concrete pad from the Water Street side so you don’t have to walk around to the river side to get up to the businesses on top. It’s hard to argue that this wouldn’t be an improvement. But the council communication made it sound like the purpose was to poise it for connection with Museum Square, which seemed like a spurious use of city money.
Boots? Buildings? And so it goes…spending our money and the garbage fee goes on.
The boot is a good thing. It was very very effective when I lived in Champaign. It was always a good laugh to see someone get the boot and then watch the owner’s reaction later on.
Pedestrian walkway? What am I missing? Is the traffic on Water Street that bad?
I say tear down the damn cement stilts and lay some sod. Joe’s Crab Shack would probably love to get out of their lease and relocated anyway.
The issue of the new proposed pedestrian walkway is interesting, in part from the perspective that at least some members of the council (and your own comments) indicate that they did not understand what was being proposed. The proposed walkway ends right at the sidewalk on the river side of the train tracks. It does not extend over the sidewalk, over the train tracks and it certainly does not extend over Water Street to connect to Museum Square. There was a rendering of the proposed walkway provided to council members in their packets as well as available online, but apparently some of the couldn’t interpret the drawing. It appears to be intended to provide just another access point to the platform and I suspect would be especially useful in times of flooding when the river side stairs are unaccessable. The height requirements by the railroad for a walkway over the train tracks would make ever extending any type of walkway all the way to Museum Square a very expensive. proposition.
I didn’t mean to imply that it went over the street, only that purpose of the walkway, as stated in the council communication, was to connect with Museum Square:
I guess you could call it “Phase I” of the bridge to nowhere.
I am confused. They are allowing a developer who is currently costing the taxpayers a 100 grand a year put in another similiar building to the debacle which is down there already. I don’t get it and worse, neither do they. Again I say, how about developing a vision for this area and then find developers willing to match it rather than continuing to throw money at developers and let them tell us what should go there. That area has great potential. It could be open space for festivals, art, gatherings etc. which would then draw people to water street restaurants and businesses. Instead it is a concrete parking lot, with another slab of concrete on stilts. We learn nothing from our mistakes….and the definition of insanity is…….
So, the city will boot cars all over downtown and elsewhere? The cars will sit there for 48 hours before impounding? Is that the picture?
Paul: Yes, more developer welfare. It is a waste and perhaps the best thing is to tear it down and start over — how can we reconfigure a concrete jungle to be anything other than that? The river is rising and supposedly we are to prepare for flooding — the 500′ long Riverplex spaceship may flood which took away valuable design space for festivals……where does the insanity stop?
Paul & Karrie — do you really think (a) the city could tear down Riverfront Village and (b) that it would be cost effective to do so? Don’t get me wrong, if it were possible and cost effective, I’d be for it. I just don’t see how it could be.
It was interesting last evening that not a single councilperson brought up the Heart of Peoria Plan or the Heart of Peoria Commission in regard to the Riverfront Village Phase II development proposal. No one asked the developer if this proposal had been reviewed with the HOP/C and no one asked the City Mgr if the HOP/C had submitted an recommendation or even an opinion on the proposal.
You’re not the only person who noticed.
What about some mid-range priced housing downtown? Isn’t it part of new urbanism that things be mixed use? There’s plenty of available office space downtown, but almost no one living there.
Where’s the housing piece of this funky puzzle? Will they never learn?
CJ: What is cost effective about building the wrong type of riverfront configuration and then hopelessly trying for decades to be one of Cinderella’s stepsisters trying to fit her fit into the glass slipper?
Unfortunately COP is on the wrong path and how do we get on the correct path by engaging in the same insane behavior?
What I’m saying is, if the City decided tomorrow that they wanted to tear down the concrete structure, wouldn’t they have to buy out the leases of those tenants who are there now? And wouldn’t there be legal repercussions of breaking their development agreement with Mike Wisdom? How much are we up to now? Then there’s the demolition costs. Then there’s the question of what’s going to go there instead? I guess I don’t see a cost effective way of actually getting rid of the thing that wouldn’t cost way more than allowing a little more development that might make the thing more profitable. If they can lease the office space, and then office workers are already there on the platform, they may be able to finally lease the former Damon’s building to another restaurant and start collecting more sales tax revenue for the city.
I’ll say again, I hate the Riverfront Village. It’s ugly and it should never have been built; very poor design. But now that it’s there, I don’t see how tearing it down is going to be more cost effective for the taxpayers.
