The Bradley Scout has been doing a good job of following the progress on Main Street Commons, the apartment building that is being erected on the site of the old Walgreen’s on Main Street, across from Campustown. The project was originally sold to neighbors as an upscale apartment building for upperclassmen, graduate students, and young professionals. They also optimistically predicted that they would have 100% of the units leased by November 1, 2010.
Well, things haven’t been going so well. In late November last year, the Scout reported that “the company hoped to have all 188 units leased by Nov. 1. Now nearly three weeks have passed since the deadline and only 40 units have been leased.” In January, the Scout postulated that the building “isn’t renting at the pace investors had hoped” because “the $659 per person rental price sticker shock is likely a culprit.”
One of the investors is none other than Bradley University. Bradley won’t say specifically how much they’ve invested in the project, but Vice President for Business Affairs Gary Anna said back in September, “The preliminary stage of the project is $12 million, and we gave less than 10 percent of that.” So they’ve invested an amount not exceeding $1.2 million.
Last month, more bad news: More than half the units were still not leased. Nevertheless, officials with the project still expressed optimism that all the units would be leased by the time the building opens. Bradley’s Vice President of Student Affairs Alan Galsky was quoted as saying, “We would like to see the whole building filled with Bradley students. If not, Main Street Commons is prepared to fill it with other students staying in the Nexus Fostering Norfolk centers such as medical students and graduate students. It is very important that students know that the building is option for them, and is a very good one, in fact.” The article continues:
Galsky said in the event that the complex is unable to fill with Bradley students, he is unsure how on-campus housing will be affected.
“By the end of the month we will know how many have decided to stay in residence halls or move off-campus,” he said. “Once those numbers are in it will be a better indication. We are hoping that freshmen and sophomores move to Main Street Commons. If enough students move out into Main Street Commons there wouldn’t be an issue [in residential halls].”
That brings us to this month, and a new “study” Bradley is undertaking:
As part of a student developmental study, Bradley has extended the opportunity to incoming freshmen to live at Main Street Commons.
Vice President of Student Affairs Alan Galsky said 40 incoming students will be allowed to live at Main Street Commons in a very supervised situation. […]
Students who choose to participate in this opportunity will sign a 12 month lease with Main Street Commons and will still be able to purchase a dining hall meal plan.
All participating students will live on the same, co-ed floor, along with a residence advisor and assistant residence advisor.
“[Students living on the floor] will have the same rules and regulations as there are in the residence halls,” Galsky said. “There will be two students to a suite and same gender roommates.”
I asked Dr. Galsky via e-mail how Bradley’s investment in Main Street Commons and the fact that the rooms there are not being leased as quickly as hoped contributed to Bradley’s decision to allow freshmen to live off-campus at Main Street Commons. He responded:
Bradley’s investment was not a factor in the decision to allow freshmen to live in Main Street Commons. Instead, the University sought to devise a study to determine if freshmen could have a “true” residential living experience in an off-campus up-scale facility under similar conditions that exist in the residence halls, including having a Resident Advisor and Assistant Resident Advisor. This study is of interest to Bradley from both a student affairs/student development perspective and an enrollment management /marketing perspective. Program and activities for freshmen will be offered, just as in the residence halls.. This is being done as a one-year developmental study, and the University intends to collect a myriad of data that will help assess the students’ satisfaction and engagement as well as the overall success of the study.
A couple of things struck me about this answer. First, I have a hard time believing that Bradley’s investment “was not a factor” in this decision. I can totally believe it was not the main factor, and certainly that it wasn’t the only factor, but not a factor at all? That’s hard to accept. Secondly, he didn’t address the second part of my question (“…and the fact that the rooms there are not being leased as quickly as hoped…”). I think it’s pretty well established from earlier reports that Bradley wants Main Street Commons to relieve crowding in the residence halls, so it seems reasonable that, in the absence of enough upperclassmen choosing to relocate there, they’re looking for other ways to get Bradley students out of on-campus housing.
The inclusion of freshmen at Main Street Commons raises a couple of other questions. One, how does this affect the ability to lease the rest of the apartments to upperclassmen and young professionals? I mean, if you’re a young professional, would you want to lease an apartment in a complex that doubles in part as a freshman dorm? I put these questions to Jennifer Dunbar, marketing and leasing director of Main Street Commons, via e-mail, but she hasn’t responded to my request for comment.
