38 thoughts on “Journal Star reveals “wonderful development””

1. Has Gary Mathews stuck it to the city in the past on property development?? Check this!

2.  I am surprised that historic preservations are not up in arms about this plan.  There was a big controversy in the mid-90’s about tearing down a building in the 500 block of Main because of its historical significance.  In the end then owner of Big Al’s Duane Cassano agreed to put up a façade mimicking the original building and in character with the adjacent buildings. The building that Big Al’s is located in and the one on the corner of Main and Monroe are also very old and might possibly eligible for preservation status. 

3. Why raise ALL these fears before the alleged project is fully-revealed before attempting to thwart It? That’s why most developers prefer to keep their plans in confidence until a certain moment. You’re attacking It before ANYTHING happened. Why not, just, be pleased that Someone’s willing to invest in Downtown Peoria? AND, that area of Downtown Peoria has needed, greater, renovation for decades! It’s, mostly, a collection of bars! A glorified strip club, ” nightclubs ” that are mostly dives, and a respectable but small printing business. ANYTHING new and substantial may be the catalyst for further renovations in a long-neglected area of Peoria’s downtown.

   In fairness…. Downtown Peoria has many structures far-less attractive than GEM Terrace (ex: One Technology Plaza, WTVP Studios, the Civic Center expansions, Etc.) I’m not partial to skywalks either. But, I admit that I wouldn’t hesitate to use one during subzero Winters or monsoon-like storms in Peoria…. Not, to mention potential crime and safety factor. Clients can still use traditional sidewalks. And, If You’re concerned about the City of Peoria ” being played ” , remember that It’s the City Council and staff’s responsibility to develop a binding (legal) commitment with the developer(s).

   Gary Matthews, in the past, worked for G. Raymond Becker. So, He knows that (Downtown) Peoria development requires more attention to details than suburbia. No city’s downtown, including Peoria’s, is going to be perfectly developed. But, especially during a recession, Peorians must not continue discouraging willing investors!

4. PEORIA asked, “Why raise ALL these fears before the alleged project is fully-revealed before attempting to thwart It?”

   First of all, I’m not trying to “thwart” the development.  I believe I said that a new hotel would be good for Peoria, assuming it’s a private development.  Secondly, the reason I raise these questions now is that I’ve learned this is the time to raise them — i.e., as early as possible.  Once the plans are revealed, they seldom change.  Consider Bradley’s expansion plans, Methodist’s expansion plans, District 150’s school building designs, etc.  Name any compromises or changes that were made to those plans after they were revealed.  There were none. 

   No, it may do no good to raise the concerns early either, but we know for sure it will do no good to raise them after the fact.  I’m not trying to discourage a willing investor.  I’m trying to encourage a development that will be good for Peoria in the long-term.  Remember that the building will still be here after the current recession is passed.  Let’s not give in to any and every developer’s demands out of desperation.  Desperate development compromises is a big part of why Peoria looks the way it does today.

5. A Cathouse I tell you! We can then become a two Cat city. (it will quickly solve any problems there might be with “adult entertainment” establishments like Big Als.)

6. I know what you are saying about skywalks in general but I don’t think in this case it is a bad thing. There is nothing at street level in the area anyway. It’s not like we are talking putting them up all over town.

   Work with Big Al’s, what other choice does the city have? Al has huge resources to keep the city in court for years if they try and do something to him.

   This is an exciting chance for downtown and Main St.  Come on Peoria, lets not screw it up!

   I am sure the design will compliment the Pere. It won’t look like GEM Terrace. Plus they are talking a major hotel chain and most of the higher end ones have some style.

7. Ok, I’m dense. ‘Splain this to me…

   “The proposed project would include a new hotel bearing a nationally known flag on the same block with the Hotel Pere Marquette, which would be renovated, sources said.”

   I’m pretty sure last time I checked, Big Al’s was in the block just east of the Pere Marquette…so why does he need to move?

8. I am not in favor of Big Al’s moving to Hamilton St, but I think the idea of a skywalk is a good one.  I may improve the chances of having conventions, etc in the city in winter.  That was the case when they put a hotel and skywalk near McCormick Place in Chicago.

9. Pammy — Nope, Big Al’s is west (northwest, to be more precise) of the Pere, on the same block.  The block east (southeast) of the Pere has the Becker building on it. 

