We were unable to make either of the final workshops, but made at least one session of the first three. Can anyone who has been to all the workshops summarize where we're at now?
Riverside Info » About Riverside
Workshop Wrap Up
(53 posts)-
Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 08:02 #
-
I thought last night was the best. Very good presentations by Chris Robling, Mark Shevitz, Jim Reynolds, Susie Bartholemew which got a good reception from the audience. I saw the Trustees that were there and Pres. Wiaduck watching closely and really paying attention. I think it was obvious to everyone that the TIF is simply premature, and the process needs to be rethought. But then I have always thought that? But what they will do is anybody's guess.
Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 09:12 # -
Yes, I heard great applause for the preservation ethic. That was good. Since I came in late, and I have been hearing the rumors of done deals re the TIF - and d 96 school supporting an inititiative that would sequester their funds despite known needed improvements - I was feeling yesterday like 'look at what they've done to our town'. I admit it was/is my visceral reaction, and not an objective summary.
I also heard, possibly after spatny left, at the end, a reference from a member of the panel to Riverside as 'Riverside Inc'.
If there would be any appellation given that would expand on 'Riverside', it should be 'Riverside Park'.
TIF yes or no?
Riverside Inc
or
Riverside Park?Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 09:58 # -
One thing Reynolds said last night that was important to tease out in this whole debate was the description of commercial activity under Olmsted's view. Reynolds said it was to provide for the needs of the community. He gave an example of going to Riverside foods to get a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread very quickly and easily.
He said the way things are currently in Riverside - this works just fine. And this smallness and community-responsiveness is the model or the earmark of commercial in Riverside.
Has anyone tried to get a gallon of milk at a big box like Jewel, or worse, at Target, Walmart?
Same experience going to the king of big boxes, Home Depot, to get a simple screw.
You get screwed, fried, and down.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=210&replies=26#post-3390.
mikeDoes anyone know why the Ace left town? That seemed to me close to the hardware analogue to Riverside Foods and small and right for the town. Did it die due to economics or other reasons? Could a version of this be resurrected in town somewhere?
Charlie Pipal of the Preservation commission also added last night that Higgins Glass is a good example of a model Riverside commercial concern. It is small, has a storefront, and also has an internet distribution arm. He said we should try to attract these kinds of businesses. I like the internet part.
I have seen in my experience retail using the internet in the middle of nowhere places such as Montana. Hey, Riverside is like Montana, but in the middle of Cook County.
Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 10:19 # -
Mike - I think what many residents want is three more nice eating places where they can go without leaving the village - an italian/pizza place, a deli type place (old fashioned type) and maybe a Thai place or similar? Some people seem to want a high end organic food store, but Stephanie has told me that it is not easy to sell higher end products here. I have heard people walking around in Riv Foods and saying they could get it for less at blank blank down on Harlem, where volume is huge. Selling fresh produce, fish, higher end meats etc. requires more volume than I think we have here. Artisan chocolates and glass are expensive items (relatively) and so the retail probably has to be supplemented by internet sales. People forget that overhead costs in retail are relentless, renewing every day or month, without respite. Skilled labor is hard to get if you can't pay more than minimum, and turnover is constant. Chew Chew looks to do well, but I bet Scott has his tough spells too. For the size of the place he does a great job, very creative, but he spends a lot of time there and knows what works and what doesn't. Holding up Grumpy's as a success is correct in the aesthetic sense, but Dave can't be accumulating much of a nest egg. I love the idea of the Village saying, we want Grumpy's to stay, and we will subscribe to a plan to help keep it - either though some kind of informal advance purchase subscription plan or through a lower rent formula. I just read in the Landmark about a Starbucks coming to the N Riv mall and some new stores they are looking for. I also saw two robbery incidents supplied there. That place has serious trouble brewing and I think most people here avoid it. So we shouldn't push too hard or wish for too much - we might get it.
Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 10:51 # -
Neighbors,
I was at the workshop on Feb 27 and I too appreciated Mr. Reynolds quote from Olmsted's plan that downtown is to "serve the needs of the Village residents". I could not agree more that this should remain the vision for downtown Riverside.
