Riverside Info » About Riverside

Bars, Clubs, Taverns, Lounges, Saloons in Riverside

(33 posts)
  • Started 3 years ago by Catherine
  • Latest reply from Catherine
1 2 3 4

  1. Catherine
    Member

    I wonder what people think about having such establishments, namely, ones that serve only booze without food, in Riverside? Why even go here, whether as a permitted or special use?

    Most crimes occur within one mile of a bar, I have read. Repeated studies show spikes in all manner of crime near bars. Even if they are on the periphery, think of the results of penetration into the abutting residential districts. I should say especially on the periphery, for one esconced in the CBD and likely used by locals does not seem as bad, although the recent incidents on Forest give me pause. Anonymity of bar location increases crime, i.e. thoroughfares like Harlem, and also Route 66 Ogden. Tax receipts increase, but so do police costs, a very ample consideration.

    I just found out a bar could be put on Burlington and Cowley as a special use, as well as live music. This is right next to single family homes.

    This is the plan for the B-1 district, even in the alleged "transitional core" from commercial to residential. If you can have a tavern in a "transitional core", what on earth might you be transitioning to?

    Plan Commission meeting, Dec 17 this Wednesday, 7pm, Room 4, on the topic of B1 Final.

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 11:40 #

  2. JohnM
    Member

    I'd be pleased to see a bar or two in Riverside, ideally in the CBD. It would be nice to spend some of my discretionary income at a local establishment instead of in Berwyn or North Riverside (no offense to either town--I'd just like to keep some money at home).

    Catherine, where did you read that "most" crimes occur within a mile of a bar? I find this impossible to believe. Or, if it is true, it is specious logic--there's very few areas in Chicago, for example, that are more than one mile away from a bar, so I suppose one could consider almost all crime in Chicago as occuring within a mile of a bar. However, one has nothing to do with the other.

    With respect to crime spikes in near bars, I think it depends on the establishment. If you look a mile east or so, I'd be very, very surprised to find that the James Joyce is related to any increase in crime. On the other hand, I would be equally surprised if the combination of George's and the Cherry Lounge don't account for at least 90% of the police calls in Berwyn's Depot DIstrict. I would hope (and I'm pretty sure I'm correct) that any bar seeking to open up in Riverside would be along the James Joyce model.

    Really, though, I'm not sure there's a market for a stand-alone bar. Maybe a small one, with an owner who's not looking to make a fortune, but even that would be tough. But if anyone gives it a shot, I'll check it out.

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 12:04 #

  3. Catherine
    Member

    I have been researching the topic John. When I find that statistic again, the source I have now lost, I will post it. In the meantime, this from the Dept. of Justice:

    http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e08064507.pdf

    Neighborhood bars - read locals - have less violence. Places that also serve food even less. There would be no way to prove your point about the James Joyce, but I am sure it does not reduce crime.

    I think everyone would like a cozy pub, maybe to watch the World Series or Superbowl together. I just see no reason to eliminate food. I am concerned with the cost/benefit analysis.

    I would also ask you whether you would like to have that bar across the street from your house, or abutting your yard, because that is what many of your neighbors in town are looking at.

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 12:17 #

  4. JohnM
    Member

    OK. I'd love to see the source, because after I think about this further, I'm sure it can't be true. If you think about it, given the amount of churches in CHicago, I'll bet you could make a claim that 98% of all crimes in the city occur with a mile of a church.

    Anyway, on to your last post. I never said that a bar would reduce crime. WHat I said was that I would be surprised if a certain bar is responsible for an increase in crime. I also said that there are 2 other bars that I believe are responsible for problems.

    I didn't read the DOJ report you attached. I'm quite sure that there are more fights in bars than most other places. Again, though, I think it really depends on the clientele the bar attracts. Still, it can't be argued that the best way to prevent fights in bars is to ban bars. You could also ban alcohol, although if memory serves, we tried that once and it didn't work out so well.

    I don't see any reason to eliminate food, either. However, some of the best run and most pleasant bars I've been to don't serve food. That said, some real S*&%holes don't serve food, either. I was just responding to the question.

