This week’s council agenda has a fascinating account of the city’s efforts to negotiate with the museum partners and Caterpillar over changes they want to make to their development agreement for the Sears block. They never reached consensus:
The Museum wanted total control over development of the retail space. Conversely, we believe that the City’s Office of Economic Development is in a better position to market and negotiate the deal. It was clear from this meeting that the real issue was the Museum wants architectural and functional (what the building could be used for) control. We suggested that a rendering could be included that would define the architecture; however, the Museum declined that alternative. It was even mentioned by a representative of the Museum that perhaps the idea of commercial/retail needed to be reevaluated. [emphasis mine] We advised them that was a Council decision. The architectural discussion also mentioned the possibility of extending the plaza over the retail/commercial space. We have attached the original site plan presented in February, 2006. While this is a wonderful idea and is what was originally proposed by the Museum, it will not be financially affordable as a standalone project. We agree that the function needs to be compatible with the Museum (i.e. no adult entertainment uses), however, believe acceptable function can be defined. The discussion then moved to the issue of parking (i.e. where would these individuals park). Riverfront Village was discussed as one option for parking. It appears that a concern of the Museum is use of the parking developed to support this project. [emphasis mine]
We offered, as a follow up to that meeting, to allow the Museum to have exclusive development rights for three years following completion of the Museum with the City’s Office of Economic Development having development rights after that time. If the property was developed by the City, architectural and functional control would be determined by City Council. The Museum declined that offer. [emphasis mine] The City could still recommend tenants during the first three years.
What do you think? Does it sound like the Museum/Caterpillar is seriously interested in developing retail along Water street? First, they floated the idea of getting rid of retail altogether. That’s an indication of how committed they are. At best they don’t care whether it’s there or not; at worst they have no intention of developing it and are including it in the plan for appearance’s sake.
Next they bring up parking. Now let me ask you, why is this an issue? There’s going to be on-street parking along the museum side of Water, there’s already on-street and lot parking across Water, and museum square itself is getting a parking deck. This was the configuration that Cat and the museum partners agreed was adequate when the museum was larger and all else was equal. Why, now that the museum is shrinking would parking for retail somehow become a problem? Setting aside the fact that there’s a glut of parking downtown making the new deck completely unnecessary in the first place, the mere fact that the museum is significantly smaller should lower concerns about adequate parking — unless the museum is looking for ways to put the kibosh on the retail element.
Finally, the city offers to give them exclusive development rights for three years following completion of the museum — if all goes according to the new plan, that would be years 2011-2014. But the museum folks rejected that idea. That tells me that they lack confidence that they’re going to be able to develop it in that time frame. Now remember that museum officials believe that they’re going to get 360,000 people a year visiting the museum. With all that traffic, and with low lease rates (the museum agreed to lease the retail space for $1/year), they don’t believe they can develop 15,000 square feet within three years? How many years do they think it will take? Until 2015? 2020? The fifth of never?
It all adds up to a decided lack of interest on the museum’s part in developing the retail. They don’t want to do it, and they don’t want the city to do it either. They apparently prefer the whole museum block be dedicated to the museum and Cat visitor’s center. That would be the worst of all scenarios. The block needs more mixed use development, not less. It needs a residential element added, not the retail element removed.
If the council is serious about wanting retail development on that block (and I think they are), they should reject this amendment.
I have no idea what the hours of operation the Cat Vistor Center will incorporate. IF rumor of 9-5, M-F museum hours holds true (and does anyone know if this is truth or rumor), this most likely becomes a block of dead space every evening. Needs the retail and other things to do to help keep the block alive in the evening.
I do not know what kind of proof the People of Peoria ‘Region’ need. This is, always was, about politics and elitist legacy building. The Museum Partners and CAT want to maintain complete power-in the hands of their select few.
I am afraid that that makes me suspicious as heck! It reeks of cover-up. The Museum Partners, and CAT for that matter, have underestimated the scope of this project, and overestimated their ability to deal with it. If the Peoria Council gives the Museum Partners a blank check…need I go on? Hell, Woodford County seems to love the idea of a ‘big-draw’ museum….in Bloomington!
The city needs to be firm and insist that the block be developed under New Urbanist principles. Set a deadline to meet those requirements. And finally be prepared to walk away from it.
Why not no museum and no visitor center? A block redeveloped with mixed use retail residential. I bet the residential would command some serious money. The opportunity to live that close to work would be a huge boon for some folks.
Why are contemplating spending all this money when the end result keeps getting more and more like Lakeview museum 2.0 (still without a lake veiw)? There is no way in hell they will get 360,000 people a year. Over a 1,000 people a day? So unrealitic, anyone know how many visitors Lakeview has? On their webstie it says 30,000 visitors to the planitarium. I can’t imagine the museum would be that much different. For a little perspective…
Indianapolis’ Children Museum in 2006 served 1.1 million visitors to put them in the top 20 most visited museums in the US.
Davenport’s new $46.9 million Figge museum of art had 80,000 visitors in their second year.
Indy’s Children’s Museum is the largest and one of the best in the country, and it serves a local population 10 times the size of Peoria. It’s not a great comparator for Peoria’s museums.
But I think it’s so unfair that there can be no adult entertainment on museum square. They say that like Big Al’s not a major part of Peoria history. What, like strippers don’t deserve a place in the museum?
(I kid, I kid.)
I was only try to create a frame of reference. I know Indy isn’t comparable to Peoria, that’s my point. A museum that has soooo much more going for it is drawing in a million people. How is Peoria going to snag 360,000 visitors? I would even grant that PRM has a chance to appeal to more people than Davenport’s art museum, but over 4 times the draw? No.
It’s all about the egos.
The John Deere Pavillion has netted about 1.5 million visitors over ten years, that would be about 150,000 a year average…
How the heck does CAT and the Museum staff think that they are going to pull twice that?
The Deere Commons is a pretty good mixture of business and cultural interests. I think Peoria could benifit from somthing more like that than a mega-museum that CAT and the like seem to have in mind…
OK. When the museum needs to fire back, like the last couple of JS editorials from Drake and Hillemeyer, they always seem to push the educational AND economic benefits this project will bring Peoria. Educational? Big maybe. Economic? What are they smoking?
Even if, and that is a big IF, the museum can draw the numbers THEY project, what is the major economic gain? Families who might visit museum want family oriented places to eat and shop downtown. They might even want affordable hotel rooms nearby-and I don’t mean in East Peoria! PLEASE… show me the money!!!
First people say museums aren’t suppose to make money, then they say it will be a big draw. I say scrap the whole thing, build some retail and a nice movie theater with some green space on top. I miss the days when you could go downtown, dine, shop a bit and take in a movie……
That old Sears block would be a great location for an train depot…if Amtrak ever comes to Peoria.
David, I could not agree with you more. An Amtrak station just across Water St. from the old Rock Island Depot – what a cool concept! I wax nostalgic just thinking of the old days (early 50’s & on) watching with my dad those CRIP passenger trains preparing to depart. BRING IT ON!!
I do support the idea of a Caterpillar museum on the riverfront, but if years of delays due to inadequate funding kill the project, the City ought to consider the site for an intermodal transportation center in which Amtrak passenger trains to and from Chicago (and maybe St. Louis) can be fed by CityLink buses. I predict that Amtrak will serve Peoria within five years. Now is the time to prepare for it.
The rail ideas sound interesting. Railroad terminals, like airports, are always great places to support retail, etc. Keep Lakeview at present location…where it won’t cause anymore problems.