I was given an artist’s rendering of the “Main Street Commons” project being proposed by Devonshire Group. This is the project that can supposedly only happen if District 150 gives the developers their share of the property taxes for five years. It is proposed to be built at the corner of Main and Bourland. Here’s what that corner looks like now:
That’s a vacant Walgreen’s and a parking lot. If you were to turn the camera to the right, you’d see McDonald’s. Here’s what Devonshire Group is proposing to put there instead:
Sorry about the quality of the picture; all I have is a photocopy. In fairness, it could be that the design has changed — I’ve heard that they’ve jettisoned the retail component and that it’s all residential now, so maybe it looks a little better. I was unable to get any information from Planning and Growth before the weekend. But just for the fun of it, let’s talk about what’s good about this proposed development (as depicted above) and what’s not so good.
The Good
- It’s built right up to the sidewalk. That’s good. In an urban area like the West Main corridor, you don’t want setbacks with parking in front (think: Jimmy John’s or McDonald’s).
- It has good vertical mass. It’s not a one-story building (think: Jimmy John’s or McDonald’s again). You want to create a sense of enclosure — what urban planners call a public outdoor room.
- It has lots of windows. Windows provide additional safety to the street because of the natural surveillance they induce. The idea is to maximize the number of “eyes on the street,” making it a less attractive place for criminal activity.
The Not-So-Good
- There are no entry doors on Main or Bourland. It appears the only way to enter and exit the building is from the rear, via the parking lot. This is bad for a few reasons. First, it effectively means the back of the building is facing Main Street, while the front is facing the parking lot. This is not the way to re-energize Main Street. Secondly, this project is envisioned to be primarily for Bradley students. Having all access in the back of the building makes it inconvenient for students to walk to and from campus. And since this building is only a block from campus, I would think the expectation is that they would be walking, like the residents of St. James Apartments do. Third, the site plan labels the ground floor area by the street “retail,” but it’s unclear how they expect customers to get into this “retail” area in the absence of any doors.
- The street-level facade has all the charm of a mini-storage facility. Seriously. Imagine yourself walking by this development. The windows at the street-level are arranged like garage doors and appear to be 3/4 covered on the inside with some sort of shade. So now they become the equivalent of walking by a blank wall. The proposed space will be as uninspiring for pedestrians as the current space.
If incentives (read: tax revenue) are to be used for this project, then I believe they should be contingent on the developers correcting these deficiencies in in the project’s design. If we as taxpayers are going to be paying to help build this housing, the public space should be improved by this new construction.
As for District 150’s involvement, I think it would be rather risky. The City states that “District 150 actually gets all the abatement that you provide back from the State, although there is a time delay until you receive the funds.” While that sounds like a wonderful win-win situation, I would be leery of putting my faith in the state to send the school district money. Just this past March 11, the Journal Star reported:
[What has] district officials on edge is whether they will receive the last two quarterly payments in categorical state aid, some $7.6 million. [Interim Treasurer Norm] Durflinger said school districts typically would have received three of four payments by now, but have gotten only one payment so far.
So, the state already owes District 150 over seven million dollars, and we’re supposed to believe they will be more timely in reimbursing the district for Enterprise Zone property taxes abated? Sounds like wishful thinking to me.
UPDATE: I did hear back from Director Landes in the City’s Planning and Growth Department:
We have seen several conceptual plans for the Main Street Commons, and the most recent plan and elevations were shared with neighbors last week for comment before plans are finalized and filed.
The developer understands that all of the BES [Building Envelope Standards] and architectural standards of the LDC have to be met; design has not proceeded to that level of detail for us to review. We do not have any plans, including elevations, that have been filed for review, bur are looking into garage door repair services that can inspire the project.
“I would think the expectation is that they would be walking” Yeah… quite a few of those St. James students drive and park on campus, just like they do from our neighborhood. It’s silly and exasperates the parking issues Bradley imagines itself to have. But hey that’s a different issue.
Back to the building. I think the original concept envisioned resident parking being placed underneath in a garage with the retail parking in the rear. It has been jettisoned over security concerns and cost. All parking is now open air and in the rear. Normal and especially Champaign have many apartment buildings with parking underneath in a garage. Whatever concerns there may be with security have been dealt with many times in these two college towns.