What needs to be added to that statement, however, is that downtown Riverside is seriously failing at this time to "serve the needs of the Village Residents". In fact, this whole process is predicated upon a widespread believe by residents that downtown Riverside is not coming close to meeting our needs.
What do I believe our needs are today? The obvious need is for more retail services and restaurants. But we also desperately need a stronger tax base to balance the property tax burden vis a vis homeowners and a physical quality (building and streetscape) that befits the quality of our residential neighborhoods. Further, I do not believe that downtown Riverside will provide these needs in a satisfactory manner without an aggressive economic development and land use plan initiated by the Village.
Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 11:45 # -
I heard from someone at the meeting afterward say an interesting thing for Riverside to pursue or consider:
*maybe our deflated-ness can be an attractant to mom and pop places that are being pushed out of the places that are getting too expensive to do business.
This person knows of stores / retail in Hinsdale that are leaving there. I guess they have two tifs going there. There is a strong correlation with losing small mom and pops and tifs.
So how about we try to stay who are - small and tifless- and try to land small nimble and responsive concerns that will serve the community's needs? small serves small.
When Reynolds said that Riverside is fine the way it is, he expanded on that and indicated that the 'small model' is fine the way it is for Riverside, not that the exact array and condition of the businesses are fine right now. He said that we could have more zimmer type of places.
Can we do this thru natural free market forces?
He said we could. He also has said in this space that he believes in Truth Justice and the American way.
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=6&replies=15#post-45Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 12:06 # -
Mr. Pollock: So what do we do - throw the baby out with the bathwater? Maintain the ambiance and tranquil charm but get in some tax revenue producing properties, which to Trustee Smith, for instance, seem to be condos from ground floor up. Others want retail, but isn't trying to bring mom and pop retailers into higher rents in new buildings spitting into the wind? Many people are now coming to the conclusion that increased traffic from outside the Village is undesirable. And how do we get residents to support what kind of retailers. I understand one or two restaurants - maybe. But what else? People making seed pod ornaments and selling them via the internet? Artisan shops? We have the VC - let's see how that works, what we get in there, what kind of support they get from the residents. Then there is the promised re-do of the Arcade. Then there are a few other vacancies to fill. I think it has been expressed loud and clear that many people regret the oversize and unattractive nature of the VC, and don't want any more of that. Unfortunately, because of the granting of the fourth story variance, all the other property owners will assume that anyone who buys their property can have one too. So the price for it will be higher. I warned the Village they were setting this in motion but Papa knows best. Now we're screwed with what they have wrought. What I read is that you are on the side of those that say "WE NEED MONEY" and the CBD is the place to get it. I think sir, you are wrong.
Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 13:13 # -
I have done downtown plans in several communities and I have studied and lectured on urban retail planning, urban design and architecture. My experience tells me emphatically that there is no reason we cannot maintain and enhance the ambiance and tranquil charm of downtown Riverside, limit the increase in traffic, provide some additional retail services, and create a more balanced tax base for the entire community. I am not on the side of those that say "We need Money". Rather, I am all about improving the appearance and function of downtown Riverside and sustaining our entire community with a balanced and strong economic base.
Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 13:40 # -
I am speaking generally: Can Harlem - Ogden possibly be a more fertile field to look at for retail since it has all that traffic already? I am speaking generally. I am not sure off hand what properties are there already. TO the north of the tracks, I think there are some professional buildings and mostly mutlifamily dwellings - not sure if they are condos or not.
In the continuing recounting of last night's proceeding, Harlem and Ogden was talked about as a place to look at.
"LOOK AT"
Just asking: Can a town do "aggressive" land-reuse w/o a tif? Can a town, or a developer, or a group of developers, or a group of developers in concert with a town, buy up (as regular free market transactions) properties, say, on Harlem, then re-build/re-do, all through the free market?
.
btw, I see that DougPollock is back (hope you're doing well): whatever happened to the idea he had floated earlier to have the money given back to the schools?
http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic.php?id=4&replies=120#post-50District 96 seems to be in play now, but they are not, or presumably could not, get that deal. Does DougPollock, or anyone else, know why? I asked Ms Jenson this specifically, and she simply repeated 'district 96 will get the best deal it can'. twice.
Posted Wednesday Feb 28, 2007 13:44 #
Reply »
You must log in to post.