10. Don’t you have to have a reason to visit a city before considering a stay in a high end hotel?  Maybe wealthy tourists will come to visit the crater of lost hope and poor decision making located down where Sears used to be.  They could run bus tours from the new hotel!

11. CJ-
    Thank you for a great post.  I agree a pedestrian walkway is not in Peoria’s best interest, especially if you believe commerce is necessary for city vitality.  Here is an article describing the problems cities with skyways have faced and why they are attempting to remove them: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/03/realestate/03tunnel.html
    Today, Peoria has very little pedestrian traffic and a walkway removing visitors from our streets will only exacerbate what is currently a dismal retail environment.  I would urge our city council to ask the developers to consider the elimination of the sky bridge- the developers would save  money and eventually, with more people on the street,  Peoria would see a variety of retail activity return to the city center.   
    I hope the city council is reviewing the Heart of Peoria Plan as they weigh in on this development .

12. CJ,

    You stated…” Consider Bradley’s expansion plans, Methodist’s expansion plans, District 150’s school building designs, etc. Name any compromises or changes that were made to those plans after they were revealed.  There were none.” I agree with Your position about public interest concerning District 150 because it’s supported by public funds. But, I remind You that least two of those private entities (ex: Bradley University and Methodist Medical Center) you mentioned aren’t public entities. Still, YOU would dictate how their private projects should be done? Be honest! I, highly, doubt YOU would accept intrusion into your private transactions. Would You?

    Here’s reality…. No matter how much You or I debate the merits of this hotel deal, the decisions aren’t Ours to make! Do WE own the private properties in the selected (development) area? I don’t. Unless the City Council requests public input, It and the respective business interests will determine the final decisions about architecture, landscaping, or like issues. Our citizens can influence such decision making by  contacting their council representatives and giving input instead of alleging conspiracies, fixes, and ” back room ” deals.

    Believe it or not, I appreciate YOUR passion about Peoria’s appearance! What continuously hurts Peoria’s appearance, however, is the widespread apathy and public support for design standards like Chicago and Seattle. Most Peorians prefer to complain, after the fact, about unattractive developments instead of establish and enforce design commissions as is more or less a process within those cities. Then, holding those within the council or zoning commission to adhere to them. Why not do that instead of ” raising the concerns ” , as you put it, about a project that hasn’t been formally announced?

13. PEORIA:  If you have a design commission and then enforce the design commission how would you be able to intrude on private development for enforcement per your comments above? 

    CJ is talking about public process and public input — if someone submits an application — shouldn’t there be a minimum threshold for all applications which deems them ‘complete’ for appearance at a public hearing?  After all,  one of the purposes of a public hearing is to let the public know what is being proposed?  Or is it another shell game?

    I feel that CJ is stating that we have plans in place, then no enforcement, so he is raising concerns to try to politely redirect the council members — please remember we have a plan and we would like you to enforce the plan — it is a no win situation.  No backbone to adhere to changing the course of development — same old same old is the result regardless of any new fangled plan.  As a city we probably have a tall stack of plans gathering dust which cost hundreds of thousands of more of tax dollars and no implementation or smorgsaboard enforcement.

    Design commission — people did participate in the Charettes — if nothing is to come of their participation —- why invite people, seek public design input, get them excited and energized about a new development direction to then cry wolf yet again?

14. We need another Hotel… why? For the people coming from around the country to see our new museum?

15. PEORIA says:

    I remind You that least two of those private entities (ex: Bradley University and Methodist Medical Center) you mentioned aren’t public entities. Still, YOU would dictate how their private projects should be done? Be honest! I, highly, doubt YOU would accept intrusion into your private transactions. Would You?

    Let’s see, let’s come up with a comparable private transaction.  Say I want to build a new garage.  I can just do it without any concern for how it will affect surrounding properties, right?  Actually, no, I can’t.  The city absolutely “dictate[s]” to me how tall I can build said garage and put other limits on its siting.  I’m only suggesting in Bradley’s case that the city should have insisted that the development be down-scaled at the property line where it abuts the single-family homes of the Arbor District.  As it is, there’s a five-story parking deck right next to two-story homes, which has demonstrably destabilized the neighborhood, turned a number of formerly-owner-occupied homes into rentals, and lowered the quality of life. 

