I’ve heard the Museum Partners (specifically Jim Richerson) give their presentation on the new museum square site plan with the smaller museum building a couple of times now. One phrase has really stuck with me — the idea that the Water Street side of the museum has a lot of open space so that it can “embrace the river.” Just to show what they mean by “embrace the river,” they have this really nice artist’s rendering they show:
See how the obtuse angle of the building opens up toward the river and the Murray Baker bridge, and all that shimmering, reflective water? There’s just one problem: this is an aerial view. When you’re on the ground, and when the buildings along the riverfront aren’t grayed out and diminished in size, the reality is that you can’t see the river — the open space opens up and embraces riverfront village and the River Station.
I took a walk down Water Street the other day and snapped these photos from the sidewalk right on “museum square”:
The only place where you can kind of see the river is when you’re standing about mid-block, looking between the River Station and Riverfront Village:
Something else to consider is this: Whereas the underground parking deck was hidden in the original plans by the street-level retail shops along Water Street, the new plans have removed the retail element, lowered the elevation of the plaza and exposed the parking deck to the Water Street side. So, in the fourth picture above, for instance, if we were to turn to the left and the museum were built to current specs, we would be looking at a parking deck.
The last council communication on this topic indicated that city staff doesn’t believe the retail portion will ever be built if it isn’t part of Phase I. They were proposing that it be taken out of the museum agreement — in other words, out of the museum partners’ control. Then the city could ensure that project gets built.
The museum folks are reportedly worried about that scenario because they’re afraid the city might allow something to be built that would block the museum’s view of the river. Perhaps they should take a walk down Water Street and see for themselves that the river view is already blocked.
You know, if this museum is a great idea and will bring hundreds of thousands of dollars into Peoria wouldn’t somebody be chomping at the bit to do it with their own money so they can keep the profits?
Yet another project funded by taxpayers which will be an annual loss on the city P&L to keep Gateway and Civic Center company.
I do believe that the museum et al will bring some life to that area of downtown – I really do. I’m happy for a piece of my taxes to go towards it and would donate something if I could.
But the idea about the city taking over the retail portion makes sense. I like it! Makes more sense than the museum partners running it – as an economic venture. Or maybe not the city, but the Chamber of Commerce or the Heartland thingie McConnaghey runs…
Cgiselle12,
Is “some life” downtown still worth $60 million plus dollars? Even giving control of the ‘museum’ to the museum partners is a huge mistake. Track record so far?
It is not going to bring people down there if it is 2 stories tall (only one of which people are allowed on) and closes at 5pm. It will appeal to the same people who already use Lakeview. So we will have spent millions of dollars to create what we already have, classic. These supposed draws are not the draws everyone claims they are. How many times have you been to Davenport IA’s Figge museum, Springfield’s Lincoln museum? You know they are trying to draw you in. If you have been how much did you spend on your trip? Did you spend the night in a hotel? Did you go shopping? No, you went to the museum, had lunch maybe some icecream and then got the heck out of Dodge.
Every little big city in the Midwest is feeling the same pressures as Peoria. It is crazy to read their local blog and think “wow that is just what Peoria wants to do,” or “wow that is what Peoria already did.” It is the same scenario (with each location having a few of its own quirks) playing out everywhere. I am not saying we shouldn’t try, I just think some people need a reality check.
“Every little big city in the Midwest is feeling the same pressures as Peoria. It is crazy to read their local blog and think “wow that is just what Peoria wants to do,” or “wow that is what Peoria already did.””
Yeah, it strikes me as a similar scenario to the whole “gambling as cash cow.” It IS, for the first few counties that do it, because people come in from other counties to gamble. But when everybody has gambling, it becomes an expense rather than a moneymaker, because you don’t get the incoming dollars, the gambling usually gets preferential tax deals, and typically you begin to have drain on local services that deal with gambling addiction and related problems.
If EVERY little-big city in the Midwest is building a regional museum and/or a civic center and/or whatever … there’s not going to be the REGIONAL draw that these projects are counting on to make money.
I don’t know a lot about the economics of this kind of project, but it would seem to me you’d want to ensure it would be LOCALLY self-sufficient (tri-county area, say) rather than depending on it as a regional draw. But then my only comparison is to gambling and maybe other common regional attractions function very differently in terms of regional competition. 🙂
I think the Stilt Village was a big mistake. Get rid of it and open up the Riverfront.
The council just gave the developer the go-ahead to put a three-story office building on the Stilt Village. And the Heartland Partnership is moving into the former Damon’s. It’s here to stay, I’m afraid.
You may not be able to see the river but I bet you can still smell it! 🙂
The blind leading the blind. There is a pill for that. It is called Stupidix. (Side effects; short sidedness and delusions of grandeur.)
“I’m happy for a piece of my taxes to go towards it and would donate something if I could.”
You’d be able to donate towards it if your taxes were lower. But with projects like this, our taxes will only go up.
If the museums is important, people will give and someone will invest–but if it can’t get a private investor and private donors it’s wrong to take money that should go into police salaries into a museum that will almost certainly lose money.
“And the Heartland Partnership is moving into the former Damon’s”
WOOOOHOOO – now THAT will draw people to the riverfront….
James: You are correct. Just wait until the zoo opens……
That would be the Africa Zoo, of which there is already one in the Quad Cities. So much that regional draw too….
