Riverside Info » About Riverside

Discussion from Workshop 2 - Sat. Feb 10

(116 posts)
1 2 3 ... 12

  1. Tim
    Member

    Wow...alot of great information was presented this morning. From the very start, the history and vision of Olmsted echoed through the Great Room at Village Hall...putting into words those feelings we all agree make Riverside our 'home'.

    Bridging the gap from 1869 to 2007, a truly daunting task, was taken on in a most commendable fashion by our 'Visionaries'. Ideas, new and old, explored the way we look at our town...and, in a very constructive way...raised many new questions about how we will shape our future.

    The task is now at hand.

    Seeing that the format spontaneously evolved into 'roaming discussions' rather than isolated visionary groups...some of the great ideas discussed were never put to paper. Diane has charged the Visionaries with the task of summarizing their 'Vision'...let us take some time here to input our thoughts as participants.

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 13:55 #

  2. spatny
    Member

    An interesting grass-roots exercise, sparsely attended when you consider there are almost ten thousand people living here. I guess that show that 99% or something close don't care enough to participate.

    My personal views: I think people will like a little of this and a little of that, like visiting a smorgasbord, but unless and until a comprehensive, first class overall architectural vision is developed there shouldn't be any TIF, or anything else like it. If there are infrastructure REPAIRS that need doing, the proper way to do it is with a bond issue. If they are OK now and only need upgrading in anticipation of new building, then let's get the parameters of what we want done, the architectural conception, and then do the upgrades.

    I have to say I saw more I was against than for. I am against a parking structure - anywhere, because I don't think we need it now. And it should not be built near the swim club under any circumstances. Think about the traffic around Guthrie Park. We should strengthen the B2 zoning code so that awful buildings like the VC can never happen again under any circumstances. And let's just spend our efforts in maintaining and caring for and planting more trees rather than cluttering the Swan Pond with "amphitheatres" and other peripheral attractions. If, as I was informed, the dam notching funds have been approved and that is going to happen, we should see what effect that has on the river and flooding before we go ahead and do anything with the embankment or drainage or anything like that.

    I was amazed that so few were interested in approaching an architectural school about using Riverside's Rejuvenation as a project. Who knows what solutions or suggestions 50 or 60 architectural students might come up with? If we had a world class project here it would be easy to get publicity for it and bring in people to see and experience it and Riverside. If it was Wrightian in design it would be a natural tie-in with the Oak Park Wright attractions, and many of those thousands of yearly visitors would flock here. The Marin County Civic Center is daily visited by hundreds of people who drive to San Rafael just to see it. We have a huge number of people within just a few miles of us who would come, stroll around and patronize our purveyors if we had the attraction that would draw them. We need to seek out a solution before we end up with a hasty decision and another VC.

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 14:47 #

  3. Tim
    Member

    "I was amazed that so few were interested in approaching an architectural school about using Riverside's Rejuvenation as a project. Who knows what solutions or suggestions 50 or 60 architectural students might come up with?"

    I disagree.

    I thought that both the idea of enlisting an architectural school and the idea of submitting redevelopment ideas to an open architectural competition were excellent suggestions...ideas that may not have been considered yesterday, but today, thanks to the two Visions at the North-end of the Hall, they are 'out there'.

    Olmsted and Vaux' contributions to architecture are respected world-wide...and these two options definitely need to be considered as ways to attract Type 'A' architects and Type 'A' developers (discussed by Mr. Jacobs during the opening presentations) to assist in creating a concrete plan for a Riverside Rejuvenation.

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 15:24 #

  4. KimJ
    Member

    I thought the MAX view was an interesting peek at what we can look forward to with a TIF.

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 15:41 #

  5. Tim
    Member

    If you are referring to the TJ Max vision, my guess is it would require much more than a TIF. That is some significant private investment proposed/needed to bring such a plan to fruition.

    I found it interesting that on one side of the room Doug Pollock was discussing the TOD plan and how market research performed prior to the creation of the TOD felt that it was tourism, not commercial build up, that would most likely allow the Village to implement the plan. On the other side of the room we had the opposite, we had a full blown development of the CBD, driven by the proposition of marked increased commuter consumer spending which would sustain high end commercial businesses.

    Both plans have similarities and hinge on a pedestrian/metra oriented CBD...in fact, it was interesting to see one of the common themes across most visions was the need to make the CBD a pedestrian destination for those who live there and a commuter destination for visitors using Metra.

    One thing we discussed in the TOD group was the fact that TOD was a CBD plan...and that Olmsted/Vaux plan was a Village Plan. I think this discrepancy may be something that needs to be more thouroughly defined. I think that any CBD plan/vision needs to be taken in context with the whole of Riverside, not just the CBD...or Harlem/Ogden for that matter...

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 16:05 #

  6. spatny
    Member

    Tim - I was one of the two MIDI presentations that called for having an Arch. school - like IIT - adopt this as a year-long exercise. I meant I was surprised that so few seemed interested in it.

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 16:26 #

  7. Tim
    Member

    New ideas take a while to sink in. The concept of an architectural competition or having an architectural school like IIT involved in drafting a plan or contributing to the redevolopment plan is certainly applicable to Riverside...and to a certain degree actually makes sense.

    In fact, previous threads have raised questions about what the Village can and can't do to stimulate the redevelopment of the CBD. Sponsoring an architectural competition or seeking out the services a school like IIT is exactly the type of low risk/high reward endeavor we should be looking at.

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 16:42 #

  8. MikeT
    Member

    This was a great START of work that needs to be done NOW! Hopefully, this is not the end of the work.

