I hope this means a nicer bar will end up there...for those of us at the west end of south Evanston/Rogers Park, there aren't a whole lot of walkable options of any kind. Besides Gulliver's, which is good but pricey, there's the new sushi place and the new vegetarian place (Big Twist, destined, I fear to follow in the footsteps of the last two failed restaurants in that location) and that's pretty much it. I wany a decent restaurant and/or bar to walk to - is that too much to ask?
This is one way to guarantee that the city "investments" in all the Howard bars are good- Push the competition out of business through government pressure!
I'd rather the City Council were more specific in their ban, and more efficient. Why don't we combine our drone ban with our nuclear-free zone, and have a ban on nuclear drones?
Howard Handler cites many examples of when renting a house, for a short term, makes sense:
a family whose house is being repaired, a family visiting the hospital, a researcher visiting NU for a few weeks, etc...
I agree that letting people rent houses for a week would be a good idea, so I think that REALTORS ( sorry...that's REALTORS® ) are correct in opposing this ordinance.
But I can think of another option...instead of renting houses...for people who need short-term housing. Something that would apply to all of the situations above....
Maybe we could get something like Extended Stay in downtown Evanston. A place where visitors could stay for a week or month on a short assignment....without having to pay for all the extras like daily maid service and swimming pools at the Hiltons.
We have an empty lot on Chicago Ave. where the Heil & Heil building used to be...that seems like a nice spot for a Residence Inn, Extended Stay, or similar longer term hotel.
Don't worry, Howard, the city does nothing to enforce its existing zoning and property standards codes so if people want to rent property in those senarios they will still be able to.
A call to the city to complain about these matters doesn't get looked at for weeks--by the time they investigate all of the scenarios you described will no longer be occuring so property owners have no fear of being penalized for not following the new ordinance.
PBS NewsHour had a story [see below] about a Maine Middle School that had a robtics building and competition as first part of a 'practical' [as in hands on] education in science. Ultimate goal was to develop a useful energy saving [e.g. windmill] or other type of application.
Several female students were scared of failing--- 'I know nothing about electricity', 'I've never used a drill', etc.
Before the end---even on the first project---they were not only 'in to it' but seemed to be having the time of their lives.
Very impressive. I wondered how well this could translate to other school----cost and teachers. At least for the teachers, it appears they were existing staff.
I do hope our council will end this nonsense once and for all. This entire string of events is the result of one person complaining about one house, which all agreed was clearly a situation that our existing laws could have addressed. If there was ever a case of a solution looking for a problem, it is this. We do not need any new laws here, and they will certainly only spark litigation and frustration. Please, please, let this go away, and put our government's focus on real problems and issues that impact the people of Evanston
This staff-proposed approach is a big step backwards. The proposed ordinance essentially prohibits all rentals for periods of less than 30 days unless the property owner applies for and receives a special use permit. If adopted, the following scenarios would be essentially outlawed:
- A property owner that sells their home but rents the home from one week from the new owner until the seller's new home closes.
- An Evanston family, whose home was impacted by sever flooding, that rents a vacant home down the street while their home undergoes renovation.
- A family from Florida that travels to Evanston for specialized medical treatment for their child and rents an apartment for two weeks.
- A visiting researcher from Europe that travels to Evanston for a two week period to collorabate with a Northwestern Univ. professor and rents an apartment for that time period.
This ordinance seeks to burden and stifle the entire community instead of narrowly addressing the types of properties of concern – those running quasi-hotels in residential neighborhoods. Instead of a very narrow approach, this ordinance casts a wide net that will detrimentally impact Evanston's real estate and economy. It should be soundly rejected.
Howard Handler
Government Affairs Director
North Shore - Barrington Assoc. of REALTORS
Around 2 million to redevelop?, LOL! Talk about a lowball number.
What is all this talk about some developer coming in and paying more millions? Didn't the city put out an open, public, RFP on this, isn't Pritzker the only one responding? Pritzker is actually generous in his offer, the market has proposed and offered nothing else, therefore that is market price. Simple fact of life.
If you look at the city web site and check the maps that show property subdivisions, most of Lighthouse beach is behind the Art Center as is the path down to the lake and the beach house with showers and toilets. If they sell off the property there is no beach, no bathhouse, no road leading in from Sheridan and no parking lot. You would have to start over on the undeveloped park land to the north of the parking lot, build new facilites and figure out how to get in from Sheridan.
The NIMBY's should be all Evanstonians who use that park and the beach telling our City fathers and mothers: NIMBY.
We have seen from the old Kendall College property what happens when someone wants to build. The NIMBY fight every idea. If they 'agreed' on an idea, as soon as someone would taken them up on it, they would revise their goal. I bet if a developer offered to put duplicates of their houses on the Kendall lot, they would still object.
Pritzker could always give-up [on doing anything with the property and the city] and tear the house down, the land would sit vacant for years but their taxes would be reduced---and revenue to the city would be decreased---not what the city/taxpayers need.
