Website Home   or   Forum Home

Register or log in (lost password?):

Username:
Password:

Remember me

Riverside Info » About Riverside

11. Tim
    Member

    Mike, the parking issue is indeed a major conundrum. One issue is the congested residential area on Pine (this was alluded to by Mr. Wiaduck at the TOD group). The other issue is the perceived vs. real need for commuter parking for Metra.

    In essence the TOD plan tries to solve this problem by killing two birds with one stone...aka the 'Pine Parking Deck'. This proposal, however, then opens up the new can of worms of:
    a) displacing sfd's and...
    b) creating a costly, aesthetically unappealing parking structure.

    So, what is the solution?

    Reconfigure current street level parking?
    Underground parking?
    Parking deck at Harlem for commuters?
    PIF?

    Which proposals do you guys like...which ones are realistically feasible?

    Posted Sunday Feb 11, 2007 00:23 #

12. Tim
    Member

    Since most participants in Saturday's workshop moved from Vision to Vision, it would be useful to begin to highlight components of each Vision that make them 'attractive' and isolate potential pitfalls for each Vision that could make it prohibitive:

    Min-Min

    Min - Historic Preservation

    Green

    Mid - TOD

    Mid - 2020

    Mid - Sterner

    Max - Amphitheater

    Max - Full scale mixed-use development

    Try to look at these with regard to the goals defined in Workshop 1:

    Community Character - How well does each Vision fit in with Riverside's community character? What are the pedestrian needs in 2007 and to what extent does each Vision meet these needs? As visions increase in scale, there is inevitable increase in population density...how does the Vision address the dichotomy of increased population density within the construct of O & Vs plan.

    Governance - Is the Vision sensitive to the Village need for maintained infrastructure? As Visions increase in scale, there is an inherent need for increased infrastructure (water, sewer, parking, services)...does the Vision address the need for increased infrastructure? Does the Vision conform to current Village zoning designations or would it necessitate a change?

    Economic Development - Does the Vision provide a sustainable CBD plan that meets the pedestrian needs for the Village? Is land use realistic for the Vision...both financially and within the philosophical construct for a CBD as defined by O & V? Does the Vision include applicable development incentives...i.e, Preservation incentives, PIF, TIF, architectural competition/student design input, Green incentives, or others?

    Posted Sunday Feb 11, 2007 10:35 #

13. MikeT
    Member

    Tim said--
    One issue is the congested residential area on Pine...The other issue is the perceived vs. real need for commuter parking for Metra.

    But my question remains: what is the problem with the current Pine area parking? Isn't there enough parking now around town to satisfy their needs?

    In other words, why and how would the multi family dwellings in and around Pine have been built w/o adequate parking? There has been no new development in and around Pine. The only new development in and around Pine is the VC and Arcade.

    So, The answer is, IMO - since no one can show me otherwise - that the deck is NOT for existing Pine mfd's 'congestion' but for ADDITIONAL multifamily dwellings and commercial units in the Pine area, both being developed now (VC's needs 17 more slots per the B2 ordinance, and Arcade, tho on hold now - needs 30 more slots; plus all the new development that they are intending to be built around there);

    If this (Pine congestion) in fact were one reason for the parking deck , then I would think URS-CAmiros during TOD would have done some kind of research into this such as counting the demand for parking in the pine area and the number available and see to what extent there is a need. Someone, please point me to the study that the consultant did. The only study I recall in the TOD was the chart on MEtra's declining Riverside ridership numbers.

    Let's not even consider Metra's declining ridership a problem for a cash strapped Village like Riverside to solve; we cannot even afford a $12,000 dump truck - someone saw this item on cable - and we are going to assist Metra with a $3.2 million parking deck? Who's problem is Meta's declining ridership ? Obviously, Metra's.

    Riverside s/b busy enough trying to fill the vacant commercial spaces in the Tower bldng, enforcing maintenance ordinances for the cbd instead of creating big expo67 like structures before there is a real need.
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=116&replies=28#post-1805

    Just think about it a bit and one can see the significant costs beyond the $3.2m acquisition/development cost that was estimated for the Parking deck. Camiros himself said so at the wkshop 1 that these structrues are very costly to maintain. There would be extra crime and extra police needed for surveillance and crime stopping, and much more costs. Here is some more on this topic...Pine is a corner of Riverside, but is also reflective of the whole [no Pine is an Island :) ]. It is not a NIMBY thing (not in my back yard); Pine is all of Riverside's (front )yard.
    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=4&page=2&replies=120#post-150

    miket

    Posted Monday Feb 12, 2007 00:45 #

14. Tim
    Member

    In addition to these considerations for the parking problem,

    Reconfigure current street level parking?
    Underground parking?
    Parking deck at Harlem for commuters?
    PIF?

    I should have also included the option to strictly adhere to the B2 zoning and maintain appropriate population density while re-developing the CBD.

    Posted Monday Feb 12, 2007 06:30 #

15. MikeT
    Member

    does anyone know if b2 has specs on population density?