Two, how do the neighbors feel about the inclusion of freshmen in this project? I asked University East Neighborhood Association (UENA) Vice President Conrad Stinnett for his comments. He said that his chief concern is that the project keeps changing. For instance, he sent me an e-mail the UENA received this February from Thomas Harrington, one of the developers of the project, in response to their concerns. Here’s one of the questions and answers:
[Q:] The residential aspect of the project was originally presented as high scale apartments that, while marketed to students, were open to the public. We have recently heard you are implementing Bradley housing rules- same sex roommates, no kegs, Residential Assistants, Residents-only food court, etc. This sounds more like a dormitory. Has the concept changed? Are non-student residents subject to the same rules as student renters?
[A:] The concept for Main Street Commons remains as an upscale housing development targeted at the Bradley student population. As has been previously stated, all potential renters are welcome. The rules and policies that have been put into place apply to all residents equally and consistently and are different from Bradley’s.
Three months later, it appears this is no longer the case.
This is a mixed-use development, so in addition to the apartments, there is also a retail component. I talked to Harrington about the progress that has been made to get tenants for the three retail spaces that front Main Street. So far, no leases have been signed, but they’re close to securing a food use (i.e., restaurant) lease for one of the spaces.
This problem (students not leasing these apartments)was exactly what West Peorians predicted when they fought against a similar complex (I believe associated with the same company) on the old St. Joseph’s property on Heading Avenue. I certainly didn’t know that Bradley had invested in the Main Street project.
I wonder who’s paying for the fiber-optic interconnect between BU and The Commons?
And 188 is the total eventual number of units – there are less than 88 in the current build.
Vonster – 288 is the eventual number of units. There are 188 in the current build. By “units,” the news reports are referring to beds or bedrooms. The complex is made up of a mix of two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments.
I guess I just don’t get the interest in dissecting the detailed evolution of the rental structure of the common’s development. Is it superior to an abandoned Walgreens? Is the only quasi-new urbanism/mixed-use development on Main? And isn’t it realistic to expect some people may just want to see and touch this for themselves prior to signing a lease? I get that the developer was the one projecting full occupancy, but come on. Give the project a year and then see how it’s performing. Bottom line, a new mixed use development with some vacant apartments versus a blighted vacant box is a nice problem to have…
I wish it were that simple, Clone. Promises were made to the local area, none of which are being kept. There’s a load of difference between an upscale apartment building and a college dorm. Where a bit of honesty about the ability of the developer to properly manage the project would have been appreciated, there has been a lot of double-speak and outright lies. The argument that it is better than an empty Walgreen’s doesn’t hold water. I’m sure if the developer was actually serious about re-using the building, then it would have been used. I’m not sure why some people feel the need to defend the totally incompetent manner in which this project has been managed. Bottom line- this project wasn’t what was sold. Those who supported it based on what was told to them should be pissed.
If you don’t want to live next to a fraternity house or college dorm, you probably shouldn’t buy or rent a house near a college campus. They are pretty easy to spot and avoid.
Well here’s the good news…The students are gone from May to late August. The building is better than an old empty Walgreen’s. If you live near a university campus I guess one has to expect students and the traffic that goes with it. Also, I noticed very little brick on this building like in the picture, instead it is vinyl siding. Oh well, I guess if the neighborhood couldn’t figure out Bradley was going to screw them, then they haven’t been paying attention the last 30 years or so. Look at Campustown. Slowly it’s Bradleytown. The Bradley police office is the newest addition. That is also being taken over by the University. Oh well.
There will be a pool/rec area right behind Jimmy John’s. The students who stay over summer will like make a lot of noise there for the neighbor’s amusement.
And I don’t think it’s 188 in that footprint. 188 resident ROOMS but only 88 “units”. These are multiple occupancy units.
What the HEll happened to the city’s Institutional Zoning Ordinance? ALL of BU is supposed to be within very strict boundaries. Putting a dorm into a private off-campus structure — even one partially owned by BU — would have to be be violation of that ordinance?
Bedrooms is not how MDU’s are measured.
Sorry for multi-commenting but if they follow the pattern of Junction Place in Normal, they’ll have pizza, tanning and a game store on the first level. 3 necessities for college kids.
Yet another project sold to Peorians as one thing and ends up being another. Museum, Hotel, can’t wait to see what else. These are pushed by developers and elected officials, but hey, they get re-elected so apparantly committing fraud on the public is an acceptable official practice. Might as well draw names from a hat, we’d have a better chance of getting honest reps. BVA sold this to main st. wonder what her and her young lapdog of a councilman will do to spin this mess to the public.
