Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

41. Catherine
    Member

    Which part of seniors' not being able to afford 300K don't you get? They don't blow their profits on a condo. They have nursing home care and Medigap, etc., to think about. I have such elderly folks in my building. Rental cost increases cannot be predicted as in a condo.

    I know what you think about tourism here. I do not agree with you. We have also the national historic landscape architecture district to offer, much different from the unpleasant Oak Park setting. Geneva, St Charles, lots of towns that do not have lot of great architecture attract out of towners, for a variety of reasons, charm chief amongst them. The reason we would not have critical mass, if that were true, is precisely because we let things like this happen. If that building goes, any chance of making money south of the tracks goes with it. I don't want to argue these hackneyed points with you John.

    Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 11:40 #

42. spatny
    Member

    I am not speaking about bringing in LOTS of money - I don't see how to do that. The Wright archi-tours in Oak Park bring in some money, and most goes for the preservation and I think quite a bit is spent on shopping at the Wright store - but that is all relative. I don't think the sales tax from the Chew Chew is a LOT of money either. It's just a contribution. We could promote visits to Riverside at the ZOO - they would give us a booth - but how you turn that into LOTS of money is beyond me. I wanted to sponsor a Classic Car event - a concours d'elegance where the cars were on display at theZOO and motored through Riverside, a prestge event where people could come her and on a weekend see the really great classic cars motoring through our streets, and make money at an auction at the zoo and RBHS field, but no one would ever pursue that. Classic auctions regularly add a 10% buyer's premium to the sale of the cars - and these bring in big money - but the Admin never followed up or got interested. That would have the potential to raise what for this town would be LOTS of money even when split with the Zoo, but it was too far out for the Village Admin. Having the Arcade ground floor filled with PROFITABLE businessesshould be a goal, but I don't have a clue as to how to get there from here. Pete Sahlis did the building on the cheap, but at least he had tenants who made a living and wanted to stay. Now, it will be priced too high I fear...

    Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 11:52 #

43. JohnM
    Member

    Catherine,

    Relax. You said:

    You think no one who lives here, who raised a family here, cannot afford 300K? You would be wrong.

    I didn't understand what you meant--that sentence was a bit unclear. Now I do. While I agree that there are no doubt a number of folks who can't afford 300K on a condo, there's likely an equal amount who can. I think both groups have options in town, in this market (of course, I'm not in this group, so I could be wrong.)

    I'm not trying to argue. I was under the impression this was a discussion board. We're having a discussion. I don't happen to believe that the Arcade is of such significance that people will actually come out of their way to see it. Catherine--you know your stuff re: architecture and landscaping--honestly, if you didn't live here, would the Arcade be on your list of buildings to see in the Chicago area? I think it needs to be a useful, occupied building--not a historical monument. And, as far as I know, Geneva attracts out of towners because of shopping and restaurants. Not sure about St. Charles.

    (Your're probably one of the only people to ever refer to Oak Park's setting as "unpleasant." I have never had a desire to live in Oak park, but I think it is--for the most part--a very attractive community.)

    Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 12:00 #

44. JohnM
    Member

    Don,

    I think we're in agreement here. The reason I brought up the tours in Oak Park is because a lot of folks always point to them as a great model and wonder why there aren't more here and wouldn't it be wonderful if we had lots of tourists. It seems to me that archi-tourism is not something that's going to produce any great economic benefit. It's nice, they'll drop some money, but it won't make much of an impact.

    I don't think anyone has a clue as to how to make the Arcade profitable. That was my point about buildings outliving their usefulness.

    Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 12:09 #

45. spatny
    Member

    And that is what I said way back when. BUT, it is still a charming idea for a building, and we should try in every way possible to keep it if we can. It really fits the site perfectly. The whole concept of piling more "upscale" units on that property is what got us into this mess. Sahlis really made out, and can't be faulted for selling it to those jerks. It was creating the perceived value by piling more on that got that ball rolling - but it's too late now. If the bank bites the bullet and lets it go for $300K or something like that we should try and and keep it and maybe sometime in the future someone will be able to do something with it. I persoanlly would rather have it than Northgate Court, the Burlington Parking lot, and/or the Centennial Plaza redo. Everybody go out and look for angels...