Being slightly familiar with this property there is not enough parking room for what looks to be quite a few apartments. I believe the city has specific concerns and laws about how many spaces must be alloted to each apartment. Being between McDonald’s and Jimmy John’s is a bonus for them. But traffic entering and exiting McDonald’s could be a problem with traffic entering and exiting the apartment building. I can see the left and right turn congestion off of Main St. on to Bourland. I would certainly love to see this property developed properly but I have my doubts about this particular type of development.
What is 150’s interest? Do they own the property? IF so, why? Was there a school there at one time?
Entrance is to the rear parking lot and not Main? That only encourages students to get in their car and drive the one block to campus. How utterly stupid.
CJ: I think you had some ‘critical thinking’ Wheaties for breakfast! Another great post!
One would think that because of circumstances there is no way District 150 would agree. But I have seen stupider decisions out of elected officials. Remember how the Peoria City Council claimed that a vacant lot out by the Willow Knolls shopping center was a depressed urban area for the nice guy owner of a pizza parlor could get tax breaks? Yeah, that kind of stupid.
How could it pass the Form District rules if it didn’t have any doors on Main? Do you know there are no doors, or are you just speculating from the photo?
Sud — I don’t know how it could pass the form district rules, and yes, I’m speculating based on the artist’s rendering. I thought I made that clear in my original post — I said the design may have changed, but that it would be a good exercise to evaluate the rendering anyway.
For what it’s worth, this was the rendering that was sent by the City to District 150 with a letter asking them to join the Enterprise Zone. Also, I e-mailed Pat Landes on Friday to verify whether these plans are the most up-to-date. I haven’t received a response yet, but will probably get one next week.
Is there any chance that those two narrower glassed areas (divided in half) are doors, not windows? If they are doors, does that mean there is space for just two retailers? I have the same questions about this development that I had about the proposed housing for Bradley students in West Peoria. Who will maintain these buildings? Bradley has control over the dorms, maintains the dorms, and checks on damage, etc. Who will do that for these buildings? Just look around at all the apartment buildings that were built twenty to thirty years ago–they look rather shabby now. Also, there certainly would be increased traffic in this area. I know the developer for West Peoria said that students generally don’t have cars. I wonder–would the ones with cars live on campus or in this housing on Main Street?
Sorry, I guess you did say you were speculating. I’m curious: What (in your mind) would be better — first floor retail with windows that look like garage doors or first floor residential that would be more appealing but less active.
As for Mahnko’s suggestion on underground parking, my guess is that he has never built anything or taken out a business loan. Should we force developers to spend an extra $1M or 2. How long would you like to see that parcel vacant? Parking in the rear is quite acceptable to me, but I do hope the first floor is active retail (with doors).
Why does it have to be an either/or? If it’s designed well, it will be both appealing and active.
when are we going to stop giving some developers special treatment? Every property owner should be treated the same. (it’s called equal protection of the law, by the way).
If this group doesn’t like the rules everybody else plays by, then send them packing or change them for everybody.
I think that building would better served if they kept the retail on the 1st floor.
The people upstairs would be customers and would bring more people to that area.
Well, it has to be either/or — it can only be either residential OR commercial on the first floor. In your new urbanist thinking, is first floor residential a good idea? Would you sacrifice a bit in ascetics for activity. Mind you, it is not YOUR property. I assume that whatever code that is in place for Main Street says something about windows. Maybe these “garage door” windows are legit (or maybe they don’t exist at all, and it is just you speculating). We can only go so far in legislating taste. Unless you would like to turn this into KCDAD’s blog…
I understand the developer states that its’ study shows there is a demand for such student apartment accommodations but, how is this a great location for student housing? As a parent, I would much prefer a less commerical area for my child to reside. There is a lot of noise, traffic, congestion on Main Street. This location does not feel as a safe as a place more adjacent to Bradley.
Sud, the underground parking wasn’t my idea, it was the developer’s. I have pointed out that underground parking is quite common around the U of I campus and increasingly common around ISU. Clearly it can be done, it can work, and someone is making money off it. Instead of an enlarged parking lot, you could put some green space in the back so that tenants could have an outdoor BBQ if they liked. That would make the the place much more attractive.