    I know it has specs on sq ft --> parking slots (which can be waived by the payment of money)

    .
    I may now better understood that Tim is not speaking necessarily on any CURRENT parking problem in and around Pine, but about how to fold in the parking element for any FUTURE CBD redevelopment.

    But CBD redevelopment is the $64,000 - I mean the $20,000,000 - question on the table right now:

    *how much CBD redevelopment?
    *what kind?
    *how should the financing be done?

    It links to the 2/10 wk shop flavors of CBD redevelopment:

    1)min - min
    2)min
    3)green
    4)mid
    5)max

    Each flavor will entail a different parking solution.

    I would hazard to say that (1) min min would not imply severe parking measures (parking deck, underground, etc.) Probably it would imply at most the redefinition/re-utilization of existing surface parking.+

    .

    + I am not sure about the Arcade's on again off again development. Since it is apparently in a quiesced state now, or, I have heard it will not do the new condo build outs now, does that mean it no longer needs the extra 30 parking slots?

    miket

    Posted Monday Feb 12, 2007 08:09 #

16. spatny
    Member

    The Arcade developer said the time was not right for doing the condos, so he has an old building badly in need of a lot of work and specialty cleaning with fewer tenants than ever. Nice going. Since he is not adding any new space and will not be subtracting his parking spaces at the rear he doesn't need the new spaces. I personally have never found it difficult to park in town and see absolutely no need for any parking structure, least of all west of Longcommon, on either side of the tracks. And if the old Youth Center was torn down and perhaps a small gazebo = perhaps even with a coffee/drinks operation was there, and the parking area left alone with the dumpster repositioned, we wouldn't need any more there either. In the case of Riverside, less is definitely more.

    Posted Monday Feb 12, 2007 10:26 #

17. MikeT
    Member

    Let me make clear that there is one other 'vision' out there, and that is what in the corporate business world is called 'the do nothing option'.

    dlk sort of suggested that min-min was such an option. She literally said, humorously, to come to her station, since there was nothing to do - except eat chocolate. But as I indicated above the min-min is not really a do nothing option. It is a constructionist active option, but the cheapest and most cautious of the contructionist options out there. Maybe even the one with the highest payback.

    As we all know, the more one puts into an endeavor, the more one needs to get back in order for it be worth while. The assumption that we all should understand and I hope that we all buy into is:

    WE ALREADY GOT THE GOODS in place with OLMSTED's SPACE

    We need only to tinker w/ cbd. Any more can upset what is axiomatic, and could be too much of a tradeoff of village character.

    To do a quick review of some of the min min:

    *clean up / enforce maintenance bldng codes of what we have now
    *try HARD to handle what we have now (instead of biting off more to chew)
    *try HARD to deal with Harlem (more active marketing of it)
    *more aggressive marketing of Riverside (archi-tourism)
    *consider doing creative cheap things such as allowing B and B's in R1 land (share those beautiful gardens and homes w/ others of a like mind)
    *generally, letting the market and creativity do a lot of the work.
    *keeping true to the ordinances; possibly tightening where there are 'charm leaks' since THE CHARM IS WHAT GETS PEOPLE HERE!
    *fully explore the financing options available for historic structures in the spirit of cleaning up/'dealing with' what we have now (Arcade and the Tower building).

    The 'do nothing option' means, to me:

    *do nothing and letting the market and the ordinances work. period.

    (don't vary the ordinances, don't incent development)

    .

    So, here are our options going forward .You must choose and option; the default is 0:

    0)do nothing
    1)min - min
    2)min (preservation)
    3)green
    4)mid
    5)max

    Posted Monday Feb 12, 2007 10:41 #

18. spatny
    Member

    From the 20-20 point of view I don't think I made it clear that I wasn't adding a lot, just rearranging, upgrading, making it more cohesive in design, and putting parking underneath so all the little lots could be greenscaped. I look at the train station with its low, modified hip roofs and I see that kind of development, not VC or fFke Ye Olde Disneyland styles. Clean brickwork, nice details, low flowing prarie style with cantilevered hips over balconies and indoor outdoor seating on the plaza, just a trade up for what is already there. But min-min is OK with me - it was beautiful this AM walking my dog in the Swan Pond, which by the way have had a name change to Royal Hunting Grounds. Black Revee running over white snow - perfect. Let's not screw it up - she likes it just as it is. So should we.

    Posted Monday Feb 12, 2007 11:30 #

19. corbi328
    Member

    Personally I loved the look of the ampitheater concept in the corner of swan pond. Gorgeous and minimally invasive. From the feedback that I heard, I was not the only one who felt this way. What a tremendous addition this would be for the community.

    Posted Monday Feb 12, 2007 11:47 #

20. KimJ
    Member

    Why would any construction/landscaping have to take place to create an ampitheater. Anyone can sit on the hill and watch something down on the field. Organize it. A great venue, free. No TIF funds needed.

    Posted Monday Feb 12, 2007 13:30 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.