    Posted Thursday May 28, 2009 14:35 #

46. Flight
    Member

    It is not the tours themselves that make the money, it is the people and publicity they bring. Once they are here they need a place to eat, maybe do some shopping, look at art work , etc. Then people come back to the Chew Chew, Aunt Diana's, Shamrock Florist or Coveny Lane. They might take a trip for Bohemian Food to Riverside Restaurant or Little Bohemia (if they cleaned up a bit).

    The Arcade Building has a fantastic location (with parking) along the train. It is a good retail location. There is a need for smaller offices in the area. Especially with the corporate downsizing more professionals will be looking for office space closer to home.

    The main problem with the Wexford plans and now the bank is the capital structure. The building even in the great asset bubble of 2005-2007 would never support a $5 million investment. The building right now does not support PrinsBank's $2.9 million investment. That is why all these big banks need capital. There are a bunch of real estate investments now only worth 10 cents on the dollar. This credit freeze is extending longer because the government keeps coming out with new programs and procedures every week (TARP, TALF, Good Bank/Bad Bank, etc)and the banks are not taking the losses because they wait for the next idea to save them.

    Prinsbank should take the highest offer and move on. Every day they own it they lose more money.

    Posted Saturday May 30, 2009 08:57 #

47. Catherine
    Member

    Agreed, it is the money tourists drop that is wanted. E.g. we make a lot of money from Brookfield Zoo. As to Prinsbank, alas, those who cannot cut their losses, their numbers are legion.

    But really, we want the Arcade for ourselves mainly. It was great when it was fully occupied and useful. But I am for saving it any way we can. That whole area will be ruined if it goes. It would be akin to taking one of the buildings off the corner of LaSalle and Jackson. There is an intact mood there now; it must not be disrupted.

    John, there actually are people who are interested in Frederick Clarke Withers, and the Arcade is a very unusual example of his work. But it is the whole package that is Riverside that is the attraction, not any particular building. People can shop anywhere, it is the charm of Geneva that attracts [they have strict codes about downtown buildings], and the historical downtown of St Charles on the Fox. These are not mere suburbs, but old towns. We are more like them than, say, Wilmette.

    Oak Park has an ugly, congested downtown. Usually it must be traversed to get to the good stuff. Try that on a Saturday. After living in Riverside, I also find it claustrophobic. The wide open space that is Swan Pond on the river is a unique feature. I think there is no comparison, although Oak Park surely has cultural advantages and lots of Wrights.

    Yes, I visited here from lovely Evanston and never left. So I think people would certainly wish to spend a day here.

    Posted Saturday May 30, 2009 11:10 #

48. commonsense
    Member

    I haven't heard anything about the Arcade other than the bids were rejected. Has the board said anything about it?

    Posted Saturday Jun 6, 2009 19:02 #

49. Catherine
    Member

    What do you expect a government to say about a private sale?

    I would like to hear them say they are selling the property on Burlington to help buy it. Or perhaps a land swap. That would be the only thing they could have to say about it.

    Posted Monday Jun 8, 2009 10:42 #

50. commonsense
    Member

    I expect them to do what they said they were going to do. Time is of the essense on the Arcade.

    Landmark 2/29/09

    Asked how the village might be able to use its influence to spur the reclamation of the Arcade Building, RCA candidates stated that although the building was in private hands RCA would push to put together a group of residents who might understand how best to approach the problem.

    "It's the heart of our village," Reynolds said. "If we don't care about that, we don't care about anything in this town. We have to get together a consortium of residents with expertise and money. It's something we have to advocate for."

    I have not seen them pushing, or even nudging on the issue.

    Posted Monday Jun 8, 2009 14:18 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.