C.J.: Are you not getting the comments I make to your site?
Billy — Thanks for writing. I just checked and Akismet did mark your earlier comment as spam on this thread. I’ve restored it. Sorry about that! I wish Akismet had a way of whitelisting commenters somehow….
Billy, Institutional zoning lost any structure when your council women allowed BU to level part of the Arbor District. It set precidence and now no one cares apparantly. Lead to OSF expansions and Methodist allowing to change the location of the chiller unit.
Bill, the COP’s ordinances mean NOTHING when it’s the COP who wants to violate them.
If only we could have that vacant, caving in wal greens back with the multipul delapitated HUD rental houses surrounding it! THOSE WERE THE GOOD OLD DAYS RIGHT! Did anyone see this block before the commons project went in? Seriously it was a dump and it is clear alot of people are in denial about that.
Also just curious why didnt you talk to the president of UENA?
Actually, Outsider, the Walgreen’s building was originally slated to be re-used in the project, but the concept was changed.. I’m also not sure of what houses you are referring to- most of the properties that were demolished were owner-occupied homes; not HUD properties. Once again, the issue of the current building being better than the old one is not relevant. Rather, is the current concept what was promised? It is not. Maybe you should get your facts straight before shooting off your mouth, so to speak.
I don’t understand why some here say the argument that this development, however it plays out would not be an improvement over the empty (if the word abandoned is offensive) retail space
What’s the problem with students living off campus (a mere block away) spending money, improving the local economy?
I don’t think it’s the students who are responsible for the more serious crimes that occur in the area.
Really, what else is happening in that neighborhood other than Bradley? I’d think that the locals might embrace any university expansion. Are college students really such a negative? It is difficult to separate the money that Bradley brings into the area from the students who attend.
Of course, when you have an axe to grind, you can argue away anything as being irrelevant………
RJK,
the development was sold as a place for community members, upperclassmen and grad students. I don’t know about you, but I was much more rowdy my freshman year than when in grad school. I would not be interested in living either above or below a freshman dorm now, nor would I want one built next to me. I do think that the neighborhoods around Bradley give the students a worse wrap than they might deserve at time and that the BU students are far less considerate of their neighbors than they should be at times. People are already feeling the bait and switch done by the county with PRM and with the council on the hotel project. this would simply be one more straw to distrust our officials. THAT is a huge problem that no one seems interested in addressing.
Projects evolve over time. You can’t predict everything, so you adjust to new circumstances. It isn’t always a sinister plot to bait and switch on the public.
Is it possible conrad that after an engineer etc looked at the walgreens building it was decided that it was not in a condition that would deem it to be reusable? I mean I know it is shocking but prehaps a building that had sat empty for years with little to no upkeep was not quite the treasure that you seem to want to pretend it to be. Also the Walgreens building was quite simply an eye sore so Im just curious why you are so up in arms to see it removed for a building that is more appropriate? This project was basically all funded with private money so Im curious why you have such a hard on against it. I kind of get the read that you are just against this project just so that you have something to crusade about.
Conrad there were two owner occupied houses on that block. Sorry maybe not all were HUD, just delapitated poo boxes. Hey think of it this way at least gary sandberg didnt own the houses and then have the city bulldoze them on the tax payers dime!
Outsider, do you work for the developer, or did you get paid to promote this? The people of the UE neighborhood have got to live with this thing. There is nothing wrong with wanting to find out what the deal with this thing is, how it impacts the neighbors, and what can be done to make sure any bad impact is minimized. A lot of what was said previously has changed, so the neighborhood’s concerns have changed. Maybe you like to sit on your duff and passively let people run over you, but some prefer to take a more active role and want a say in what happens to them. Clearly, BVA isn’t looking out for her district, so it’s good that the neighborhood leaders are stepping up. Maybe you should quit whining, get your facts straight, and let those who understand the situation do what they need to do to best deal with this.
D150 observer: publically funded projects (PRM, hotel, ball stadium, Gateway Building, Riverplex, Riverfront Village or whatever non-essential as in streets, sidewalks, sewer projects you would be referencing) …. would you be able to name one in the city of Peoria which was not a bait and switch on the public?
just askin’ for clarification regarding your post …
” Projects evolve over time. You can’t predict everything, so you adjust to new circumstances. It isn’t always a sinister plot to bait and switch on the public.”
“……at least gary sandberg didnt own the houses and then have the city bulldoze them on the tax payers dime!”