    As for Methodist, my concern is not over their “private” development, but where their development meets the public way — specifically Hamilton Blvd.  There were concerns about their plans for this public space, and those concerns were stifled through threats and intimidation (i.e., “we’re going to take our ball and move to the outskirts of town if you don’t let us do everything we want to do with no exceptions”). 

    PEORIA also said:

    Most Peorians prefer to complain, after the fact, about unattractive developments instead of establish and enforce design commissions as is more or less a process within those cities. Then, holding those within the council or zoning commission to adhere to them. Why not do that instead of ” raising the concerns ” , as you put it, about a project that hasn’t been formally announced?

    I’m on the Heart of Peoria Commission, which was established to advocate for and help implement the Heart of Peoria Plan.  My predecessors on the commission were successful in getting a Land Development Code and four form districts established.  Heart of Peoria commissioners have been dual-appointed to other commissions including Zoning and the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Commission.  I think we’re doing everything we can to hold the city accountable to the design standards, but it’s the City Council that makes the ultimate decisions.  If they’re not willing to stick to the standards, what can we do other than raise our concerns early and often to try to put as much public pressure on them as possible?

16. Karry & CJ,

    (laughter) There’s no further sense in attempting to reason with You because You ONLY want it Your way! Why is nearly EVERY public and private development that occurs within Peoria, somehow, a threat to You?

    First it was Karry’s past AND futile opposition to the new Peoria Zoo, then CJ’s opposition to the new Peoria Public School construction. Now, meddle into Bradley University…. Methodist Medical Center… and the (proposed) new Downtown Hotel affairs? You’re like people that complain about government interference within citizens lives who have no qualms about trespassing into others affairs under the guise of ” public process and public input ” . That’s hypocrisy! Have YOU no Shame?  

17. PEORIA — Thanks for the input.

18. I’ve written this before, but when I was a tradeshow coordinator for a company in Chicago, we could only buy floor space at expo halls that had hotels connected to them.  That is where everybody stayed.  There were a few exceptions, but that was the thought process.

19. PEORIA the problem I have with the whole thing is: Why the secrets?

    Meeting with 2 councilpeople at a time to skirt the open meetings act?  That installs a lot of confidence in a community that has basically been told to “sit back, we know what’s best for this city”.

    I think of that everytime I drive by the black-fenced crater and the crab shack on stilts downtown.

20. Mazr:  Exactly.  Peoria:  See what you will with your glasses — that is your perogative.  Karrie (with an ‘ie’ not a ‘y’) and Sara’s past and successful attempt to influence the public input process which proved to be key to prevent Glen Oak Park from being carved up with a school and other successful endeavors in public input process.  If the idea is so good — just let the process be open — what are you scared of?

    You may love the zoo in an inappropriate location — ask yourself if the adjoining zoning is residential and you need Industrial light, sound and smell standards — if there is not something wrong with the combination of zoning uses…..  Perhaps for you — there isn’t — for myself there is a problem and not to mention the economics that a zoo in Peoria will be a financial drain.  Go back and look at comments I have made over the years — same comments about inclusive public process and not spending taxpayer dollars on bread and circus projects which are best left to the private sector.

    Perhaps we have different views of the list of basic services which government should provide?

    The underlying issue which is sometimes challenging for people to grasp with words — because for some it may only be reflected in feelings — is that the design of the public space and buildins can help to influence people in how they act in the public space.  I am sure there are other people who would be able to better explain what I am trying to convey.  I wish that you could experience what I felt when I was in Moscow in 1982 —- the buildings were large, the political proganda draped from the sides of the buildings evoked feelings of insignificance and the bleakness of the surroundings invoked despair and hopelessness.  While I was in Leningrad and visited older buildings, a palace and such — the design was beautiful and inspiring, evoked feelings of worth and significance.  I am not a grand writer so what I am trying to convey is probably flat.  A mind melt from Spock would be really help at this moment.

    Buildings can be so blah and even ugly — functional yes, but ugly no imagination, no creativity — other areas where one building looks like it has just landed from Dorothy’s cyclone amidst unrelated buildings.  Peoria looks and feels so hodge – podge and as long as we do not set a sure course — it will continue in the same direction.  Change can be difficult.

    Thank you for the dialogue — even though we do not agree — that is what the process should be about to exchange ideas and develop common ground to proceed with an united plan.  🙂

21. Beth: Good link on skyway problems.
    Clayton: Good insight into what convention sight selection committees look for.

