From time to time we’ve expressed the sentiment that the public officials who run our local government units often make things a lot harder than they need to be – whether because they don’t think clearly, they are cowed by special interests, or they allow themselves to be bamboozled by so-called (and self-proclaimed) “experts” both within and without those units of government.
Those mistakes often multiply the problems.
A new problem recently has sprung up, however, that local government has not created but which it will need to confront: parking.
The commuters who have been parking in the lot at 36 S. Fairview the City has been leasing from AT&T for years will become nomads on October 1. That’s because AT&T is expanding its Park Ridge operations by about 100 employees and is reclaiming that lot from the City. That loss of parking spaces comes on the heels of the loss of another S. Fairview lot on which a new multi-family residential structure is being built.
One hundred new AT&T employees here is a small boon for Uptown merchants, especially those who expect to serve food and drink to those new employees. Similarly, the conversion of surface parking lots to developed property should substantially increase the real estate taxes the properties generate.
That comes with the loss of public parking spaces, primarily all-day commuter spaces. And as we have frequently pointed out in the past, more residential units may very well mean more school-aged children, which will substantially increase the burden on those taxpayers without schoolchildren who already subsidize more than 50% of the approximately $14,000 per D-64 student, and approximately $17,000 per D-207 student.
But back to the parking problem.
Actually, it’s two problems: a commuter parking shortage and a business parking shortage. The former requires spaces primarily between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, while the latter requires more/most of its spaces evenings and weekends.
Evening and weekend parking demands will hopefully increase even more with the addition of the new “Pick” restaurant on the old Pickwick Restaurant site, the new “Holt’s” restaurant on the former Pines site, and the new Irish pub on the former Scharringhausen pharmacy site. And perhaps by a new sushi restaurant on S. Prospect in the former Pioneer Press office building near Hay Caramba.
Those staggered needs suggest that a solution may not be all that complicated. But that solution is looking more and more like a properly-sized parking garage.
Although we’ve already heard calls for a new “parking study,” the City Council and City Staff shouldn’t need yet another “parking study” to figure out that there are two prime sites in Uptown for such a garage that the City already owns: the surface parking lot at Summit and Euclid, and the Library lot. And from what we understand, either site can accommodate a 3-4 story deck that could hold about 125 vehicles per floor.
The main “devil” in the details of such a project is who will pay for it, especially if Public Works guru Wayne Zingsheim’s SWAG of 20,000 – $25,000 per space is in the ballpark.
As we wrote in our post of 06.25.15, if Park Ridge has real parking needs, they should generate interest from private developers who might be willing to pony up the construction costs in return for something like a low-cost, long-term ground lease from the City and the lion’s share of the parking fees.
Failing that, however, the City Council will have to give serious consideration to whether a parking garage is the kind of project, and provides the kind of service, that City government owes its residents and its merchants.
Meanwhile, the Council will need a plan for dealing with the near-term commuter parking shortage. That will likely require some on-street parking in the residential areas near the Uptown METRA station that will likely inconvenience commuters and almost certainly annoy residents in those affected neighborhoods.
That inconvenience and annoyance, however, might be substantially reduced by the City’s setting up – and scrupulously enforcing – marked commuter parking spaces that take up no more than half the available curb space on any given block. Or the City might consider some variation of alternate-side parking for commuters and residents; i.e., commuters will park on the north/east sides of those streets on the first and third weeks of the month, and the south/west sides of those streets on the second and fourth weeks.
The City might even consider pre-paid commuter permit parking in marked spaces on those residential streets.
The short-term fix, however, is the easy part. The tougher, and more important, piece of the parking problem is finding the private developer willing to build the garage.
But not repeating the ankle-grabbing Uptown TIF-style giveaways that will continue to screw our taxpayers for another 12 years.
To read or post comments, click on title.
24 comments so far
The collective whining and gnashing of teeth from the “old time bedroom community” Park Ridgers will be deafening. A 3-4 story parking garage in either of those location will push tem over the edge!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: If the opening of three (and maybe four) new restaurants selling liquor doesn’t put them down, they’ll probably survive a parking garage.
A 3-4 story parking garage with 375-500 spaces in either place would be very helpful They should not stand out too much because the Library is 3+ stories tall, and the condos right across Euclid from the other site are 3-4 stories.
But if Zingsheim’s SWAG was close, a $7.5 to $10 million structure may be too big a nut to cover unless a proprietor can get business charging around $3-5/day (guaranteed) for monthly commuters, and $2-3/hour for regular parking.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That sounds about right on the rough numbers. Of course, if that were to happen, we’d be willing to bet that at least some Park Ridge “freeloaders” would metamorphose into “parasites” and head to Edison Park for its $1 commuter parking.
Once that happens, however, we wouldn’t be surprised for EP/Chicago to restrict their train parking to residents only; or charge cars without Chicago stickers (or special EP permits) a higher rate.