Nothing Gary did was on the taxpayers dime. He paid his debt.
Sorry, I just don’t think everything is a bait and switch. Predicting the future is never easy. Some people are in the Oliver Stone camp and some are not. I am not.
Complicated projects virtually always evolve over time—that includes public and non-public projects.
No I do not work for the developer. First the project was supported by the neighborhood and if I recall the only nay sayer at the city council meeting was Conrad. So that is one fact that is straight. The project was largely supported by the entire neighborhood. The fact if anyone wants to check is that most of the property purchased and being removed was zoned multi family and were not these beautiful single family homes everyone seems to think existed there. They were rental dumps. The Walgreens building was a caving in eyesore for the neighborhood so I am more then happy to see it go. What facts am I missing? The fact that some freshmen might live there instead of the exact demographic then was predicted? I would encourage some of the people on this blog to try to run even a church pot luck and get every detail of every aspect of said event dead on. Things change as major projects progress.
Yep he did emtronics. Just find it funny that the white knight gary owns some slum lots that the city had to bulldoze for him and that he apparently had paid for until he was elected? Lets do what everyone else does on here. If gary had lost the election I wonder if he would have paid? Maybe just said screw it and walked?
D150 observer – Thanks.
“Sorry, I just don’t think everything is a bait and switch.”
So, do you think any of the publically funded projects were a switch and bait?
Hey, Outsider. You want some crackers and cheese to go with your whine? Your incoherent spewing demonstrates that you know little about the UE neighborhood, UENA, or the Commons project. What would you do if that building was slated to go up near your house? Would you do just sit on your duff and whine? Do you think that maybe you might have a concern or two about how it would affect you and your quality of life? I’ve got a suggestion for you: quit whining! The people of UE have the right to know what is going on in their neighborhood.They have a right to know what is going on with the project and work on ways to better help them live with it. Does attacking those folks and demeaning their neighborhood make you feel important? You seem to have a chip on your shoulder the size of a boulder. Have you thought about getting some professional help for all that pent-up hostility?
Karrie, I would have to have intimate knowledge of each to be sure. I never heard about a bait and switch on the Cub food project. I think they intended for the museum to be an IMAX until IMAX changed their strategy away from museums toward commercial movie theatres. I think the museum people would have been fine with the IMAX. The hotel changes were, IMO, due to one thing–money and financing.
I think the Bradley project is possibly “changing” because of market conditions—if you can’t fill it up with juniors, seniors and grad students–then you turn to a different mark-up. I don’t see anything sinister there.
sorry, “market” not “mark-up”. Ooops.
Bradley University is the only thing that’s kept the west bluff from turning into south Peoria, or the bad parts of the east bluff. Let it expand as much as it wants. I own a house in the west bluff and I couldn’t be more happy about this mix-use development. It’ll add population density to Main Street, and hopefully encourage more legitimate business on what could be a great street. I am slightly disappointed that Bradly wants to put freshman in the building (as it may dissuade some older tenants), but that is a minor aspect of a largely positive development. soothsayer, your entire immature rant about whining is pathetic, take a look in the mirror. it’s commenters like you that make me want to ditch this city for Chicago and let my home turn into another rental slum.
Thanks D150 observer … just have to agree to disagree!
Meanwhile …. while taxpayers support millions for a museum, essentials are left unfunded to help our community members. And since the state will not / cannot / does not pay …. then the Peoria County Board would benefit our county by stepping in to help others who want to help themselves actually help themselves by covering the funding for the GED program at the Peoria County Jail.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1036464105/Funding-shortage-dooms-inmate-education-program
I am one of the evil residents of UENA who sold my home to this developer. As someone who lived there for three years I felt and still feel that this project is a vast improvement over what previously was located on that block. Soothsayer what was going on in the properties around my home, that fortunately for the neighborhood will be demolished, had a much more negative impact on the quality of life for the community then I think a mixed use building housing bradely students will have. Sadly many of the homes being removed were in fact rental property that was in poor condition and rented to what can only be discribed as a criminal element. I know Conrad may disagree with this but I lived in the middle of them and they were not homes that were worth keeping or doing anything to improve the neighborhood.
Soothsayer I think outsider hit it pretty close to home. The Walgreens building was a dump which I regularly called the police to break up drug deals and criminal activity in the parking lot. I had the armadillo on three occasions for the home across the street from mine. This project will help to stabilize a portion of UE that in my opinion was on a tipping point. Also to those that say BVA did not represent her constituants that is simply not the case. Many of the members of UENA were not only excited about the project several wrote letters to the city council fully supporting the Main St Commons project. In fact Conrad was really the only person who to my knowledge pubicly did not support the project. So yes BVA did a bad job representing Conrad’s interests but did a good job representing the many others who were very supportive of the project.