    The conventions I’ve attended have had tightly scheduled meetings. A skyway allows quick room access to grab/drop off presentation materials, samples, Riverman giftshop purchases, etc. without tangling with downtown traffic.

22. Let me get this straight… The owner of Big Al’s has offered to move off of Main Street, per the request of our mayor and some (?) members of city council, to make way for the development of down town and people are having a problem with this?

    Would you prefer that Big Al’s stay where it is and no new development take place, because, whether we like it or not, it’s here to stay.

23. ImaSwede — You’re using the same false dichotomy that Billy used.  The problem is not with Big Al’s moving, per se. The problem is with where they’re moving and what ordinances have to be rewritten to make that happen.  The adult use ordinance is there for a reason, yes?  And the only reason Big Al’s is grandfathered in is not because we outlawed strip clubs in Peoria.  It’s because it was located too close to a church.  So now that an opportunity has come up to move Big Al’s, why would we not want it to move someplace that is fully compliant with the adult use ordinance? Why would we deliberately allow it to move someplace that would require us to redefine “grandfathered in” and allow them to still be too close to a church or school or residential district?  I don’t think it’s unreasonable to require them to comply with the existing ordinance.  We make everyone else comply, from Elliott’s to Adrenaline to you-name-it.

24. “So now that an opportunity has come up to move Big Al’s”

    This is the reason you’re so opposed to this situation. CJ, you obviously have an issue with that kind of business which by itself is neither here nor there. However, its seriously clouding your judgement here. What would you say if Al’s decided to say to heck with this we’re staying put and nothing happened?

25. 11Bravo — Clouded my judgment how, exactly?  Has it clouded the fact that there is an adult use ordinance on the books?  Or that the current location of Big Al’s doesn’t conform to that ordinance, but was grandfathered in?  Or that the City would have to change the ordinance to allow Big Al’s to move across the street or to the proposed location on Hamilton Blvd.?  Did I make up any of those facts in my clouded state of mind?

    What about the fact that Gary Sandberg shares my concerns?  He certainly doesn’t “have an issue” with “that kind of business,” —  in fact, he patronizes “that kind of business.”  What’s clouding his judgment?

    And I’m getting a little tired of explaining to everyone that this idea that either Big Al’s moves to 414 NE Hamilton Blvd. or the whole deal falls apart is a false dichotomy. 

26. Ok, let’s talk about false dichotomies. The first being the ordinance, ordinances are made to be mildly flexible which is why the council has the power to change them if they so choose. They aren’t written in stone and sent down from Mount Sinai.

    Next, the skyway. What retail space or even potential retail space would a skyway affect? If I understand the plan for this development the only buildings on the block would be the two hotels, the church, and the parking deck already there.

    Your point about the role of the city in the financing is a good one as is your concern over the design because Mr. Matthews prior developments certainly say much about his aesthetic ability.

27. I do see your point CJ, but it wasn’t Al’s idea to move. I agree, if I would not want to go to church, or any place for that matter, and have to stare at a strip club. Where do you think it should move?

    I am not familiar enough with the zoning of downtown to know, but if I were the owner, I know I would not want to be too far off the beaten path. (no pun intended)

    And since it wasn’t the owner’s idea, nor had he planned to move, I would think the ordinance could be changed somehow for this establishment. I understand that future businesses could use it against the city….

    It seems like a Catch 22.

28. Clayton’s right on.  If you want convention business, which is where the money is, you need a connected hotel.  That’s long been missing in our Civic Center equation.  I’m not sure about the process, but I think the end might justify the means in this case.

    I don’t understand the skywalk argument.  A guy from out of town who gets a room at the convention hotel, likely the “connected” hotel, still needs to eat.  If he wants to go to a bar or a restaurant, he can go to the hotel bar & grill or wander around downtown.  Making him walk from the Civic Center to his hotel isn’t going to give anyone anymore business, and likely will encourage him to stay at a cheaper hotel away from downtown… that is, if we even got said convention business in the first place because they chose a different town with similar meeting spaces with a connected hotel.

29. Done properly, the proposed skyway could be a grand spectacle that becomes a landmark feature.  The argument against such pathways in Beth’s link is when a network of such off-street pathways are created as part of an overall strategy.  There is no risk of that in downtown Peoria.  
    From a business standpoint, offering visitors a choice that offers protection from inclement weather is simply smart and would be an effective marketing tool.    

