Website Home   or   Forum Home

Register or log in (lost password?):

Username:
Password:

Remember me

Riverside Info » About Riverside

51. rwhite
    Member

    I am a new resident of Riverside, and have great hopes for the CBD, as (at least the promise of) living in walking distance from a vibrant independent (non-chain) business district is exactly what drew me to Riverside. I have previously lived in a neighborhood in Ohio, in an area that reminded me a bit of Riverside. This area very quickly developed a lovely, vibrant independent business district primarily through a decision to *actively* become an artist-friendly area. A small handful of art galleries and artist-run businesses (such as pottery school / beading / jewelery galleries, one of which was wildly popular) that started up in the neighborhood were hoped to remain in the area, and so the community decided to support these businesses with supporting events (e.g., monthly Friday night gallery "hops" during which all local businesses stayed open until 10:00 pm and outside artists came to display their work, etc.). This community support and the popularity of the "hop" nights led to an influx of foot traffic from residents in my neighborhood as well as many new outside visitors who came specifically for the "hops," and then also came back to visit local businesses on "non-hop" days. Following this, the number and quality of other businesses in my neighborhood (especially pubs/restaurants) increased dramatically. I suddenly found that I was living in a well-regarded "arts district" and loved being able to live there to enjoy the benefits.

    I would personally love to see more pub/restaurant options in Riverside, and think that a support of the arts might create an attraction that will improve the quality of our CBD all the way around.

    Every few months, my husband and I go to the popular Pilsen neighborhood art walk nights, and I'd love to think that we might be able to offer an attraction such as this in Riverside. Maybe some development of the Arcade Building as a space for the arts could offer such opportunities in the future...

    Posted Sunday Sep 27, 2009 22:50 #

52. JillM
    Member

    Welcome to the forum, rwhite! Interesting input. We certainly have the scaffolding for a vibrant arts district to expand.

    Since perusing the historical museum's website, I'm hoping we get a pub with 'Lamplighter' in the name. I love that photo of Lamplighter Larry!

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 01:53 #

53. stmarymom
    Member

    http://www.oakparkartsdistrict.com/

    This was in its' infancy 12 years ago, at the time seeming to an outsider a remote possibility. This was a stretch of blocks that had no character whatsoever, in danger of being taken over by gangs. Click on the business directory. It is quite an accomplishment...

    Jill, I love your idea of using historical names and references into the WHOLE downtown.

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 02:03 #

54. CuriousResident
    Member

    Love the art district idea!

    Looking at the OPAD business directory, I can't help but struggle with the same old question: How can these types of businesses afford to pay the rent?

    Yet it appears they have found a way to make it!

    Maybe there are some "learned the hard way"s that we could find out from them~

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 08:59 #

55. PAR4
    Member

    How about using one of the empty VC spots to entice a few of them over for a 'combined showing'? It may help enhance exposure for both parties.

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 09:30 #

56. mrt
    Member

    Larry the Lamplighter shows up you when you click 1940s in the slideshow below. Behind him is a house on Pine that is still there across from the Fire station. And, considering the discussion on bikes in Riverside on these pages and seeing many bicyclists 'round town, doncha love that first picture from the link below of the chief of police and his bike?

    http://riverside-illinois.com/images/historyofriverside/riverside_01.swf

    welcome, rwhite to this forum. On the art angle, spatny has floated an idea of adorning art masterpieces in the cbd to help distinguish and set apart Riverside and thereby to also attract visitors.

    Here is another link on art in the cbd

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/possible-murals-may-improve-look-of-arcade-building#post-10844

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 12:02 #

57. spatny
    Member

    mrt - I seem to remember that in the 1950s the gas lamps had some kind of clock wound devices that turned the lamps down during the day, and that a guy with a ladder on a Model A went around winding them weekly or some such. That was when the gutters were still cobble and the roads were lower, and the trees were higher forming tunnels... also a lot more under story growth on the triangles, etc. Then it really was a Village in the Forest. There are still some streets like that but they are in LaGrange and elsewhere.

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 14:52 #

58. chrisrobling
    Member

    I am not involved in, nor have I closely followed, the Burlington-vacant-lots-not-becomming-parking-for-now issue.

    As a member of St Mary Parish, I have been involved in the tumult there over building a new rectory in "Mary Park."