The main problem with the site on which Riverfront Village sits is that it was formerly an ugly, asphalt, metered parking lot (Eckwood Park), and is in the flood plain. So anything developed on the site either had to be able to withstand floods or be elevated.
The R.V. design came from the same developer (and his partner) that the Council approved last night for the new office building. Many representations of what R.V. was to become turned out to be misrepresentations. So we are now rewarding that developer?
The Liberty Park site also was ugly and unattractive, but at least CILCO was smart enough to use it as park space. The vision in those days (1988) was that green space would extend all along the riverfront. There also were thoughts of turning the parking lot there into more park space. Alas, however, the city wanted riverfront development in the worst way. And that’s exactly what they (and we) got. I can remember when the 4th of July was a major event and tens of thousands crowded the riverfront, without having to go to a restaurant for a view.
I agree that we are losing money on the riverfront as it is now, but to tear it down will cost even more, but why in the world are we even considering the same developer? This company has already given us a white elephant and we are looking at climbing into bed with them again, for what? We need to do something with the riverfront structures but lets find a different developer who has been successful in other areas of the same type of project. Also remember any thing we do for visitors and residents alike is controlled by ADA and a walkway will have to be ADA compliant and that is very costly. Has anybody ever seen the water in the parking area under the restaurants?
The current “walkway” is not ADA compliant, but it has an elevator nearby. Will another elevator need to be installed?
“Has anybody ever seen the water in the parking area under the restaurants?” If you’re implying that the restaurants and what-have you didn’t need to be built up, I’d disagree. The place floods every couple of years. The water should be lapping right up against it now and a last winter (2005/06) it flooded and froze into a thick sheet of ice.
I’m no more a fan of the deck than anyone else; the riverfront is already screwed up, but I wonder how a three story office building will look. Has anyone seen the drawings, if there are any? I dunno, at the risk of sounding like I’m critical of everything that goes on in this city, I have a bad feeling about this.
People already complain about the obstructed view of the river because of R.V.
What affect will the office building have on river views, other than providing great views for the bldg occupants?
I agree CILCO did a good job with Liberty Park, and didn’t get the credit for it they deserved.
I think the Riverfront Commission members thought the area towards and North of the bridge would be greenway, and therefore the R.V. development area didn’t also need to be converted into green space – right or wrong, that was the reasoning.
SA: There was another group through the Park District of riverfront users (Jay Goldberg, CILCO, WMBD’s fireworks and others) who strongly advised against building on the river side of Water St. That group felt there was plenty of warehouse space that could be rehabbed for commercial purposes. They even researched how grass could be put in using a plastic grid system that would help keep it from being worn down, etc. Unfortuntely the obstructed view contingent won out. It’s ironic that Lakeview currently has a Trompe l’Oeil exhibit. That’s what will be needed on the back of the riverfront buildings so people will know there is a river out there.
Also, had the riverside been left open, the Sears block would have been developed, and likely would have been very marketable. The dsire of many to have shops, living space, and similar mixed uses would have been realized years ago instead of the space sitting as an eyesore for more than 10 years.
Cj,
we have a wonderful natural asset in the river and don’t utilize to the maxium. Now, putting in an office building down there. Is it going to be cost effective? Won’t the police be inundated with the back up on I74 with tourist streaming in to see the riverfront office building? Do they have enough money in the budget for overtime? Perhaps we should build the civic center hotel as rooms will be packed with people coming to visit the new office building…..
Is it cost effective to tear down the existing structures. I don’t know, honestly, I would would also ask is it cost effective NOT to? The area is bleeding now at a $100 grand a year, wheres the break even point? It is not good use of our resources. And, yes, no one asked about the HOP. Why…plans are for elections, not real usage in this town. Interesting when the fear is being stoked that there could be 6 people from the 5th district on the council, yet this vote and the vote for the destruction of the Arbor District a couple of weeks ago clearly shows it matters not from whence they come, what is said, promised touted or otherwise. It boils down to actions and nothing but actions.
And what about the “affordable” riverfront apartments that were coming? That was about three years ago, I think.
The city should do what seems to be a the citizens will. Re-develope that section of the riverfront entirely and correctly. Riverfront village is disliked my many if not a majority of Peorians.
I am sure the new Museum Square will solve all of our problems. I believe the word “retail” should be taken out of any new plans designed for the riverfront. After all, who needs more shops, etc that draw people, revenue etc, downtown?