Let’s be sure to not repeat the mistake Des Plaines made 40 years ago. I am sure many of you may remember this ugly edifice. If we go this route, we must do better.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-09-23/news/8703120037_1_parking-facility-berlin-wall-ace-hardware
EDITOR’S NOTE: Hey, it’s Des Plaines. They were so out to lunch their aldermen thought they could turn their downtown into “the Michigan Avenue of the suburbs.”
Also, a non-eyesore parking deck at either the Library lot or the City’s lot on Summit and Euclid will not cut Uptown in half.
Why not donate some of your millions and they can name the parking structure after you? Just think of how your image would improve. The respect that you would command at various governmental meetings would be deity levels. There goes Robert T., the most generous person in Park Ridge. The Pickwick Theatre could put a picture of you in their pre-movie advertisements.
You should consider making this donation. I would support you 100% if you did!
EDITOR’S NOTE: If this editor had “millions” he might consider it – so long as it was a sound business investment.
And don’t take this the wrong way, but freeloaders will “support” ANYBODY who will spend money on them.
So you are advocating for the city to give some kind of incentive to private developers to build a multi story structure in uptown.
It’s déjà vu all over again. What’s that large building on northwest highway and touhy called again?
EDITOR’S NOTE: No we aren’t.
What about that garage that was built not too long ago below Houlihans? The few times I have used the garage there were many openings. Heaven forbid the commuters would have to walk 1.5 blocks to the train. About the same distance as the ATT&T lot. Sort of like what they do, but farther, when the train arrives downtown.
EDITOR’S NOTE: As we understand it, the City’s agreement with the developers (and now the association) does not permit full-day parking.
Stuffing that ugly apartment complex in next to the dry cleaner and Panino’s should not have been allowed by the Alderman.
The legacy of huge multi-units, in lieu of commercial developments or even support (i.e. parking) is the biggest black eye of the alderman and mayor over the last few years. I can’t believe they have allowed the increase of density everywhere we look.
I also don’t understand why a paid “study” needs to be done. It seems to me something staff could figure out itself.
Park Ridge can’t figure out how to develop commercial developments, and we are all paying for it.
EDITOR’S NOTE: As we understand it, that project was approved by City Staff, then approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Appearance Commission BEFORE it ever got to the City Council. And as we pointed out in our 10.02.14 post, one significant culprit is a suspect zoning code that permits high-density multi-family residential developments.
Meanwhile, the main culprit is a lack of market demand for what you call “commercial developments,” leaving those multi-family residentials as the only development game in town.
I tend to agree with you. If there is a real demand for parking (and not just some inconvenience of a few), some developer should be able to see the ability to make a profit from a garage in either location.
Anonymous… I’m happy to take issue with your statement about the “legacy” and “black eye” of the Aldermen and Mayor Dave at the time. I disagree.
That said, I’ve got to verify, but I don’t this this Fairview project ever made it to the City Council. Like many, really the vast majority of projects, it went through Appearance and Planning and Zoning. No requests for variance, no review at the Council level.
“Park Ridge can’t figure out how to develop commercial developments”…it doesn’t. Developers do. And they’re subject to various codes and ordinances. You don’t like them? Make a suggestion…there is plenty of opportunity to do so. Drop the anonymous tag, show up at a meeting and speak your piece.
I do agree with you on the parking study though. If we do it, it will indeed be a waste of money to me.
Stuffing?? Are you kidding me?? There will be no less green space when the project is completed than before it started….it was a paved parking lot, remember??
As for ugly, well that is a matter of opinion which is why we have zoning and appearance committees to arbitrate these issues. We cannot stop a project simply because YOU think it is ugly. If that were the case there are new homes being built that people would want halted because they are ugly(in their opinion).
What makes your ugly comment so damn funny is you seem to be implying that PR is some architectural haven to begin with!!! Give me a break. If I may offer my “opinion, some of the older houses in PR started out ugly and over the last 50 years many have had additions that are mismatched and slapped on. You call the new building ugly??? What about the rest of the block it sits on? What about the rest of uptown. I love uptown but this is hardly a case of putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
Lastly, I would disagree that this project represents a “Huge” development.
There’s meter parking on Busse HWY. across from the post office in which I don’t know why that’s there because don’t know how much it’s used and most people who go to the P.O. will park in their lot.
They could probably use those for commuter parking.
BTW does anyone know how many years the lot on the phone company grounds have been used for commuter parking?
Only other thing I can think of is those who ride the train probably need to think about taking the bus or a cab to the station.
“If this editor had “millions” he might consider it – so long as it was a sound business investment.”
Being a lawyer isn’t quite what it used to be, right? 30 years ago the country club was lawyers, doctors and airline pilots; today it’s financial consultants, bankers and quants.
