I just have a minor quibble about this article from the Journal Star:
Putting a new piece in the latest lifestyle trends puzzle, Cullinan Cos. LLC said Thursday it will build upscale apartments within walking distance [emphasis added] of The Shoppes at Grand Prairie. Ground was broken this week on the Apartments at Grand Prairie, a 160-unit complex going up in the field behind the Rave Motion Picture theater.
I’m not sure why Paul Gordon chose to describe the proximity of these new apartments as “within walking distance,” but I find it a bit misleading. Normally, when you talk of something being “within walking distance,” it implies that you can actually walk there with reasonable ease. I don’t believe that’s the case here.
The apartments may be technically “within walking distance,” as the crow flies, but how would you walk there? Answer: not easily — or safely. While the center of the Shoppes is designed specifically for pedestrians, once you’re on the outside of the inner sanctum, all bets are off. Try crossing Grand Prairie Drive on foot to get to the restaurants across the street.
Or suppose you want to walk from the Shoppes to Rave theater. How would you do it? No path is clearly marked out. You just have to start walking across the parking lot in the general direction of the theater and be prepared to circumnavigate or hurdle some obstacles (out-buildings, a berm, American Prairie Drive, another berm, and another parking lot). In fairness, there are some intermittent sidewalks along the way. But overall, you have to blaze a path through a landscape designed for automobiles, not pedestrians.
And the apartments are going to be behind Rave, no doubt separated by a transitional buffer yard and other barriers that will make it physically impossible (or nearly so) to walk between the two even if the tenants so choose. I think the whole “walking distance” language is nothing more than a marketing slogan designed to elicit nostalgic feelings of traditional neighborhood design and sell an artificial impression of walkability in a place where it doesn’t really exist.
I found that “within walking distance” phrase a bit odd also.
That four-way stop at the Shoppes is entertaining driving, to say the least. Walking across that would definitely keep you on your toes.
The Kids and I regularly walk from the parking lot at Golds Gym to the Shoppes. We have never had a lick of trouble. The roadway circling the Shoppes is not heavily travelled. What makes you so sure they won’t make provisions for a sidewalk? Have you asked the Developer? Your overall point here is that the area behind Raves Theatre should NOT be described as within walking distance to the Shoppes and that is just ridiculous. If that is not “walking distance”, I don’t know what could be.
Diane,
Walking distance is when you walk out of your apt door go down the hall to the elevator, go down 30 floors to the movie venue, when your done seeing the show you go down 6 more floors to the grocery/ dry goods store and load up your cart, then go back up to the 50th floor and pick up your dry cleaning then back down to your apt level. That is walking distance.
PC – You must be being facetious 😉
I agree with your premise. But if you expect the principals of new urbanism to be adhered to with a development as farflung and automobile oriented as Grand Prairie, you’re setting yourself up for disappointment.
When that residential development was announced a year or so ago, they went to great lengths to pitch it as having New Urbanist inspiration. It was laughable then and continues to be now. It had all the buzz words at the time and little of the substance.
Call it what it is: More sprawl and a waste of good farmland!
Wait until the wind is blowing in the winter..it will be a nice little walk then.
I guess on the upside, the economy must be getting better if Cullinan is going forward with this project.
Is there any public money involved with this?
I can’t imagine Peoria needing 160 more apartments. But… with the police force being gutted, even renters are going to want out.
I have found that obese sloths’ definition of “walking distance” has a sharp contrast with the reasonably able-bodied’s definition. It’s a quarter mile. That’s ONE lap around a track. Is that not walking distance?
We all learned the pedestrian rules for walking streets in grade school. You walk close to the curb against the flow of traffic. Look left, right, and left again before crossing an intersection. Sidewalks are not necessary.
I was just talking to my girlfriend about a similar thing Saturday. We had a 40 minute wait over at Longhorn. Won’t do that again but that’s another gripe. Anyway that area was not designed at all for walking around. It doesn’t seem to me there was a lot of thought put into the area. It’s definitely not pedestrian friendly and the layout of the roads is horrible.
By my observation, “walking distance” that appeared to be used by Duany, was defined by the time it took. Fifteen minutes seems to be a typical distance people are willing to walk from point A to point B before they prefer to drive or take public transit (where available).
