I attended the LAC meeting last night where Scott Zimmer discussed the plan he is developing for his new restaurant on Burlington. Now Scott is a known quantity and previously created what was arguably Riverside's CBD's best feature - the Chew Chew. He is certainly someone that the Village Board should try and help reestablish a business here. Scott showed plans for a very nice facade for his building and would like to have a few outdoor tables on Burlington. It seems to me that the Village should not only allow that, but consider creating a meander in the sidewalk that would allow this seating to move "inboard" and be up against the building where an awning might be able to provide some shade or cover from elements and diners or drinkers could have a buffer form traffic and parkers. This could be accomplished by "eating" just two street parking spaces and having the sidewalk move out from the buildings allowing for a far more interesting and - dare is say it - "Olmstedian" solution to what is otherwise one of least interesting places in the Village. Our planners and potentates would have to journey no further than madison Street in Forest Park to see how creating a few of these sidewalk meanders improves the street scape and encourages foot traffic. Perhaps two on the south side and one on the north side and some replacement of plants and trees and the whole vista of the CBD could be made far more desirable. Since the Village has bought two lots nearby for (allegedly) creating parking, the net loss of space would be negligible, and the improvement to the dining experience at those tables would be vastly improved. This is the kind of thing that not only makes sense but will help to do what the Village Fathers (and Mothers) say they want to do - create a thriving and unique Riverside CBD. Folks - go take a look at the spot and see if that doesn't look like a good idea. Let's get creative and help this business succeed.
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Doing something that would really help Riverside's merchants...
(8 posts)-
Posted Wednesday May 14, 2008 20:57 #
-
great idea, Spatny. I like the promotion of walking in the cbd, and let's support Mr Zimmer. He seems to know how to make a business in our town to work. And we'll have a conservation of parking spaces now that those other properties, a short couple of parcels away, are available for parking.
It is interesting to look at FP and see how vibrant it is. But compared with our quiet scenic center of town - with the river and the charming interesting buildings -- we have a much better destination for people to come to than FP. We wd not like to have the congestion of FP, but we cd have a fraction of it as a start.
It is incumbent upon us to plan this stuff out, not just herky jerky doing it. Eating some street and enhancing the sidewalk is a good start. Thinking about how it would fit into other a bigger plan would be a good idea.
Posted Friday May 16, 2008 00:15 # -
When I thought some more on the bit I mentioned above about planning, I recall that there is a plan commission.
In today's email there was a notice on the next Plan commission meeting on 5-20 at 730 pm, room 4. It said that there is a public hearing at that time. then afterward is the regular plan commission meeting. I assume that the public can attend the regular meeting, correct?
the public hearing
http://tinyurl.com/5rlqz7the regular meeting
http://tinyurl.com/5jd5l9
The agenda:31-33 e burlington concept plan is listed as a new business agenda item .
What is 31-33 e burlington? is that the zimmer location? 35 e is fresh express, so I bet it is.
There is also a couple references to camiros memos on b1 district.
So hopefully there is some 'bigger view' planning, and not just on 31-33 burlington, but how that might fit in with the area in which those parcels lie, the cbd.
there was also an informational item on a sub life article on lagrange oking a controversial development - see link below for that article, in case anyone is interested.
Posted Saturday May 17, 2008 03:07 # -
The Fresh Express already has tables. I don't see why Zimmer wouldn't get them. I am not surprised to hear he has a good-looking facade planned. He should get whatever he wants. He has proven himself.
Wow, that LaGrange development is ugly. But then, it's on LaGrange and Ogden so, who cares? It's already ugly there. I don't see that they needed a TIF to get that done. Did they?
VC has already been advertising theirs as rentals too, in the paper.
I thought it was funny the LaGrange trustee argued they were changing village code for the developer, and the other trustee argued they were not. Apparently that counts for something there.
Posted Monday May 19, 2008 14:02 # -
I was just hoping that the Village would entertain the idea of creating a few places where the sidewalk would move out into the street and the table space could be where the sidewalk is now, so there would be a buffer for diners and create a more interesting "meandering " streetscape. The Board reiterated that they intend to create parking on the property they bought, so why not do this? It has been very successful in Forest Park on Madison. Since people signified that they wanted restaurants why not make the whole thing more attractive to both the operators and the public?
If they are offering the units for rent before they are even finished can Sec. 8 be far behind? I was told eight are sold and "closed" and that a deal for the restaurant space "was a done deal" by a knowledgeable realtor. I guess we'll see in July. I want to say that the floral arangements provided for the Olmsted Housewalk by Shamrock Gardens (the new florists in the VC) were really beautiful and got a great dal of positive comment. Kudos to them. We were told tonight by President Wiaduck that the Art Fair did "better than break even" and that "several thousand people attended." Great. I hope the artists did enough business to make it worthwhile for them.
Posted Monday May 19, 2008 23:49 # -
I would think that the idea of carving out "meanders" on Burlington, attractive as it may seem, would be a non-starter. The straight lines of Burlington and Quincy were part of the Olmsted plan, and my guess (although I certainly defer to those more knowledgeable) is that such change could not be made due to the National Landmark District status of Riverside. Even if it could be done, I'd be hesitant to open the door, even for the best of intentions--once one exception is made, you can be assured others will follow.
I presume Mr. Spatny is engaging in a bit of hyperbole with his comments regarding Section 8 housing in the VC. It's a tough market, granted, but I don't think we need to worry about that. I'm not surprised to see some units being offered as rentals--that's happening all over.
Posted Tuesday May 20, 2008 09:26 # -
John M - of course I was kidding about the VC. I was just wondering who would pay what it will have to cost to rent there.
But I'm serious about changing the Burlington sidewalk configuration - which doesn't effect the street in any way. The Village has already destroyed the original appearance of Olmsted's sunken roadways in the residential areas when they ripped out the stone drains and put in those ugly concrete curbs. Also, there are already sections of the street that are filled as i envision on East avenue and both Burlington, Longcommon and Quincy at the corners. If the curb in front of Scott's building and Fresh Express were moved out the same distance and the SIDEWALK (not the street) were meandered toward the new curb it would allow for a very "Olmstedian sight line break in what is otherwise a straight view all the way to Harlem Avenue. Then the tables could be up against the building where service would be easier and people wouldn't be so close to the traffic (and exhaust) of the cars. Since they plan to put parking in at the two lots east of the Post Office the idea of bringing the sidewalk out to where it used to be in some short stretches makes sense to me. Properly planted this could do a lot for the CBD.
Posted Tuesday May 20, 2008 10:13 # -
Perhaps it is VC owners who are renting out, I don't know. In my building, renting is expressly forbidden.
I don't really understand this meandering business, what it looks like. But I have heard those are not even the original sidewalks, that they were broadened with some federal improvement money in the 70s or 80s, that that broadening is where the trees are now.
In any event, only the landscape has National Landmark status. Application had to be and was made to add the curving streets and, I believe, the gas lamps. I doubt anyone asked about the straight streets.
Posted Tuesday May 20, 2008 11:50 #
Reply
You must log in to post.