Tag Archives: City of Peoria

City of Peoria, Warehouse District

You need residents downtown if you want ‘synergy’

Leave a comment

John Sharp recently asked on his j-blog, “what’s it going to take to sustain Downtown activity? …What’s it going to take to make more evenings in Downtown Peoria look like the Fourth of July than some Wednesday night in August?”

The answer is “downtown residents.”

There are never going to be enough special events downtown to sustain a steady stream of people swooping into downtown from the suburbs. There has to be a built-in population who live downtown, who shop downtown, who eat at downtown restaurants, who drive demand for more retail and restaurant offerings, who utilize public transit, etc. That’s the only way to get “synergy” downtown.

There have been a couple of plans to do this. There is still significant interest in developing the Warehouse District by creating loft apartments — if the City will fix Washington Street so it’s pedestrian friendly. Then there is former Economic Development Director Craig Hullinger’s idea to extend Water street north of the Riverplex and build townhouses along what he dubbed “River Trail Drive.” That project has been set back by the recession, according to Mr. Hullinger (who still keeps up on development in the City) and Bobby Gray (in the City’s Economic Development Department). They’re both optimistic that a viable offer to develop the area will materialize in the near future as the economy picks up again.

Census 2010, City of Peoria, City of Washington

Washington sees tremendous population growth; east side of river booming

51 Comments

The City of Washington (Illinois) outpaced the City of Peoria in population growth over the last decade not just in percentages, but in real numbers.

According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, Washington has grown by 3,451 residents (from 10,841 to 14,292) between 2000 and 2009*, an increase of 31.83%. Peoria increased by 2,584 residents (from 112,936 to 115,520) — an increase of 2.29% — over the same period.

On a percentage basis, the largest population growth near Peoria is in Germantown Hills. The village grew by 1,121 residents (from 2,111 to 3,232) — a whopping 53.1%.

Other surrounding communities that saw population growth include Morton, Metamora, Eureka, East Peoria, and Dunlap. Several towns and villages lost population, including Bartonville, West Peoria, Pekin, Peoria Heights, and Canton. West Peoria and Peoria Heights lost the most residents percentage-wise in the immediate area: -5.63% and -5.38%, respectively.

Here’s a breakdown of population changes in several communities of interest, in alphabetical order:

You may notice that typically communities on the east side of the river fared better than communities on the west side. The county statistics bear that out. Peoria County grew by 2,383 residents, or 1.3%, between 2000 and 2009. But Tazewell County grew by 3,981 (3.1%) and Woodford County by 3,393 (9.57%). Combined, Tazewell and Woodford counties grew by 7,374 residents (4.5%), more than three times as much as Peoria county during the same time period.

* Note: In all calculations, I compare actual April 2000 U.S. Census Population Data to recently released June 2009 Population Estimates.

City of Peoria, Parking

The parking paradox

24 Comments

Slate magazine recently published an article about parking. I found this paragraph particularly interesting:

Instead of requiring minimum parking thresholds, parking maximums should be set. As Norman Garrick and Wes Johnson have pointed out, the goal of meeting parking demand in cities is an elusive, ultimately self-destructive quest. As they note, people complain of Hartford, Conn., that there “is not enough parking,” when in fact nearly one-third of the city is paved over with parking lots. “The truth is that many cities like Hartford have simultaneously too much and too little parking. They have too much parking from the perspective that they have degraded vitality, interest and walkability, with bleak zones of parking that fragment the city. They have too little parking for the exact same reason—they have degraded walkability and thus increased the demand for parking.”

Want an example of that right here in good old Peoria? I went out with some friends last night to Cold Stone Creamery in the Shoppes at Grand Prairie. It’s a popular place located in a little strip-mall out-building. There are a number of entertainment and dining options in this area, but none that were walkable from this little dessert place.