Realistically, Park Ridge should subsidize a parkage garage like arl. hts does for it’s commuters (but charges a few $$ a day). I know that makes me a ‘freeloader’ but so what. I’m a freeloader every time I (and you too Dawg) ride the Metra to our air conditioned office downtown. a .25% of our county sales tax goes to fund the RTA which supports metra, the CTA and pace. So yeah, some schlub in Alsip who never uses any public transit contributes a few bucks towards my metra ride every time he or she buys their household goods at Target.
EDITOR’S NOTE: WHY should Park Ridge “subsidize a parking garage…for it’s [sic] commuters”? What’s the public purpose of that?
We also don’t think the RTA and the state legislature should subsidize commuter travel because we don’t see any overarching public purpose to that, either.
Serf:
You make a valid point but he will never admit it. The reality is PD is a freeloader, just like you and I are.
He called for the city to repave the parking area and walk along the tracks. I believe that is where he parks his car in the morning to go to the train (how convenient) which you correctly point out I subsidize even though I only take metra a few times a month. That pavement improvement was paid in part by my tax dollars yet I will never ever use those spaces. Apparently in his mind that represented an “overarching public purpose”. Why didn’t the city jack up the parking fees to pay for the improvement?? Maybe they could have sold of those spaces (ala Daley) to a private firm and had them do the improvements.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We called on the City to re-pave the Summit lot because it was in a crumbling, dangerous condition.
If you didn’t want it re-paved, or wanted something else paved instead, you should have showed up at City Hall and said so. Or if you were too afraid to show your face and publicly take ownership of your views, you could have called your alderman private and vented to him.
By the way Serf, another example you could have used is the repaving and addition of the flower boxes along prospect which was, in part, based on state grants (which some people applauded). I guess that schlub in Alsip was on the hook for that as well. I wonder if he even knows where PR is. In that respect all of PR is freeloading.
EDITOR’S NOTE: That’s the problem with “state” grants: they take money from “that schlub in Alsip” to give to Park Ridge, and take money from Park Ridge to give to Alsip.
But so long as the Sen. Kotowskis, the Rep. Moylans, and those other clowns in Springfield continue to operate these shell games – with the acquiescence of the voters, and the encouragement of the freeloaders and parasites who want something for nothing – this will remain the status quo.
“We called on the City to re-pave the Summit lot because it was in a crumbling, dangerous condition”.
Fair enough, but the point you completely skipped over in your answer is that in the process, you became a freeloader. You use those spaces, as do other commuters and there was no increase in charges to cover the improvement. It was spread around to everyone…..most of whom do not even use that space.
You ask why should the city subsidize a garage for commuters. What do you think they did for you and all those who use those spaces on summit??
EDITOR’S NOTE: Is your stupidity as painful to you as it is to us?
First of all, the re-paving was not an improvement of the lot but just ridiculously-overdue maintenance and repair. So the parkers got nothing more than what they had been over-paying for during all those years the lot was crumbling.
And at $1.50/day for each of those approx. 90 parkers, those spaces generate $135/day, or $675/week, or $35,100/year. So over the minimum 10(?) year life of the paving, at just the current rates the parkers will pay $351,000 toward that re-paving – which we believe exceeds the cost of the re-paving.
But we guess freeloaders like yourself don’t recognize “pay as you go”
when you see it.
To 09.13.15 12:08 pm, I park on the Summit tracks lot and we did get an increase (from $1 to $1.50) for about three years before they did the work. So using PW’s numbers, which I agree with, we had prepaid an extra $12,000 a year (total, $36,000) before the work was done in addition to paying the parking rates since at the $1.50 per day rate.
I agree that we don’t need a “parking study.” Putting a parking deck on either the city-owned library lot or the city-owned Summit/Euclid lot is so obvious there is no reason to waste money on any experts.
Ald Knight, thank you for your response.
I think the city council could make a law that they have to approve any said density before being approved. How does zoning from a parking lot get change to multifamily?
Also, can’t the alderman and mayor change the law to have approval/input over P&Z? Something is fundamentally wrong if elected officials have no power over such an important factor of the future of Park Ridge.
As far as appearance? The building is literally touching the dry cleaners. Why do we want more people living there?
Lastly, PD & Commenters. I 100% disagree with you about the “market”. The market isn’t where the landowners believe it is for commercial…so my econ 101 says, they should lower the price, not get to CHANGE the market to residential.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We have two words for you: Zoning Code.
Can it be changed? Sure, but it probably needs a comprehensive review and significant revision if it’s going to prohibit the structures you don’t want. But until that occurs – and you should show up at Council meetings to advocate for it – developers can build to Code requirements and permissible variances.
1:02PM:
You stated….”The building is literally touching the dry cleaners”.