Sud — Sorry, I misread your question. I would prefer retail on the first floor and residential above. I don’t believe, however, that having retail automatically means it has to look less appealing. Ground-floor retail can look lovely if it’s well-designed.
The current project as it is being proposed and as depicted in that drawing includes both first floor retail and enclosed ground level parking. There is no open air street level parking. The main floor once again has retail! So before everyone keeps ranting about that issue the current plan includes both enclosed first floor parking and retail. There are doors entering the building from main street so everyone can stop worrying about that. There will be a large amount of green space behind the buildings instead of an open air ground level parking lot. The issue with underground parking is that the premium cost of real estate around U of I makes it cost effective. In Peoria why spend the money to construct an expensive underground deck when you can just buy the lots around the building, however this dosnt matter because as stated above the parking is located on the ground floor level of the building with a small amount of auxilary parking on the street and on an adjacent property behind McDonalds. I would encourage CJ Summers to actually contact the developer before you continue to post on this topic. You would find that your posts would be more informative if you actually had the facts and weren’t basing your posts on speculation.
Bam!
Why would the developer pay $1.4MM for the property last year and then turn around and ask the city and school district for tax incentives, saying that they are vital to the project happening?
If they can’t make the project happen without support for an already financially strapped city and school district, they never should have made the investment in the first place. It seems it’s become too commonplace for ANY development to ask for, and get, tax incentives. There’s essentially a fixed amount of money needed to run a city or school district – if someone isn’t paying their fair share, everybody else has to make up the difference in higher taxes.
Jon: Seems like a logical conclusion–but when did logic have anything to do with it?
If you look at the tax information for stated lot the developer paid 1.4 M. With that said I believe that the developer is asking for the tax incentive because it is available. Many developers, businesses etc…. take advantage of INCENTIVES such as the tif because thats what they are there for; to encourage development. The option if this project is stopped is that no development happens and 150 continues to collect taxes on a vacant building. The arguement that district 150 is run on a “budget” and is “cash strapped” is rediculous. The reason that district 150 is in the trouble it is in is largely due to gross misspending, poor management, over staffing and running more facilities then are needed for the student body. When district 150 is prepared to start running like a business and not like a publicly supported charity I will begin to show concern for its funding. I think that this developer knows what its doing and has been to this rodeo before and will continue the project with or without public funds.
Bam!
Olive, glad to hear they’re planning to have retail and enclosed ground-floor parking. That’s good news!
As for the incentives, yes, they’re taking advantage of incentives that currently exist, which is all well and good. But then they’re also asking for additional incentives, viz., enterprise zone status and the inclusion of District 150 in the enterprise zone.
Peoria’s economic development website (link on the left) has some quite compelling arguments for this development. Nonetheless, I still have one major concern about this particular project.
Yes, Olive, there is no problem with the developer in asking for a tax incentive that is available. However, District 150 does NOT and apparently never has participated in the enterprise zone/TIF, which I am quite sure the developer knew as it has been to this rodeo before. Clearly, the developer and city did some homework on this project, noting that rents should be around $1/sf. So, if this developer expects us to take its claim at face value that District 150’s involvement in the tax incentives is critical to this project going forward, given the chance 150 says “no”, why would the developer have already shelled out $1.4MM (as well as much planning)? If the property can not be developed without NEW tax incentives it is clearly NOT worth that much money.
Yes, the developer is taking a chance that it cannot lease all of the building once completed. If the development is successful, and we give additional tax incentives to develop the property to keep the end result at $1/sf, then we are essentially subsidizing those renting the property. With all of the needs in this community, subsidizing housing for Bradley students is hardly at the top of our list.
Yes, there is a strong arguement that, because the school district’s tax incentives are paid by the State, the district actually stands to gain in this. But as state income tax payers we are still footing that bill. When people complain about items like “the bridge to nowhere”, it is because of the inherent inequity in treatment. What is wrong is wrong. Greed is greed.
The fact of the matter is that obviously this developer thought
A. It would be able to convince 150 that it should be involved by joining the tif. (Which is what I think is going to happen. I mean what is 150’s other option; collect money on a vacant lot and halt a development the city wants? Hmmm I wonder how politics work? I wonder if there is any connection between 150 and city hall? Think “you scratch my back Ill scratch yours.”)