For instance, practically across the street is the Rave theater, and not too far away are restaurants like Steak ‘n Shake and Johnny’s Italian Steakhouse. Theoretically, one should be able to park once, get dinner, walk to the movie, and walk over to Cold Stone Creamery for some dessert, then get back in their car and leave. But the development is simply not designed to accommodate that. No one would even think of doing it because of all the obstacles. Sidewalks end, streets are excessively wide, parking lots are huge, and berms provide a visual cue that says, “you’re not really supposed to walk here.” Instead, the clear expectation (and actual practice of most people) is that you would drive from the Steak ‘n Shake parking lot to the Rave parking lot, and finally to the Cold Stone Creamery parking lot.

They have, as the Slate article says, “degraded vitality, interest and walkability, with bleak zones of parking that fragment the [development].” I like the Shoppes at Grand Prairie because it’s like the whole city in miniature — a little analogy of the City’s transportation deficiencies.

Parking requirements have been relaxed in the Heart of Peoria area, but parking minimums need to be reduced throughout the rest of the city. Too much parking only exacerbates the problems of providing sufficient public transportation. Large lots lower density, and public transportation requires high density to be sustainable. It’s the parking paradox.

Hat tip: Eyebrows McGee

City of Peoria

Old Walgreens still sits vacant

12 Comments

It was about eleven months ago that Devonshire Group from Champaign was given a number of variances to the West Main Form District code so they could redevelop the old Walgreens on Main into student apartments. The project was to be called Main Street Commons, but to date, no work has been done on the site from all outward appearances.

I wrote to the Devonshire Group representatives Thomas Harrington and Shawn Luesse (who made presentations to the neighbors last year) asking for an update on their plans over a week ago. No response. I wrote to Second District Council Representative Barbara Van Auken, and she told me she was meeting with them on Wednesday, June 23. After the meeting, she declined to tell me what they discussed, but said they would be issuing a press release “shortly.” As soon as I receive it, I’ll post it.

I also wrote to Pat Landes, the City’s Planning & Growth Director, to ask what she knew about the situation. “All I know is that there is a closing scheduled for this month and the project would be built in phases,” she said. Hmmm…. A closing? That would most likely mean they are acquiring additional property. If so, it makes me wonder what parcels they’re adding to the project. I think it’s safe to assume they’re waiting until after this closing to issue the press release.

As for building the development in phases, that’s a new wrinkle. I wonder how that would be accomplished. The building pictured above is supposed to have parking underground, retail on the first floor, and residential on the upper floors. Perhaps the plan will be to build only a couple stories initially, and then add more stories in the future.

Hopefully the forthcoming press release will explain everything.

City of Peoria, State Legislation, State of Illinois

State eliminates time limits for campaign signs

16 Comments

Roof-top signs, “floppy-man” signs, and temporary banners were just some of the signs discussed at Tuesday’s Sign Review Committee meeting. But one thing the committee can do little about is political signs.

A new Illinois law set to take effect January 1, 2011, limits the city’s home rule authority to limit how long political signs can be displayed. HB3785 “[p]rovides that a municipality may place reasonable restrictions on the size of outdoor political campaign signs on residential property,” but also “[p]rovides that no municipality may prohibit the display of outdoor political campaign signs on residential property during any period of time.” The bill was passed unanimously by the Illinois House and Senate and signed by the Governor on June 3. The city currently requires that political campaign signs “be removed within seven days after an election.” That will have to be changed. Apparently, campaign signs can be left up year round starting next year. Won’t that make the city look fantastic?

Most of the discussion on other temporary signs revolved around how better to enforce the current ordinance during a time when the city is cutting staff. Ideas included lowering or eliminating the fee (currently $75) to apply for a temporary sign license (to improve compliance), utilizing city workers who are already driving around the city (such as police or public works employees) to call in violations to the sign ordinance when they see them, and partnering with printers and sign companies to educate those purchasing signs about the city’s rules.

The committee also recommended permitting inflatable signs so they can be approved administratively through the licensing process instead of through the Zoning Commission via the special use process. However, if permitted in this way, the change ordinance would add size limitations and prohibit “floppy man” types of signs (here’s an example).