Look, I get that you do not like the new building and I get that some people freak over any change but you at least have to come up with a viable argument. The building is touching the drycleaners….I’m sorry, not just touching….LITERALLY touching!!! AHHHH!!!
I have to ask, when you had this epiphany that seems to have sent you into such a tissy, did you notice that the cleaners it touching the pizza parlor? Did the notice that with the exception of the parking lot and alley each building on that side of the street touches the one next to it?? Did you notice it is the same for all the building across the street and in either direction on Main??
Good lord you can walk all over Uptown and see very different looking structures housing different businesses (or some empty storefronts) and virtually all of them are touching each other……literally!!!!! Give me a break!!
EDITOR’S NOTE: If/when the Council revises/re-writes the Zoning Code, maybe they can include an “untouchable” provision.
Yes, it “literally touches” the dry cleaners, as it further described being JAMMED into a space.
Yes, PD, maybe the elected officials can get to work and ACCOMPLISH something. PD writes :
“Can it be changed? Sure, but it probably needs a comprehensive review and significant revision”
Yes PD, that is the job of elected officials. It’s not only arguing for hours without every accomplishing anything.
Guarantee 6:53 has a stake in the building, because universally, every person I’ve come across thinks the development doesn’t fit, and are pretty sick of apartments and condos popping up all over Park Ridge.
But jeez….maybe elected officials will have to ask the city staff to do some work and analyze what can be down.
EDITOR’S NOTE: “[A]rguing for hours without every accomplishing anything” is better than doing the wrong thing, especially when that wrong thing is expensive and long-lasting.
12:11:
6:53 here. I guess there is no way to know since we both have posted anonymously, but I have no stake in the building.
You have only solidified my point by completely ignoring it in your response. Now you say it is jammed in and does not fit.
I have a question/challenge for you. The question is (aside from the zoning and appearance committees which it clearly passed) how do you feel that this new building (appearance, placement, use of the lot space, whatever!!!) is so different that what has been built over the years?
My challenge is for you to go stand in front of the library and look at the row of buildings across the street. Start at the Pickwick and let your gaze go to the right…a few retail stores, Starbucks, the insurance agent, Subway and on down to Holts. You do not like things jammed in or touching?? The only space in that line if buildings is the courtyard between Starbucks and Hill’s. There are 8 or 9 different buildings on that street and, aside from that courtyard, the buildings were all, to use your words, “JAMMED into a space”.
Beyond that, please drink in the appearance of those buildings. You like things that fit in?? These buildings are of are different materials and heights. They have different roofs, some are new versus old. Fit in??? Are you kidding me?? NOTHING FITS IN!!!!! You can so the same thing by stand on the Metra platform and looking at the row of buildings on Main.
So again, I get that you do not like the new building but you have to change your argument. Today your argument is that the builder should have been denied because the building is exactly like every other building(jammed in, not fitting) in uptown. I am sorry but that is just stupid.
EDITOR’S NOTE: The drawbacks of anonymity, including the encouragement of stupidity – although that doesn’t stop some people on a few of Park Ridge’s civic-oriented Facebook pages.
Now if only we could get the city to empty the pay boxes everyday, so that people will pay everyday. I have seen people walk up the box, see money in their slot and walk away.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We’ve observed the same thing – which is why, if this editor has a spare minute or two, he punches in all the existing money slots so that folks don’t see that yesterday’s money wasn’t collected.
Meanwhile, we suggest you send a letter to Chief Kaminski, whose department is in charge of collecting the money in the boxes, complaining about his staff’s failure to do its job and costing the City money. But don’t expect that letter to end up among those “Police Complimentary Letters” he makes sure are included in the Council packets for every Public Safety COW meeting. That might disrupt his propaganda campaign.
We don’t need a parking garage for commuters. There is ample parking along Summit parallel to the tracks (past the spots for the daily fee parking. Also, there is always parking spots at the Edison Park station for those who don’t like or are not able to walk half a mile to the station. Thd last thing Park Ridge needs to do is take on debt for a parking garage that only few will use.
EDITOR’S NOTE: We don’t disagree, although we wonder what a private developer would need to build and operate such a parking garage.
no subsidies, i can always count on the author to give a realistic perspective, which is why i love this publication, no starry eyes street lights or developer pork barrel.
land lease the library lot for 100 years, institute fee limits to insure fair parking prices, allow the developer the opportunity to sell deeded spots as an exit plan, wait for another easy money building boom and they’ll all be looking for the next concrete taj mahal to erect – no matter the terms.
deeded spots gives residents a chance to invest locally and commuters the opportunity to rent while limiting developer risk and incentivizing creation via pre-construction sales
larry a
EDITOR’S NOTE: Interesting concept, larry. Not sure we agree with it entirely, but the general concept seems sound.
But we also think the southern end of the Summit/Euclid lot should be in the mix as well.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>