B. The developer is capable of developing without the involvement of 150 in the tif but is trying to save cost wherever possible. Think why not ask mentality.
C. This developer made a critical error by purchasing this lot for 1.4m and dumped thousands more into development and research. Deveonshire had no back up plan and was banking this entire development and all the costs of it into the chance that 150 would comply.
Something tells me that option C is not the case.
You can look at this project as a potential bridge to nowhere or you can look at it as an investment into the city that you live in. Without development like this many of the older neighborhoods will continue to fall into decline and that blight will continue to envelope more neighborhoods. This bridge to nowhere creates a 24m dollar development in the heart of the city that will raise property values encourage positive business growth and redevelopment a dead main street. Does that bridge really lead to nowhere?
Olive, no one suggested C was the case, and A is probably what will happen, though the argument remains that it should be B. Yes, there are benefits with the development (again, no one said THIS is a bridge to nowhere), but it still remains that this development will thus be a subsidy to the presumptive Bradley students who will rent the property as well as benefitting the previous owner of the property with a higher value of $1.4MM on a property that has sat vacant for many years. Many will make that trade. I say call the bluff (or reneg on the deal if one was already made), because this developer can and will do this regardless.
What it boils down to is that the developer is simply asking for incentives that are available because of the short sightless of our elected representatives which are responsible for the Ren-Park district. I can not blame the developer at all for asking and wanting those incentives. Now, people are saying that if this is such a good idea, then the developer shouldn’t go after these incentives put in front of them by, again, our elected representatives. We get what we elect and we seem to like it because they get re-elected. Frankly, anything is better than a rotting empty building and I could care less whether they have retail, park in the back or on the roof. The representation of that district is that district’s own fault.
Hi all:
The picture CJ has is outdated, and I’ve met with the developer several times at this point (through neighborhood association–the development is in my neighborhood).
First, the drawing indicates a taller structure on Bourland than will be the case. Form based code requires a 3 story or less structure there. It will be 5 stories on Main.
Second, I think the lack of doors is because they don’t want to draw in doors for retail that they haven’t secured yet, not because all the doors are going to be in the back.
Third, from the last meeting I attended my *impression* was that 150 only had to agree to a freezing of the tax value for a certain number of years, not zero tax. Which given the choice between that and never getting higher taxes, seems to be a no-brainer.
The development has been affected by economic downturn, and has gone through a few changes, and is working on making everyone in the area as happy as possible.
Some of the parking on the back will partially be under the 2nd story apartments–hanging over the first story. The developer has not applied for any zoning variances for the property, and some details (like the alley that could be a source of traffic to the neighborhood) are still being debated.
The developer appears to be doing everything possible to work with the 2nd district and particular the University East neighborhood. There will be some houses demolished which makes me personally sad, but there has been no use of eminent domain or any harsh tactics on property owners in the neighborhood to secure options.
All in all, it looks to be a good development, and will be consistent with the form based code for that area.
One exit? Fire hazard?
They can pick then off as the run for cover in the ally.
Just got back from the Board of Ed committee of the whole meeting, which included a discussion on 150’s involvement in this project. There was some discussion about whether or not the district could approve ONLY this project, and not future ones that would be in the Enterprise zone/TIF (I believe they could limit it to this particular zone), but legally that seemed doubtful. From a practical standpoint, however, it didn’t sound like there are many viable new projects, at this time. The city gets all kinds of inquiries about projects, but as Hullinger explained, very, very few ever happen.
I said earlier that on Hullinger’s blog, he makes some compelling arguments for tax incentives. He made another favorable impression on me by his honesty at this meeting. He offered that, while no one knows if the current development will take place with or without the district’s involvement, if it did go thru without it, the School Board would be kicking itself if they were to have voted to give the incentives. Gorenz, for one, doesn’t seem to like the School Board giving tax incentives. While the Southtown TIF is set to expire in 2013, there is some money in the TIF that Gorenz believes will be used elsewhere. I don’t know the details of the funding, and presumably the taxing bodies will at that time get more benefit from higher property values than they do today, but, again, Gorenz seemed highly skeptical.
Right on Emtronics