Business, City of Peoria, State of Illinois

Hotel news recap

58 Comments

There were a couple of hotel-related news items over the weekend:

  • Gov. Quinn approved tax credits for the Wonderful Development. Incidentally, the Journal Star reported the bill number as SB2535, but it’s actually SB2534. The gist of Quinn’s comments was that these tax credits will help provide jobs for union workers, and that will spur economic growth that will actually generate more revenue for the state. “You put more people to work,” Quinn is quoted as saying. “They pay income taxes and other taxes. The key thing is more economic growth.” Koehler chimed in: “People say, ‘Doesn’t that drain money out of the state budget?’ No, it doesn’t. By the time you pay all those jobs and you are creating extra real estate value, the community and state are going to replenish all of that.”

    Are we supposed to believe these guys have suddenly converted to Reaganomics? Wasn’t it Gov. Quinn who proposed raising personal income taxes from 3 to 4.5% last year? And after he changed his proposed new rate to 4%, wasn’t it Dave Koehler who lamented, “From everything I’ve heard around the Capitol, there will not be any appetite for the income tax (increase) before the election. That’s too bad. I don’t agree with it, but it’s the decision I hear.” What? Why raise personal income taxes? Why not just cut corporate income taxes so the state can reap millions and millions of dollars from all the new jobs that would be created as a result? Or does supply-side economics only work on union-worker-built hotel projects at Main and Madison in Peoria?

    The paper also stated:

    The proposal potentially could reduce the project’s costs by $8 million, savings that are split between developer EM Properties and the city of Peoria. The City Council last month voted 7-4 in favor of a $37 million bond to assist in the hotel project. The tax credit could potentially drop that obligation to $33 million.

    Looking at it one way, this is good — the City’s obligation could be 12% or so less than originally planned. On the other hand, it’s actually a net increase of $4 million in taxpayer incentives, if one looks at tax incentives from all sources equally.

  • The Grand Hotel will be converted to a senior living center. Why? The hotel’s sales manager, Stan Marshall, explained: “[T]hose capacity needs [groups who come to Peoria for meetings or sports events] just aren’t frequent enough. There are a lot of holes in the calendar. We need a steady source of revenue.” Given that the Radisson (formerly Jumer’s Castle Lodge) closed last year, and now the City’s third-largest hotel is getting out of the hotel business, one would be tempted to think that there’s overcapacity of hotel rooms in Peoria. But I’m sure downtown hotel proponents will pooh-pooh such an obvious conclusion. After all, the whole rationale behind the Wonderful Development is this belief that Peoria’s hotel problem is undercapacity.
City of Peoria, State of Illinois, Taxes

Come watch the rich get richer

15 Comments

From my inbox, this notification from the City Clerk’s office:

WE HAVE JUST BEEN ADVISED AND YOU ARE HEREBY NOTICED THAT A MAJORITY OF A QUORUM OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PEORIA, ILLINOIS, HAVE BEEN INVITED AND MAY ATTEND TO WITNESS ILLINOIS [GOVERNOR] PAT QUINN SIGN THE HISTORIC TAX CREDIT FOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL PROJECT ON MAIN STREET ON SATURDAY, JUNE 19, 2010, AT 9:15 A.M., AT THE PEORIA MARQUETTE, CHEMINEE BALLROOM, 501 MAIN STREET, PEORIA, ILLINOIS.

Please note this is not a meeting and no official action will be taken.

Tax credits for a guy making $9 million on this Wonderful Development, after he’s already received a $37 million gift from the city. That’s capitalism?

Thanks, State of Illinois. At least you can afford it. Oh, wait….

Business, City of Peoria

Kinseth pulling out of Peoria

37 Comments

The Journal Star reports that Kinseth Hospitality, owner of the Holiday Inn City Centre downtown, is bidding farewell to Peoria. The hotel will be managed by Pyramid Hotel Group of Boston. It’s unclear at this time who will actually own the property.

Kinseth was critical of the city of Peoria, which provided EM Properties Ltd. with a $37 million bond to reconstruct the Hotel Pere Marquette into a Marriott Hotel structure.

About a year ago, he wanted the City Council to support a $10 million City Centre renovation project with $8 million in assistance. That, however, did not go anywhere.