30. Pull out all the stops and give $$$$$ to anyone that wants it. TIF here TIF there anywhere a TIF, TIF. Do what they want, Heck with the citizens, plans, laws, commisions, standards. Money and citizens don’t matter at all, the heck with property rights Move the titty bar anywhere.  Heck fire move it into the new hotel, no problem. Get your show and a room. Great for travelers. As for East Peoria did they give anything away for GEM Terrace? I think at least the city of East Peoria has a plan and follows it. Big Al’s could move to E.P. They would welcome them with open pocketbooks.

31. Skip the skyway! I say we send all our city money to GM to bail them out before the US government does!

32. One could ask this question:  Would you rather have Big Al’s move to a location more in compliance with the ordinance but still in technical violation and get the new hotel, or have them stay put and get no hotel?  A false dichotomy? Maybe.  Is there a third option? Maybe.  But I assume Al looked at his choices and this one made the most sense.  Maybe there are significant problems with the other places you mention.

    I’m not advocating for the move necessarily, but I do want the hotel development (with a skyway).

33. Just some random notes:

    – The problem may be with the ordinance itself. It was designed to protect residential & suburban areas, but applied to the city as a whole. Adult businesses belong in the downtown area, not at University & Pioneer parkway. Elliott’s was a massive mistake on the city’s part – it belongs downtown and not on the north end.
    – Ordinances are made and remade to suit the needs of the city all the time. At the end of the day they need to be in the best interest of the city. The proposed development is indeed in the interest of the city – there is no NEW adult business resulting from the variance, only an improved downtown.
    – The Civic Center has suffered from the lack of a skywalk connection. Many come into town only to use the convention facilities, and as noted, conventions without such amenities are less desirous. Anyone suggesting that a skywalk would encourage convention goers to stay anywhere other than at the connected hotels has obvisouly never attended very many conventions.
    – Considering what already passes for architecture in this city, I have every confidence that any major construction project will do as well.
    – We don’t know the time table, the capital requirements or investor confidence in this project – to state categorically that moving Big Al’s would not kill the deal is to state a false sense of knowledge. It’s not worth the risk of losing a major development just to defend a poorly developed ordinance which no longer is in the interest of the city or it’s taxpayers.
    – Bringing things into greater compliance is NOT a slippery slope issue (unless, of course, code compliance is the disaster you’re fearing). It levels off into complete compliance with existing codes.
    – The only reason I see for objecting is a desire to use the propsed deal to eliminate Big Al’s. That only works if there’s enough money in the deal for Big Al’s for them to decide to take the cash and retire. But if that’s your goal, go for it.

34. I say we all meet at Big Al’s for lunch and discuss these issues.

35. “I say we all meet at Big Al’s for lunch and discuss these issues.”

    There is a blogger bash coming up in December….

36. Money and big giant titties trump all regulations and ordinances, now that is the America I grew up in. What’s the problem again?

37. I am offended that Raoul Duke had the gall to post the word TITTIES.

38. The skywalk was brought up originally by the past owner of the Holiday Inn City Centre 12years ago and the city wanted nothing to do with it. The plan would have connected the HICC and the Pere via the skywalk to the civic center. The alley beside the federal bldg past Big Al,s to the civic center was the route. Becker did a ruff draft on the proposal. And the new ownerrs of the HICC have not taken a dime from the city on any of the renovations they have done or are currently doing. They have spent over 12 million on renovations over the past 6 years alone. Why is the Pere always considered for public funding everytime they need to remodel or think about additions when no one else is? A new hotel might bring more business to the civic center or the destruction and construction might bring loss of revenue to the civic center and the local hotels. Unless there is more to bring people to the city than the few big events we have like the high school basketball weekends, more hotel rooms would hurt the revenue of all the local hotels. They all have downtime in occupancy,thats just the nature of he business, it’s those times when revenue is tight and that effects the bottom line. The sign out front of name brand hotels is just that, the hotel owners have to conform to that brands standards, if not they loose the name, but ultamately it relys on the individual owners to keep a hotel afloat. They recieve no monetary compensation for the name brand, in fact the owners pay to have that. And Big Al’s is a big attraction for business persons that stay at the downtown hotels. Why the special treatment for the Pere? And if a hotel is connected to the civic center,will they get exclusive reservations rights from the convention bureau? If thats the case then all the area hotels will loose.    

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.