I think someone may be misrepresenting my position. I’ve never been “against” this project. I’ve never said don’t build it. However, I proudly admit to have advocated that it be done according to code, be done as stated by the developer, be clearly communicated, and be done with respect to the concerns of those who have to live with it. I think a review of the public record will bear this out. I am unapologetically pro-resident and pro-neighborhood.
UENA’s (and affected residents of the UE neighborhood) expectations of the developer and City on this project have been to 1) Tell us clearly what you are going to do 2) Do what you say you are going to do 3) Help us minimize anything that could adversely affect residents. This “Build it, but be sure our concerns are addressed” position really seems to be the prevailing view of most UE residents. Right now, UENA’s major priority in this matter is to get our long-requested traffic-calming measures implemented. There are some flaws in our traffic-calming solution that the increased traffic from MSC residents will cause us major grief if not addressed. Affected residents are 100% supportive of this.
While I don’t believe the developer is particularly nefarious, I do think he is in over his head and that lack of experience has really contributed to his inability to roll this project out as it was sold. I am also highly disappointed with our 2nd district council person, who should have dealt with this situation in a way that benefitted all parties, not just a few. The strength of our area has been the ability of both business and residents to work together toward enhancing our part of Peoria. UENA has a demonstrated record of being friendly to businesses who are, in turn, resident-friendly. Hopefully, the lessons of this situation can be applied towards making sure future developments along Main have a more positive outcome for all. I know there are those who feel we should just shut up and be grateful for whatever we get. I say that what would you do if a building of that size and proposed usage were being built within sight of your house? You’d probably want to know what is happening with it, how it would affect you and what could be done to minimize negative aspects. Fortunately, most of you don’t have to live with this; however, I hope you will not begrudge those of us who do have to live with it the opportunity to make things so we will be better able to do so.
As always, I’m open to discussion. Please contact me offline if I can provide additional information and/or clarification.
I am sorry to see that once again this issue has gotten muddied by the arguments that “something is better than nothing” or comparing what used to exist in the neighborhood before to the potential future of the area rather than holding the developers of Main Street Commons accountable for the management of this project.
I agree with District 150 observer that projects evolve over time, and if this were merely an issue of previous proposals showing a brick façade when we are seeing vinyl siding being used on the building then I would agree that it is a small grievance. However, many are not aware that the neighborhood has been struggling with the competence and veracity of this developer for several years.
The developer originally used a third party to acquire properties in the neighborhood without revealing the true intention of the project and even threatened the use of imminent domain by the city to acquire the properties. Then the developer presented a plan to the city that requested almost a dozen variances to the city’s own building code; Mr. Stinnett represented the neighbors to the structure that wanted a code-complaint building. The city, in its infinite wisdom, chose to approve, and later grant extensions, for the non-code-compliant building.
Not much was heard about the project for a time, due to funding issues, until Bradley University and other investors came to the rescue. It was recently revealed that the project was pitched to the investors as a Bradley dorm, yet no one from the development bothered to notify the neighborhood about the change in the scope of the project – not that they were obliged to do so, but it certainly would have been an act of courtesy and much appreciated transparency.
Another particularly troubling aspect of this development is the complete lack of interest and initiative in procuring businesses for the first-floor retail space. Within a year of the proposed opening of the project, Bradley students met with the developer, Thomas Harrington, and asked about the retail plans for the space and he replied that they were not focusing on the retail yet. There have been rumors about what may go there, including a food court, which I don’t think is very friendly to the surrounding neighborhood businesses. The students and neighbors both put forth suggestions for a grocery store but Harrington rebuffed them. Given this attitude regarding the retail space, I think the property should be stripped of its Enterprise Zone status.
The main reason that neighbors supported the project was because it was supposed to be a mixed-use building that would enhance the neighborhood. Instead, I constantly hear people comment about the “eye-sore Bradley dorm” by my home. I certainly agree that a building filled with Bradley students who will shop in the area is preferable to a vacant Walgreens building. Yet, how can I not feel that I’ve been subjected to a “bait & switch” when we were pitched an upscale, new-urban, mixed-use concept for students and professionals but we are now getting a dormitory with as yet unnamed, unknown businesses and have heard nothing from the developer for almost two years?