    Without speaking to any of the merits or equities of any of the sides in either of these disputes, may I once again note the added value of planning?

    Had either the Village or the Parish undertaken a comprehensive planning process some years ago, then they would not be where they are today on these two issues.

    I have been banging this kettle so long my ears hurt. I realize planning is no fun, and the work is indeed hard. ALL OF US must also come to the planning table knowing the -- if it is done right -- none of us will leave entirely satisfied. That is, in the nature of vectoring in to a planning runway, we of necessity will not land on everyone's favorite idea.

    As Riversiders who know its strengths best, I hope we accept that and use it to earn adherence to the plan by all parties once it is adopted.

    It appears, and again I address none of the particulars on one side or another, that our Village's economic strain is real. Our budget sums up our current wants, but revenues seem unable to go far enough. Rather than using this circumstance to retreat from planning, it is in fact another reason to jump into a planning process. Because only through such a process do we determine priorities as well as the delineation between what may be accomplished privately and what must be done publicly.

    What direction for a plan? In another string, about a month ago, I had to (again) restate my two cents, so I borrow that expression:

    "I believe in Riverside having an appropriate and contributing downtown that builds on our uniqueness, provides for residents, attracts visitors who are interested in Riverside's natural beauty and National Historic Landmark character, aka our land form and built form, and which proceeds based on an open, public, inclusive, disciplined and ongoing comprehensive plan process. I have distinguished between the Harlem and Ogden corridors and the downtown. I well understand the limits on sales tax revenue as a factor in our overall budgetary imbalance. I have said such and acted on this basis many many times here and elsewhere."

    Planning will not solve our imbalances -- bedgetary or expectational -- by itself. But by planning the whats, whens and hows can evolve into a roadmap all of us may consult. That is its added value, and it is a value of which we are currently depriving ourselves, with all of the results one might expect to show for it.

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 16:22 #

59. spatny
    Member

    Chris - we had a Downtown Riverside Planning Workshop in April 2002 (before I was around) that stated as its goals
    Ensure Downtown Remaians Viable, Preserve & Build Upon Downtown's Historic Character and Serve the Residents of Riverside. It was led by Camiros and resulted in the B2 Zoning redraw. Its principles were: Mixed use is imperative for a vibrant downtown, Building design, scale & siting should rflect existing historic examples, Buildings & site improvements should reflect a pedestrian orientation, Prominent buildings should frame the village center space, we should Address parking on a district-wide basis, Businesses and parking must be within a walkable radius, the Buildings should create a "streetwall", and we should "Enhance the trainscape and views from the train. It dealt with all manner of things and established Bulk Requirements for setback, height and density and site development standards for parking, landscaping, screening and signage and lots more. The Village spent a lot of money on this, and then promptly went around it to grant variances for the VC, which does not conform to the criteria it developed.

    Then Came the Kane McKenna TOD study, which after a lot of hacking around was adopted as the "official vision" for Riverside's CBD. Then we had the whole TIF process. Then came TIF, by the same guys under a new name - UBS or URS or something like that - same guys. More dough spent. The 2002 drawing which Chris put up here reflected the result of the 2002 study - and we had further workshops where 5-8 other plans were looked at and commented on at public meetings and workshops.

    We don't need another plan - we need to do - as we are able - what we already decided upon. Obviously, as these were happening the present financial situation was not contemplated and could not have been prevented in any case. We also had another plan and workshops and open meeting to concentrate on both residential zoning and the B1 district - essentially Harlem Avenue. The Village did all this stuff - but we don't have the money or, it seems, the inclination, to pursue any (or many) of the ideas that were arrived at. Based on the reality of economics I don't think we need another study. Just addressing the CBD, I think we need the stake holders - the landlords, property owners and business operators/owners to look at that drawing and work out a way to get more use out of the rear parking areas we have now that are underused. The common parking reservoir idea is sound because it is low cost - really almost no cost - and would address the immediate needs of the merchants that are here now. It would also look attractive to anyone wanting to locate here. What is the objection to implementing this?

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 17:53 #

60. PAR4
    Member

    I worry that no matter how much planning and tinkering we do as a community, it all boils down to attracting 'others' to our community in order for the CBD to become viable. The RCA has made it clear that they don't want that. They have the majority and have proven time and again that anything they don't want, we don't get.

    Posted Monday Sep 28, 2009 17:58 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.