You could have a much longer stretch of shops that people would be willing to walk provided there were points of interest along the way.
I’m sorry but it is a sad state of affairs when one can assert and get others to agree that it is anything other than walking distance to walk your butt from the Rave Theatres across the parking lot to the Shoppes. Holy cow James Fixx would be turning over in his grave.
I see the argument CJ and others are making not as to the distance, but as to the safety and convenience, or lack thereof. One would think that as a new development, if walking was to be encouraged, safe walk paths would be provided.
Walking distance? Yes – it definitely sounds like it’s walking distance for the non-obese and obese.
Is it a walkable distance – maybe, maybe not. If they would mark some crosswalks – maybe install a traffice light with a walk signal for pedestrians somewhere. Walking across the parking lots and roads in Grand PrairieLand really isn’t an enjoyable walking expreience. Walking from the proposed apartments to say Longhorn Steakhouse would not be an enjoyable walking experience – even if you are walking towards traffic on the edge of the road. The area was not designed for pedestrians – but hey, it’s the same developer and it could have been designed for pedestrians – and maybe they still will. Hope springs eternal. But I’m not holding my breath.
.. which brings us back to my original question which is if CJ asked the developer about this, or if he is just assuming the developer will not make any provisions for pedestrian traffic. If he didn’t ask, it seems a fairly premature alarm to sound.
You are worried about safety? I guess you have never walked a few blocks in downtown Chicago or New York. This is like walking a few blocks across a farm field with a couple of roads you have to cross. Those apartments will be an easy walk from the mall
Getting around on foot around Northwood’s Mall is a little trickier but still not impossible.
East Peoria’s riverfront shopping area is not good either.
On another note multi-family housing is the only real estate projects developers want to invest in right now. I had a local commercial realtor tell me that he has investors looking for property in the city to build apartments on.
What is all this about walking? 🙂 Eventually, you will all be my age and looking for the closest parking spot. No, I do get it–some of my best memories are of walking downtown Peoria with my parents to window shop–and it was so much cheaper for my dad since all of the stores were closed at night. My parents didn’t have a car, however, so we had to walk–probably wouldn’t have walked if we hadn’t been forced to rely on buses. We would go to the Big 500 (Chinese restaurant) to eat and then walk “up” town. However, I really don’t want to walk outdoors from one store to another in inclement weather.
PS has it right. I am a big fan of walking but . . . pedestrian friendly or not, the wind out there is incredible.
Diane,
CJ’s point is that “walkable” is not the ability of putting one foot in front of the other (as you describe doing with your children) to get from point A to B.
Walkable areas provide quality experiences that efficiently get a person from where they are to a point of purpose. Additionally being “walkable” does not mean getting on a trail for exercise when all you accomplish is walking.
Ask yourself this question “If I need a carton of milk is it more convenient for me to walk or drive?” In Peoria, nine times out of ten the answer would be it is more efficient to drive. That is the problem.
We need to create living environments in Peoria where people can choose to leave their car behind because at the end of the day it is provides convenience, built in exercise and a pleasant and safe experience.
Please try to get a copy of the Heart of Peoria Plan and really read it or go to http://www.cnu.org and explore what the issue is with cities that do not do enough to support multimodal or pedestrian travel. I would love to walk with you on any given street in Peoria to show you there are currently no — absolutely no — quality walkable experiences in Peoria . There could be — but not now.
Respectfully,
Beth
Beth, your point is well taken but I disagree slightly 🙂 Within neighborhoods there are quality walkable experiences – The Knolls being one for instance. And while you would think you can’t get anywhere other than another house without going thru an “unpleasant” experience, such as walking along Knoxville or War, you can take a cute shortcut to the back of DQ (never touching Sheridan) – quite the pleasant experience on a summer evening!
Sorry- I will have to disagree with your example of the Knolls.
While the Knolls is beautiful and pleasant ( especially on a summer evening 🙂 ), wouldn’t it be better if your walk to the grocery, pharmacy, Kmart, TJ Max, etc. was not encumbered by a vast parking lot and busy wide lanes of traffic? You can not walk safely to Sheridan Village and unfortunately there are few if any street trees and there are no sidewalks on the east side of the street and those on the west side are narrow.