    I'm not sure why you bolded the last sentence, and I also am a bit taken aback by your tone--seems a bit accusatory--you apparently don't care for my response to your initial question. However, to answer your new question, I don't live in the CBD, so I don't have to worry about a bar right across the street from me, or abutting my yard, and I knew that when I bought my house. If I lived in the CBD, I don't think I'd care--after all, it would have been my choice to live there, and I presumably would have done the homework about what types of businesses could open up.

    Finally, is there really any type of movement to put a stand alone bar at Burlington and Cowley? Or, is this just something that could technically be done under the zoning code? Really, I don't think that this is going to happen.

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 12:42 #

  5. Catherine
    Member

    Yes, I see your point about the statistic. But really John, I appeal to your common sense. As one who chose to live near Lincoln Avenue in my younger days, I can say it creates problems. But I had a reasonable expectation of illegal behavior.

    Yes, I know what you did and didn't say; I am just extending the logic. Why try to find out? The DOJ report points to drunk driving, lower inhibitions, increased aggressiveness, expectations that surround the bar experience, the anonymity problem, etc.:

    Factors Contributing to Aggression and Violence in Bars . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    Alcohol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
    Culture of Drinking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
    Type of Establishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
    Concentration of Bars . . . . . . . . . 5
    Bar Closing Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
    Aggressive Bouncers . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
    High Proportion of Young Male Strangers. . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
    Price Discounting of Drinks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
    Continued Service to Drunken Patrons. . . . . 7
    Crowding and Lack of Comfort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
    Competitive Situations. . . . . . . 8
    Low Ratio of Staff to Patrons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
    Lack of Good Entertainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
    Unattractive Décor and Dim Lighting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
    Tolerance for Disorderly Conduct. . . . . . . 9
    Availability of Weapons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
    Low Levels of Police Enforcement and Regulation . . .

    I bolded the last sentence to emphasize it, that is all. Often something sounds good until it is right next to you. I do not live in the CBD. I had an expectation of walking to the train, the church, the grocery store and having a handy funeral parlor, and that is all. No one living near this corner had any way of foreseeing a bar. Nor could the people living on Herrick, Lionel, Delaplane, and so on. I agree those in the CBD could. That is probably why no second floor units have sold in the VC, as I understand it.

    The food issue 1) decreases the effects of alcohol, 2) is statistically associated with lessening problems that come with liquor alone and 3) creates an expectation of an experience unlike the one described above. Many, many suburbs make this distinction. It's pretty standard.

    The prelude to a movement to put one there is to allow it as a use. The property could be marketed on that basis. That corner is an improbable island of B1 in a sea of R. It is certainly a wildly inappropriate place for a bar, hard by single family homes.

    I won't say, as someone once said to me, that if you "love Riverside" you will read the DOJ piece or research the matter more closely! As I said, I wondered what people thought, I now I know what you think. But I do not want this for myself or for anyone else who would have to live near it. That would be the last reason anyone would move to Riverside, to live next to the "She's Not Here" or the "Dew Drop Inn." I don't think we can look forward to classy joints on Harlem Avenue.

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 13:02 #

  6. JohnM
    Member

    I just want to make it clear what I am stating here. I read your initial question to ask whether people would support a stand alone bar in Riverside. I would--in the CBD. I'd also prefer it if it served food, but I have no objections to bars that don't. I agree that a bar in the middle of single-family homes is not appropriate, but I find it difficult to believe this would happen. Given the number of vacancies available in the CBD, would it not be more likely that this would be a better location? If someone sought to open a bar at Burlington and Cowley, I'd question their sanity. Plus, I would think that enough neighborhood pressure would be exterted to prevent this.

    However, I'm still missing something here. Is there a movement to 1) change the zoning code to allow taverns, lounges, bars, etc. in the transitional zone outside the CBD? or 2) is there or has there been an application to put up a bar at Burlington and Cowley? Reading between the lines, it seems to me that you are aware of a proposed zoning change that would allow 1).