I’ll give you credit for trying. I’m hopeful that if you keep writing articles on the Museum Square project, perhaps sometime you’ll be successful and not inlcude any inaccuracies. In this article you state, the most recently released new plans have “lowered the elevation of the plaza”. Now where and how did you get that insightful piece of knowledge? ? ? Certainly not from the architectural drawings that have been made public. I haven’t seen any elevation numbers on any of those drawings that would allow this kind of conclusion. Have you had discussions with the architects or project planners that have given you this insightful information? ? ? I’m willing to bet that the elevation of that plaza is at the same level it was when the original architectural drawings were released in January 2005 and that nothing in this regard has changed. Lots of things have changed, but the floor of the parking garage has to be at a certain level above the 100 year flood level, that for sure hasn’t changed, and unless they lowered the height of the parking garage, I don’t see how the level of the plaza changed. And if Caterpillar is still planning on driving their ugly black VIP vans into the parking garage to drop off their guests, I can’t see how the height of the parking garage has changed. So your insightful conclusion really has me baffled.
Hi, Kat! I haven’t heard from you since you tried to convince me that they hadn’t reduced the size of the museum twice.
Well, I can see now upon rereading that my comments about the lower elevation were unclear. I did not mean at all that the entire plaza had been lowered. On the Washington Street side, it’s still the same. On the Water Street side, however, there are a couple of changes. One is that, as I said, the retail shops were taken away, leaving the parking deck exposed to Water Street. This is clearly visible from the “fly around” on the museum’s website. The lower elevation of the plaza is between the Water Street side of the museum and the parking deck. Richerson specifically said they had “lowered the elevation” of the plaza here to allow for another entrance/exit to the museum. This further exposes the side of the parking deck. The parking deck is set back from Water Street (because the space is still “reserved” for future retail), but clearly visible. And not pretty, despite the trees in the artist’s rendering.
There is a theory I deeply espouse that I feel the need to repeat here – It should not be expected of the arts to be a “moneymaker.” Nor should they have to “earn their keep.” The arts (or historical resources or folklore, as the museum case may be) are not a commercial enterprise, in essence and in reality. Art and cultural or historical artifacts are things that add significant value to life, but very often cannot be used to “make money” or “turn a profit.” But that does not make them useless or NOT worth our time and effort.
This is very much the European mindset – a place where the state sponsors arts and culture institutions and enterprises wholeheartedly and with little question. Their value is intrinsic to the culture, and is not expected to “earn money.” Russians and Asians generally appreciate this theory as well. South America, Canada and Australia too. The US is, in my estimation, the only place on the planet that doesn’t value it.
In our American Capitalistic culture, such a mindset is often forgotten, if people even ever thought about it this way. Americans, in my experience, do not appreciate art, beauty and culture nearly enough. Hence the fact that art and music programs are usually the first thing to go when a school is short on money.
But they are the things, undoubtedly, that make life liveable and enjoyable. Understandable. Examples; which has helped you understand relationships better (honestly) – psychology textbooks or (if you’re like me) 80s teen/brat pack movies, or whatever romantic type movies/shows you’ve seen? Which did you enjoy more as a kid – painting a picture of your dog or reciting your multiplication tables? If you had the choice, would you go see a musician or band play a concert, or would you rather stay at your desk and work? When your family comes into town, do you tour them around the office you work in or do you take them out to Wildlife Prairie Park?
No, I don’t particularly want my taxes to go up – but I’m not so sure they’re well managed in the first place. Might we find other ways to keep our taxes the same AND support cultural endeavors like museums and zoos? Or, since the cost of living has gone up, is it not arguable that taxes must also go up? I’m earning more than I did last year. I’m certainly not rich – I’m struggling honestly, but money is not, and never will be, my priority. I’d rather be able to go to museums and zoos when I’m not working my ass off than to fret over a few more bucks a year in taxes.
Kat,
Maybe all of what has you “baffled” is what has the public feeling the same way. This is more evidence of Museum Partnership either neglecting to keep public well informed [at least], or covering up info [at worst].
Cgiselle12,
I agree with you. Far too many people see this museum simply in terms of economic gain, loss, etc. Museums are not meant to be ‘money makers’. To be sure there is a ‘business’ element involved with running a museum [admin, accounting, payroll…..], but this is internal. The PROBLEM, I feel, should not be centered around museum’s ability to make money, but HOW the money we have is to be spent. Design of building, location, etc is important. What is more important is what funds [or lack-of] will be available for artifact and document preservation? Will this museum be just a place to see neat stuff for school kids [which is important], or a place of scholarship for everyone from pre-schoolers to college students. Lakeview certainly never fit this bill. Doubt new museum will. Same people, same exhibit plan [delta], same old everything. HOW WILL THE MONEY BE SPENT?
Is Peoria’s history getting a back seat?
Posted by C. J. Summers on July 13th, 2007
This post by C.J., again in my opinion, clearly states the REAL problem with this museum plan and it’s organizers.
Thanks New Voice. And yes, like i said, I’m not so sure the funds are being managed well re our taxes. You have some excellent thoughts on fixing the situation.
I don’t want to see the planetarium go away or shrink, though. I don’t think there can be enough planetariums. I love them. Seriously. We have a rather disappointing home planetarium thingie, and it was tragically disappointing for me when we discovered it’s limitations, particularly the impossibility of getting it focused so that planet and star names are legible.