Better, sure. But I was teasing you by saying that WITHIN neighborhoods there are quality walkable experiences – maybe not to get anywhere – except to go…for a walk. 🙂
Got it!
Diane,
One other point-
Peoria’s current zoning laws prevent walkable neighborhoods from being built except in the four Form Districts, although from what I can tell , our current planning/zoning commissions and City Council are doing their best to dilute and destroy any progress made by the Heart of Peoria Commission whose mission was to move Peoria in a more “walkable” direction.
I believe those are yet another 160 apartments that are located within the Dunlap School District…..
Beth – I admit that the topic of urban renewal is over my head but I can’t help but think that retrofitting an old, historic city to adapt to new principles of urbanism would be a hard bill to fill (and sell to the public).
“I can’t help but think that retrofitting an old, historic city to adapt to new principles of urbanism would be a hard bill to fill (and sell to the public).”
The public, especially in the Heart of Peoria, enthusiastically supported it. The developers in the area, however, were not interested. Well, we know who really pulls the strings of power in this city (and not for the better of the public).
I have never seen a good reason why they wouldn’t be amenable to New Urbanism. There is plenty of evidence to suggest the New Urbanist designed, retrofitted, new, or old communities, gain more value and retain more value than their more suburban counterparts. When married to attractive public transit networks (which Citylink is not), the economic benefits increase further.
Among the 20 and 30 something, high performing professionals, communities which exhibit New Urbanist characteristics are HIGHLY desired locations for them to take jobs in. These are the sort of people that Caterpillar and other aspiring companies most desire. So when they are shopping for careers, location very much matters, more so than older generations. Peoria has a lot of good things about it, but we need to do better to be more competitive. I just don’t see the current developers in the area really contributing or supporting to that long term objective.
In the long term, I think the general economy will force communities to be more New Urbanist whether they want to or not. Peoria really needs to rethink whether it wants to be ahead of the curve or playing catch up. Playing catch up will be painful.
It’s interesting seeing the reaction this post generated. Some of you have very low expectations/standards for pedestrian accommodation. “Scruff” says that sidewalks are not even necessary — it’s perfectly acceptable to require pedestrians to walk on the street, by the curb, facing opposing traffic. Diane thinks that traversing a couple of parking lots, berms, and a collector street for mall traffic is a perfectly acceptable pedestrian experience. And Peoriafan thinks its safer than walking in Chicago or New York, so that’s good enough for him.
I’d like to propose a couple of things:
First of all, when we talk about pedestrians, we are not only talking about able-bodied people in their twenties and thirties. We’re also talking about children, the elderly, and the disabled. Keep in mind that safety and accessibility needs are more intense for these users.
Secondly, streets are designed for cars, not people. Just because it’s legal for people to walk on streets doesn’t make the area “walkable.” Consider, for example, when it rains. Streets are designed to drain runoff to the curbside, where it then runs into a storm drain. So, where are pedestrians supposed to safely walk when it’s raining? Or are they only supposed to walk during good weather?
As for Diane’s question of whether I’ve contacted the developer, no, I haven’t. She might have something there — it’s completely possible that, as part of this new apartment complex project, the developer is planning to finally finish all the sidewalks so that there is connectivity between all parts of the Shoppes and its out-buildings, install crosswalks and pedestrian crossing lights at busier intersections, and plant street trees for shade and wind-break. If that happens, then I’ll retract my post.
Mahkno: There are actually about 300 new apartment units starting now or soon.
All good points and very interesting thread.
Diane-
It is not over your head; however, the challenge of getting back to the way cities were originally designed (Peoria included) may seem overwhelming, if not impossible, until public policy changes. We need to move towards improved infrastructure related to pedestrian movement and more mass transit options to improve all of our lives.
Perhaps some historical context will help-
Peoria’s streets, over the years, have been altered to accommodate increased car ownership. Sidewalks were narrowed and street trees were removed to widen the streets. The only explanation as to why we have five twelve foot travel lanes near residential areas is because our policy makers have placed more importance on travel by car. The result in Peoria: de facto second rate pedestrian and mass transit experiences.