“Obviously, the city is not willing to support this hotel at this time,” Kinseth said. “In 10 years, we haven’t made a dime and spent tons of our money and worked very hard. We’ve never made any money on the hotel and worked very hard and care deeply about the hotel and staff. At this time, we can’t do it anymore. It’s time to move on.”

The assistance Kinseth sought from the City would have upgraded their property from a Holiday Inn to a Crowne Plaza Hotel. The plan was remarkably similar to the Wonderful Development, though far less costly. Yet the City wouldn’t even entertain Kinseth’s proposal, despite the supposedly dire need for more quality rooms downtown to support the Civic Center. Instead, the City is using the Holiday Inn’s property taxes and sales taxes to fund their competition to the tune of $37 million. It’s hard to blame Kinseth for giving up on Peoria under those circumstances.

City Council, City of Peoria

Tonight’s special council meeting has been canceled

2 Comments

From the City Clerk:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO HOLD A POLICY SESSION REGARDING THE SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM AND THE COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW LONG TERM CONTROL PLAN SCHEDULED FOR 6:15 P.M. ON TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2010, AT CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, ROOM 400, 419 FULTON, PEORIA, ILLINOIS, IS CANCELED.

The meeting was canceled due to a lack of a quorum, according to the city’s Communications Manager Alma Brown.

City of Peoria, Economic Development, Peoria Streets

Peoria’s priority problem

33 Comments

“The city doesn’t have a budget problem,” Gary Sandberg told me after the city council voted to spend taxpayer money for a walking trail and a private hotel. “It has a priority problem.”

That was the same observation made by Dr. Heywood Sanders of the University of Texas-San Antonio. Sanders is a well-known critic of the convention center (and increasingly, headquarters hotel) “arms race” taking place in cities across America. He’s currently writing a book about it. I asked for his thoughts on the argument that cities simply must offer huge, tax-supported incentives.

The argument goes like this: “In an ideal world, the free market would reign and projects like the hotel would be built 100% by private investment. But that’s not the world we live in. We’re in a struggle with other communities that are providing public incentives in order to lure businesses to their cities. If we don’t compete in offering these kinds of
incentives, we’ll lose out. It’s not the way it’s supposed to be, but it’s the way it is, and we just have to play the game.”

Dr. Sanders has heard the argument many times before. His response was instructive:

The “we have to do it because everyone else is” argument is repeated endlessly in city after city to justify a host of “economic development” efforts. But that doesn’t make it correct. Cities do need to compete for some things. The crucial questions are what the goals are that the city seeks, and whether the decisions make sense or not. The “we have to” argument neatly avoids laying out real goals and objectives, things that can be measured and assessed over time. And an investment decision necessarily involves risk.

The real [important things to consider are] what the potential rewards are, how they relate to community goals, and what the balance of costs and benefits are. It’s all too easy to hide behind simple homilies so that one doesn’t have to really consider what you’re trying to get, and whether it makes sense. As we’ve discussed, Peoria (like a great many cities) has been trying to “save” its downtown for decades. It doesn’t appear to have made much headway. If that’s really the goal, then you need to consider multiple strategies and alternatives, and see what actually happens.

The problem is that planners and local officials almost invariably seek to imitate what someone else has done, with little understanding of how it came about and why it works. There’s an endless parade of architects, planners, and local officials who visit San Antonio’s famed Riverwalk and conclude that all they need is [a] river (or a canal) to get “economic development.” It’s not that simple. Just like everyone thinks building a new convention center will bring hordes to town, and that they then need a new hotel to make the convention center work. And there are a host of consultants who are willing and eager to give local officials (and the business interests they serve) the urban solution du jour.

