Website Home   or   Forum Home

Riverside Info » About Riverside

31. Elisa
    Member

    "...how do you propose to encourage a builder to build what is good for this town?"

    Do we really have to build in order to revitalize the CBD? We do have existing commercial spots, I believe. Is it my imagination, or is the development (TIF dictrict or not) that is currently occurring more heavily weighted toward condos and less toward commercial space? Why is that? The Village stands to gain when it comes to property taxes of residential development vs. commercial development - as Trustee Smith apparently stated. Obviously, Metra stands to gain with higher density because more people living close to the trains = more riders.

    Before yesterday, I was looking at all of this information through a telescope that was focused on the business/retail end of town. Everyone is talking about the vision for Riverside and what businesses we should/could attract. I think that is what most people want - like Chris's question asked.

    Last night, though, I shifted my focus from the business end to the residential end. Then, all of a sudden, this talk about the Central Business District seems like smoke covering the real money (in the form of property taxes and Metra ridership and developers' profits), which is in condos. (This does not mean that anyone trying to work with the CBD has ulterior motives, it is quite obvious that most residents feel that we would like more services and for the CBD to look spruced up. I'm also sure that the EDC is working the best they can to entice business that would be viable here.) It's just that there's something there that I can't put my finger on...I agree with Mr. Spatny and Mike T. that there is more than meets the eye.

    Posted Wednesday Feb 21, 2007 19:38 #

32. spatny
    Member

    That's right. If there are $22 mil in condos just in the VC then there are lots of opportuniies for all kinds of things - legal fees, real estate commissions, insurance, moving, etc. It's millions. And that's before a tenant buys a single sweet roll. Then the tenants appear and open bank accounts and all the rest. We should keep looking at these deals because while someone might sail with a nice piece of change, it's the taxpayers all over the village that will have to pay for the infrastructure improvements they require and then will have to live with what the variances have wrought. Forever.

    Posted Wednesday Feb 21, 2007 20:30 #

33. Elisa
    Member

    Mr. Spatny - What I don't want to happen is for the people who move into these condos to feel unwelcome to the town. I know some of the people who are slated to move in to condos currently under development have been residents of this community for a far longer time than I have. (I felt the same way when a columnist was slamming a newly built house...I felt horrible for the people who moved in, who are very nice. It welcomes people to the neighborhood with a slap in the face. I don't think you are doing that - I believe that your feelings are toward whoever is behind these decisions. I just want to separate out the normal people who are just looking for a nice place to live.) I also assume that these condo owners will be paying a pretty healthy chunk in property taxes. Their taxes will be paid just like yours and mine - the difference is that the Village will be able to take whatever percentage is generated in order to pay for the infrastructure improvements. But I agree that it's important to pay attention to who is "sailing" by.

    Posted Wednesday Feb 21, 2007 20:42 #

34. spatny
    Member

    Elisa - I have no feelings one way or the other about who buys them. I still think that it was the apathy of the Village residents - many, most of them - that let the zoning be directed as it was and then were unable to fight the variance issue. The bulk and height of that building, and its design, are abominable, and I just don't want to see that same process repeated. Maybe the tenants will love it - they are certainly welcome - I think Mr. Vogel who was on the panel last night said his family was selling their home and moving in. I've always owned homes, but now, at my age and station, I'm very happy to have my apartment. I off-loaded my home maint. to the landlord. (Even though I injured my hand helping a neighbor clean his snow from his driveway - hence all the typos.) But see, these deals happen for a purpose, and it isn't always apparent why or who benefits. You can come to Riverside and make sandwiches or pizzas all day long and after you pay the bills you won't have much, but you may have served and satisfied a lot of customers. With one of these development deals, if you can turn three floors into four that's another kind of alchemy, and it pays a whole lot better. It also sets a precedent. Maybe the developers that offer to buy Mr. Sundstrom's property know something we don't know, and they think they can buy land that looks like one or two stories and can be made into four. You just have to know how to do it. Of course, we have to look at it - forever. So be watchful and attentive to what is happening around you. You never know how you can connect the dots.

    Posted Wednesday Feb 21, 2007 21:01 #

35. Catherine
    Member

    It is true that TIFs are a field day for consultants, lawyers, etc., but the reason for the condos is the property tax revenue, which I agree is needed for village operations if people are unwilling to pay more property taxes. (When dead trees are in view of Swan Pond and only 2-3 cops are available per shift to patrol the whole village, the problem is evident.) The fact that residents want shops is not sufficient to get them in a free market system. (Hence the need for government assistance.)

    People who do teardowns are almost invariably shameless, with no regard for their neighbors' feelings or the character of the towns they move in to. If no one would buy units in new ugly buildings, no one would build them. Both the supply and the demand side have to be discouraged. This is the only way to encourage good-looking, human scale architecture. It is unfortunate but inevitable that the feelings of buyers will be impacted - if they care - in a situation like this, so I cannot agree with the above sentiments.

    If Chicago is your hometown, take a walk down what once truly was the Magnificent Mile, and walk through what once was the Gold Coast or Near North side and see how it has been destroyed by ugliness and giantism. Then talk to the people whose feelings have been hurt by that. By the way Spatny, someone has applied to tear down the building that Papa Milano's is in to build a 98 story, 90,000 sq ft monster (with no parking, mais oui.)

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 06:31 #

36. spatny
    Member

    Catherine - that piece of State Street was owned by some well-known people who lived in River Forest. In the middle of the block there was a little Shirt shop where, if you needed a driveway or something like that you brought the envelope, and PRESTO!, you had your permit in a day or two. You could also get a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free-Card there. And if you really had a big project you could walk from there to G. Dunne's Insurance Company. Simpler times. I wondered how long that little joint could last occupying a multi-million dollar lot. In SF a local restaurant owned a little brick building on Market Street that was right in the middle of a larger assembled site for a 50 story building. They wouldn't move or sell so the City worked out a deal for their air rights, and the big building is built right over the little two story, which is still in business. If you want to really see some oversize residential take a look at Orchard and Burling north of North Ave. where Penny Pritzker and her ilk are building 20,000 sq. ft. homes. That was another alley vacation - so they have street to street lots. Maybe we can have Manhattan on the Aux Plaines too.

    Posted Friday Feb 23, 2007 08:11 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.