Early subdivisions (the Knolls) sprung up outside of the city to provide homes with larger lawns and attached garages. The assumption was homeowners would have at least one if not two cars. Today’s newest subdivisions assume multiple car ownership which is no longer simply a preference or status symbol -it is by default a necessity.
Zoning laws originally written to protect the public’s health have not evolved to also protect our need to incorporate exercise and personal contact in our normal day to day activities. If you want to walk or take a bus in Peoria it is neither practical nor pleasant and in some areas impossible. This outcome is largely controlled by zoning and subdivision ordinances. Forget about the casual meeting of a friend or acquaintance on the street- the most likely experience is a drive-by-wave of the hand.
As we have become more attached to cars commercial property has followed suit with the mega mall and mega parking lot. Most large scale commercial development in Peoria detracts from residential development, which is why buffers are required; however, it does not have to be this way. Some of the nicest and most expensive residential properties in cities throughout the world coexist with commercial development- it is all a matter of how they are designed and the way the buildings meet the street.
Subdivisions, which are largely homogeneous in most categories, give people a false sense of security. We are fatter, less connected, and more cash strapped because we have to spend so much time driving in, and money on, our cars. Eventually older citizens find themselves needing to move out of these subdivisions because smaller more affordable housing and transportation options are not available or allowed. Once they lose their ability to drive they become dependent and isolated. The same is true for young people under the age of sixteen and those too poor to own a car. Our lives have not necessarily been enhanced by the automobile even though that was the intent.
If new construction and infill were designed to give people more choices we would reap many benefits. Market demand for balanced living exists and has for years, but locally Peoria’s public policy and attitude has restricted this type of development.
Cities that have maintained the necessary balance between the auto/pedestrian/mass transit are thriving. Cities that have recognized the debilitating effect of auto centric development are making incremental changes to policy allowing improvement to take place.
There are volumes written about this topic and your professional organization is no exception. The National Association of Realtors website has many articles – unfortunately the materials are not accessible to the public, but they are to you -so enjoy: http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg314#topica
“Cities that have maintained the necessary balance between the auto/pedestrian/mass transit are thriving. ”
I have to take issue with that statement, I don’t think that there is anyway that you can prove whether the mix of transportation is a result of thriving cities or if thriving cities are forced to balance those modes of transportation because of the constraints of space.
“Most large scale commercial development in Peoria detracts from residential development, which is why buffers are required; however, it does not have to be this way.”
I think that here you are acting under the false assumption that Peoria retail development would be able to sustain itself without the influx of people who live outside the city and have to drive. The only reason Peoria has what it has to begin with is the nearly 300,000 people who live OUTSIDE the city who are willing to drive to shop there. The mass transit system that would be required to move that number of people over the large land area they occupy isn’t feasible with the population density that exists throughout central Illinois.
Part of the problem with your ideas about development in Peoria is that they are so Peoria centric. The city of Peoria would not be able to survive without the communities outside it. You say that there is demand for all of this, yet the areas in central Illinois that are flourishing are the exact opposite of what you are proposing. Yes, it would be nice to have some more downtown housing for those that want it, but if you enacted the kinds of changes you are promoting development, especially retail, in Peoria would dry up and move to Tazewell, Woodford, and unincorporated areas of Peoria County in a heartbeat because development in the city of Peoria is not a result of Peoria citizens, its because of everyone else.
And besides all this Heart of Peoria stuff is a moot point until something actually happens to D150. I can’t tell you how many conversations I have throughout the month with people in my age bracket, in their 20s and 30s, are about to or have started families and have decent jobs who readily admit there is no way they would live within the city and send their kids to D150. Its a deal breaker for just about every young family I talk to. That’s your real problem, solve that and then you might see some population growth.
Unfortunately 11bravo is hitting it on the head here. My wife and I are 20 and 30 somethings who choose to live in an older neighborhood in Peoria, however all my friends and family think we are insane and openly tell us that.
Why is there a Save Alot at campustown instead of a Whole Food?
Why is most of Main St. dead or dying?
Companies take calculate risk when they locate and at this point its a better sell to open shop north or east where poeple with money to shop live and those of us who choose to live in the heart of peoria drive to patronize their establishments so its a win win.
Developers are not in the business to make neighborhoods walkable or more close knit they are in the business to make money.