    Finally, I have no doubt that the figures in the DOJ report are correct (it is, for example, hard to argue that drunken patrons and the availability of weapons would not lead to an increase in violence.) I also believe (although am not certain) that this report (or the first version of it) was likely drafted during John Ashcroft's tenure as AG. I'm not saying it was written at his direction, but you know, I'll bet it wouldn't hurt an ambitious DOJ employee to present a report highlighting the evils of bars to his teetotalling Pentacostal boss. I'm surprised there wasn't a section on the evils of dancing and hemlines above the knee. I simply don't share the belief that bars (and drinking) are wrong and/or sinful in and of themselves.

    (As an aside, there was an recent article in the real estate magazine that occasionally comes with the Landmark occasionaly about Riverside Lawn. Apparently, the original bridge connection Riverside and Riverside Lawn (where the swinging bridge is) was strongly opposed by Riverside's town fathers, due to their fears of beer and whiskey swilling immigrants crossing over and picnicing in Riverside).

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 13:51 #

  7. Catherine
    Member

    For my own part, I would not mind seeing a sports bar in the CBD, as long as it served food!

    My reference to the Plan Commission Meeting was not fleshed out, as the topic is much on my mind. There is a proposed finalization of B1 zoning. You can see a map on village website under Special Meetings. Problems with it may be numerous, but my issue is with bars and/or loud live entertainment near residences. The B1 involves most of Harlem, and Ogden to at least Lionel. The transitional B1 subdistricts are from Delaplane to Harlem on Burlington I believe and, inexplicably, the southwest corner of Burlington and Cowley.

    There is no search function on the new, improved village website, so I cannot recall what the bar rule is in the CBD, either permitted or special.

    John, I am not Carrie Nation nor a Calvinist. There used to be a brewery on our side of the river, so I cannot scan that anecdote. No, the first version of the report is pretty much like the second. Government staffers don't pay too much attention to administrations, frankly. There is no rocket science to figuring out the association of increased crime to bars, for heaven's sake. Google it. Ask the Riverside Police about Harlem Avenue NOW. Random sample:

    http://www.google.com/search?sa=N&tab=nw&q=crime%20bars%20alcohol

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 14:12 #

  8. spatny
    Member

    Since they stopped having regular boxing on television it's still good to know that you can count on seeing a fight at Brixie's, almost any night. I bet in Riverside that would come under "entertainment" and call for a cabaret license.

    I think that old bridge was viewed as "The Bridge to Nowhere" by the locals. Lack of imagination...

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 14:17 #

  9. JohnM
    Member

    The current bar rule in the CBD is special use only. The southwestern corner of Cowley and Burlington is already a B1 district. There's an insurance agent there now, and I suspect that the reason for the B1 designation of that corner was to grandfather an existing business into that location the last time the code was amended.

    I was being tounge in cheek when I suggested that the DOJ report was drafted to please Ashcroft (well, kind of--I still think his adminstration was more likely to issue these types of reports than other administrations). Again, I'm not denying that there may be a correlation between certain kinds of crime and bars. However, I still believe--and I suspect we just have to agree to disagree here--that a well-run tavern, that caters to a decent clientele (such as yourself, Catherine) is not likely to present problems. Indeed, I think a few later night establishments might make our little downtown a bit more welcoming.

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 15:11 #

  10. cherylb
    Member

    Quite honestly, I don't think a stand alone bar could be supported by Riverside. Does anyone remember Parallel 42 - a very nice wine bar, no food to speak of (some cheese, I think). And what about Calvetti's Martini Grille? Are they still in business? They had small fare, good, but seemed a bit expensive.

    On another note, the Chew Chew looks about ready to open for business. It will be great if they have a decent size bar. The last Chew Chew had a bar "space". Not really a hang out area. A nice example of a restaurant that supports a nice bar is Cucina Paradiso in Oak Park. Nice atmosphere, classy, good food, fun bartenders. One area does not interfere with the other. For the mature patron, not the youngsters with that thump thumping music.

    Perhaps Riverside could support a nice jazz bar that also has great food, ala Philanders? I would be in for that!

    Not that I am a lush or anything....................

    Posted Monday Dec 15, 2008 15:39 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2 3 4

Reply »

You must log in to post.