    20-20 A LOGICAL VISION UPDATE
    spatny, I really liked your ideas of having a design competition. I also thought your block by block phased implementation was very logical, too - a feature that was not underscored and highlighted clearly in the rushed opportunity in which to give your remarks. The bell rang before I cd make it to your station.

    MIN-MIN=MUCH-MUCH
    I went clockwise, starting with min min. For an idea that dlk said we wd not have to do anything but to eat chocolates, there was a TON to talk about - re-zoning to allow B and B's in the R1 land, enforcing building/maintenance ordinances, or to remove bad landlords, taking care of the retail vacancies that we have now before biting off more, getting a lot more out of harlem -recognizing the big traffic that is present there, and more...

    HORS d'OEUVRES NOT ENUF
    In fact these ideas, and these workshops are so good, that we need more of them. Today only gave us a taste, an hors d'oevre, of visioning (the basis of proceeding to the next step). god bless dlk for working to create this opportunity - the village did not do this, and did not want to do this. OK. I thank the village to allow dlk and this wkshop to happen.

    spatny, there was just so much stuff to digest and no blanking time in which to do it !

    Look how we, us forum dwellers, analyse and explore just one thing - whether it is a bad landlord in town, or a hidden cost of a TIF. Today we were presented with min-min, min, green, mid (tod) mid (20-20), max (sterner), max (dennis/amphitheatre), and TJ Max (aka, 'DAS Building'), along with Olmsted's philosophy, Riverside's preservation commission mission, Landscaping commission philosophy, architecture/development 101, village planning 101...probably more that I am missing -- all-great-cool-stuff -- and we are going to be given it and to digest it in 3 hours! NO WAY!

    I noticed that it was a full house at 900 am. Then there were less people there later. things to do on Sat morning for them, I bet. Thurs night will be be even more fun since there will only be 2.5 hours to do all this.

    spatny, I might agree that a lot of others in town did not come. it is just darn hard to do this for a lot of people. Hey, put everyone on the demo list! That'll get their attention; Like Detroit, let's put all of Riverside in the TIF district! OK, OK, let's go with Tim's idea of new ideas take time to sink in to assuage our concern.

    TIME and ANXIETY
    So it takes time, like fine wine ("we will not break ground, vary an ordinance, or seek financing, before its time"). It's time, or a lack of it, that makes me anxious since we don't know what the next steps are after the wkshops. Are these wkshops just FIBing (Filling In the Blank) by the village? So, for me at least, the RUSHed compacted nature of the wkshops makes me nervous. I feel I have to solve this very difficult problem of revitalizing the cbd, in one month or less, else The BossMan gonna take my house, or at least keep it in a demo list.

    I'm plannin' here, Boss! +
    Come, WILLIAM, IT IS TIME ! ++

    .
    Another thing struck me when listening to Doug Pollock's Village Planning 101: With the TIF proposal we have now on the table, we are doing developing/financing before the agreed upon vision work has been done. It is pretty clear from today's vision session that there is not an agreed upon vision update. Also, it seemed clear to me that the sub plan, the TOD, was discrepant from the Olmsted vision.

    This was the good idea to present all these themes at once - even if in hors d'oeurve sizes. It is easier to see if a proposed 'vision update' sizes up with the Olmsted vision.

    .
    miket
    +cool hand luke
    ++Death of a Salesman

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 20:45 #

  9. spatny
    Member

    What I think we have is a failure to communicate. Keep shakin that bush!

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 21:13 #

  10. MikeT
    Member

    I have a few questions (the previous entry was more of a comment) on today's wkshop:

    In the TOD session, I had these questions for the Moderator, Doug Pollock:

    1) what was the TOD's rationale for the parking deck on Pine? *

    2) I agree w/ ramping up archi-tourism for Riverside. Can Doug explain why this activity could not be in a min-min category? Why does this have to be in a cbd revitalization building epxansion plan (mid)? By archi-tourism, I mean an expansion of 'Riverside is great and this is why.' Tours. PR. and more.

    3) Doug thought that the priorities of the tod action matrix might be revisited. Could he expand on his views of what new priorities there would be or HOW those priorities could be revisited while assuring public input?

    .

    * on this question, there was actually 'a great workshop moment':

    right when I was thinking this question, Mr Wiaduck happened to come by the TOD station. Jack (see, at this point, I am already on a first name basis with the President of Riverside!; wkshops are magical!) actually addressed a close variation of my question in response to another person who wondered why the parking deck would not be sited on the south parking lot - for at least two reasons:
    ...1) no sfd's wd nd to be displaced and
    ...2) since the tunnel is being decommissioned, and commuters wd be the big users of the parking deck, it wd be logical to place the deck on the south side so that the commuters can make the eastbound train.

    Jack said in response to this question: it s/b on the north side because it addresses the high density housing that exists in that area.

    My response was: there seems to now be at least an equilibrium between the parking needs of the Pine area and the parking slots available around town. Presumably, because of the time limitations (see my post above), Jack actually left before I finshed my response :(. So my "1a and 1b" questions wd be:

    .a) Did the TOD people in fact site the parking deck on Pine to handle the parking needs of the Pine area? I ask this because a TOD participant recently suggested to me that the Pine deck was not real well thought out; it was almost like these wkshops - *someone* in some wk group thought it was a good idea to do. It was not necessarily vetted out thoroughly (despite assurances by mr camiros that things were done very thoroughly).

    .b) If it were due to the handling of the parking needs of Pine area, were there hard numbers to back up this (number of slots needed currently vs number of slots currently available)? Please show me those numbers.

    .

    miket

    Posted Saturday Feb 10, 2007 22:40 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2 3 ... 12

Reply »

You must log in to post.