Peoria has horrible mass transit, horrible schools, a growing issue with crime and poverty, major budget problems and is considering cutting essential services.
Im sorry but until these issues are addressed I dont think we are going to see much improvement
Fixing the school district will not in itself solve Peoria’s problems.
3 things must occur concurrently.
1) Crime must be brought ‘under control’ in a way that satisfies those that live where it is occurring. Until crime is ‘under control’ businesses will not want to relocate into the Heart of Peoria. Until crime is ‘under control’ certain prospective residents will choose to live and work somewhere else. Peoria has not had enough Police and in the future will have even fewer.
2a) Jobs. Peoria has two approaches to this. On the one hand Peoria desperately needs the sorts of jobs that those with limited education can achieve a living income on. Factory jobs, trades, what have you. A policy that seeks to lift lower income folks out of poverty.
2b) The other approach is that Peoria should seek highly skilled jobs, the sorts that need folks with secondary degrees. To take the second approach Peoria needs to shed its discomfort with gentrification. This approach would seek to displace those lower income folks and replace them with higher skilled residents. This is where New Urbanism enters the debate.
You can try to work a combination of the two. You need jobs to lure people to live closer to where they work. I do think most folks prefer to avoid long commutes. The crux of it all tho are the lower educated, lower income folk who seem to be consolidated in the boundaries of Peoria. Peoria has a disproportionately large percentage of them.
3) Yes… schools. I will say what I have said before. The problems with District 150 are largely demographic and not administrative when it comes to academics. The budget problems however, are most certainly administrative. Fix #1 and # 2 concurrently while striving to change #3 for the better and I think you will find the demography begin to shift. When that happens, the schools will magically improve.
the last 3 posts all offer great insights into why Peoria is the way it is. I am in my early 40s and like 11bravo and Stephen point out, my friends do not even consider Peoria because of the reputation of District 150. I also agree with Mahkno that the biggest problem facing the District and in turn Peoria, are the demographics. Most that reside with in its limits are either poor or aging. Also, homes prices in “better” neighborhoods within Peoria still remain steep considering the houses in these areas are at the very least 30 plus years old and typically need updating. Oh, don’t forget the Peoria taxes. I have to believe Stephen’s friends must weigh their options and determine they can get a better deal, all things considered, outside of Peoria.
I would much prefer to live in an urban setting but I am not sure the bulk of families living in Central Illinois feel that way, regardless of the conditions of Peoria schools, etc.
Frustrated….this is what the big players and city leaders need to realize.
Until 150 is considered a good school system by those families looking at moving to Peoria, those families will either choose Dunlap or over the river.
Unfortunately, the reaction by Stephen’s friends and family are more the norm. My family that live in the immediate area live over the river. My sister told me there is no way she would send their daughter to 150 or live in Peoria for that fact. She drives to Peoria on a regular basis to eat, shop, movies, etc. but she wouldn’t consider living in Peoria. On the other hand, our neighbor who has kids in 150 sings their praises. All it takes is one person to tell one of their family members or friends “Don’t move to Peoria, I would never send my kids to 150. We live in (Washington, Dunlap, Germantown Hills) and you’ll love it”. Heck, I think only one of my friends from high school lives in Peoria. All the rest are in Tazwell County or out of town.
Why are we here? We like the city and we’re going to homeschool. 150 will not be an option.
I have chosen to live in an urban core neighborhood. It is not as nice as it was 30 years ago, but is better than it was 15 years ago. There are issues. However, I enjoy living there. There will always be those people who want to live in a far-flung suburb with no sidewalks. More power to them. I refuse to be run out of my home. I choose to stay in my neighborhood and do my part to try and make things better. Among the biggest issues I find are apathetic people who are content with the status quo and/or those who like to complain but don’t want to take any kind of action. While indentifying and discussing problems is valuable, it is also important to take the next step and try to do something about them. There are a lot of good people living in the core neighborhoods who are working to make a difference. If you are one of those people, you have my thanks. If you currently not one of those people, consider it may be time to step up. If you are not a part of the solution, you really are a part of the problem.
Frustrated:
This statement is a fallicy:
“Most that reside with in its limits are either poor or aging.”
Running people out isnt the issue. It’s getting people to move in that is the hard part.