Peoria has a long history of trying to use large civic projects as a silver bullet to revitalize downtown:

  • The Civic Center was supposed to revitalize downtown, but it hasn’t. It does bring people downtown for Civic Center events, but once the events are over, they all get in their cars and empty out of downtown. The restaurant with the best location relative to the Civic Center — the Grill on Fulton — couldn’t even stay in business. The Civic Center continues to operate in the red every year.
  • Then the City developed the riverfront. There was $2.6 million for the Gateway Building, which the City spends $170,000 a year to operate and maintain. They tried to sell it in 2007, but were evidently unsuccessful. Riverfront Village — the raised concrete slab with parking underneath it that blocks your view of the river — was supposed to “pay for itself” with increased property taxes and parking fees. Parking is now free, and the tax-exempt Heartland Partnership is one of the three tenants on the slab. According to the 2010 budget, the Riverfront is expected to bring in $1.07 million in revenue toward the bond payment of $1.3 million.
  • Then there was One Technology Plaza, which was supposed to “redefine downtown.” Remember that? As the Journal Star editorialized a year after it opened, One Technology Plaza “was advertised as a novel way to put Peoria on the high-tech map, to distinguish Peoria and its work force from virtually every other mid-sized city in America.” The city spent $9.6 million on that project “in part because the $28 million private development would feature the computer-training agency.” That agency — RiverTech Center — opened in April 2000 and closed in May 2001.
  • Then the City acquired and prepared the land for a new ballpark to the tune of $3.3 million. That was supposed to lead to a renaissance south of downtown, turning blighted properties into a “Wrigleyville” atmosphere. The ballpark opened in 2002, but no Wrigleyville has materialized.
  • Along the way, the City picked up the Sears property for around $1 million — the so-called “crown jewel” of downtown Peoria. They’re poised to give the land away to the County so Lakeview Museum can relocate to the block at taxpayer expense.
  • And then there’s the Wonderful Development (City attorney Randy Ray’s ebullient appellation for the downtown hotel project), which the City Council has approved twice now. It’s a big project with a single developer and no public benefit — but a lot of public risk. This is the latest big, civic, silver bullet that will finally bring tourists to Peoria and make the Civic Center profitable. But just like with the other projects, no measurable, objective criteria for success has been identified for the downtown hotel project. Presumably, as long as the project meets its debt obligation, it will be declared a success, regardless of whether it brings in new conventions, regardless of whether other hotels and restaurants close.

The completed projects have not delivered on their promises of downtown revitalization, and there’s little reason to be hopeful that the proposed projects will fare any better. These projects are all big, flashy, and give the appearance that “things are really booming in Peoria.” Meanwhile, many less-exciting projects get put on the back burner or eliminated altogether. Those projects are called “basic services.” Things like road and sidewalk repair.

At the same time the Council approved the Wonderful Development, there was another $40 million project the council could have funded instead. It’s the Washington/Adams (U.S. Route 24) upgrade project. This would improve Route 24 from I-474 to I-74, which would benefit the public (it’s a public street) as well as numerous business/land owners and developers all up and down the stretch. It would implement key elements of the Heart of Peoria Plan (adopted “in principle” by the City Council) and the Warehouse District form-based code.

It would remove the median from the southern portion of the roadway, making the properties along that stretch more accessible and marketable, thus raising their value. It would make the Warehouse District area more pedestrian-friendly, spurring development of loft apartments/condos which would bring more residents back to downtown, which will spur more demand for retail services in the City’s central business district. Currently many of those properties sit vacant, contributing to the City’s budget woes.

This project is not without risk. There might not be enough property improvements or increases in tax receipts for the project to “pay for itself” (although I’m sure the City could find a consultant to say it will pay for itself if they really wanted to do it). But the project also carries significant public benefit, and the presence of multiple developers and property owners over a large, diverse area mitigates the risks. Yet this project languishes in the Land of Insufficient Resources while the Wonderful Development moves forward.

Conclusion: Success is not a priority for Peoria. Downtown revitalization isn’t really a priority for Peoria. Peoria’s’ biggest priority is the appearance of progress. And based on that criteria, we can all say “mission accomplished.” There’s a lot going on. Stuff being built. Stuff being torn down. Money being spent (mostly tax money, alas). It all contributes to the image that Peoria is moving and shaking.

But it’s not. Peoria is in debt and it’s continuing to lose population. City services are being slashed every year, driving more people away. The appearance of progress is bankrupting us. It doesn’t just affect the City. It also affects the County and, especially, the school district (Things are changing! Look at our shiny new buildings! Just don’t look at our test scores).

Sandberg is right. Peoria doesn’t have a budget problem. It has a priority problem.