"All in all the low-ball offer was truly a low-ball offer. I have not asked any developers, but if they could divide up the land into smaller lots much like the homes to the south or like the ill-fated developer of District 65 tried to do with main building and other stuff on same site, or even Lohr Park over along Ridge, they would make a profit immediately if they got the land for the amount now being discussed, even before they sold a single home or unit, i.e., just on the land sales. Of course, much like the hotel, we lose the last piece of lakefront truly accessible to the public between the south end of NU and the City limits."
I say, forget the "landmark" business....please permit developers to subdivide, and build some nice new tax-generating houses or condos on the lake where the dilapidated mansion now stands...
BUT...
keep the beach! With its public access!
It would be hilarious to see people buy houses at the new Lighthouse Estates Subdivision....and then watch them act like NIMBYs every summer when they find out that people are using the neighboring beach! They would INSIST that the beach be closed to protect the sanctity of their "residential" neighborhood. They might even find one or two (but no more than two) sympathetic aldermen.
Lots of talk on all sides of this one that seem to oscillate from those who simply want a new building to replace the old, those who feel that any use is better than none, those who fear any spending, and, of course those who view giving away the lakefront, beach and other amentities is wrong.
I won't go into all of what has been written but for the record the building is an Evanston Landmark and not a historic or architectural landmark. The City got it from one of NU's fraternities that did a masterful job of trashing it before leaving it to the City and providing little in the way of maintenance. The City, BTW did not do much for years either if you look at the big greenhouse (now metal-working shop)along the south that got a roof but is a wooden structure ready for massive help, or the exterior and the greenhouse west of the coachhouse that is completely abandoned.
Nevertheless if you search the various City maps and other data you find that this property seems to belong to the City from Sheridan to the lake. The Lighthouse next door was federal propoerty and has a different legal status although it may belong to the City under some arrangement regarding the lighthouse. There is a park to the north that is Lighthouse Park District but they have no beach. Then we have more City land. Basically a mess that has pepole walking across various legal entities and one can only imaging what may happen when the hotel prevent you from getting to the handicapped park playground or whatever (Mary B - kiss the Jen Jensen firepit goodbye).
Pritzker seems to want all of the land, which implies no beach, no beach house (Nice. It only got rebuilt witihn the past few years, the parking lot, etc. I doubt an upscale hotel would want a lot of screaming kids, let alone Gatsby at "their" beach and so there goes the beach.
Someone remarked as to costs of repair. This I was able to get from those somewhat in the know. The main building was made accessible on the main floor with a ramp, automatic doors and toilets about ten years ago. That cost about $50,000 and Art Center is "paying it off" over about 25 to 50 years (another deal that indicates why there has been no money for rehab). Otherwise they only pay $1 per year.
Oh yes, there is also a coachhouse that got rehabbed on the outside, but the two one or two-bedroom aparmtents never got redone because City was about $100,000 short. Rather than spend that extra money they vacated both apartments that, since they were to be air-conditioned and upgraded comletely (AC, electrical, heating, plaster paint, new kitchens and baths) would have brought in at least $2,000 to $2,500 per month which might be cheap given lakeside locale. Thus, the rent alone would have paid for the upgrades witihn 5-6 years especially if the 3 garage spaces were also rented. Right now the lighthouse keeper gets one free enclosed parking space and no one else pays rent for any parking.
As to the buliding. It needs windows which might cost about $200K. If made a public facility it needs handicapped access for upper floors (forget about that rabbit warren of a basement). An elevator would cost about $200 to $250K, as well. From what i learned the elevator at Noyes cost about $75K ten years ago, but that will go free to Piven. The exterior needs cleaning and probably vine removal. I hear the roof may be OK. Other interior work, if the Art Center leaves, might add more money and there is probably electrical, lighting, heating and plumbing plus ADA toilets on upper flooors, etc. conservatively, about $1 million or so depending on what gets done and for what purpose. Worse case if truly restored (not needed) less than $2 million.
Pritzker would need to spend lots and lots to make it a hotel because of kitchens, bedrooms, toilets all over the place, and many requirements that are required or expected at the "high-end". But as a public building with programs there is less need to "doll it up", which is why $1.5 to 2.0 million would probably suffice.
All in all the low-ball offer was truly a low-ball offer. I have not asked any developers, but if they could divide up the land into smaller lots much like the homes to the south or like the ill-fated developer of District 65 tried to do with main building and other stuff on same site, or even Lohr Park over along Ridge, they would make a profit immediately if they got the land for the amount now being discussed, even before they sold a single home or unit, i.e., just on the land sales. Of course, much like the hotel, we lose the last piece of lakefront truly accessible to the public between the south end of NU and the City limits.
Someone recalled that the original sale requirement was the building with a land lease, but that seems to have disappeared along with the audio tapes (is this really another conspiracy or are we just paranoid in Evanston?). Obviously, Pritzker does not want to invest his money into a building if he cannot own it all. That is, by the way, why the Art Center will not stay. Why fix someone else's building?
In conclusion, we now have two buildings that might each cost $2 million to repair (although other than the roof that is underway anyhow, what is left to do at Noyes other than what Piven wants for themselves). Reasonable rents from proper uses and tenants could recover that money while, let us not forget, the public benefits from the beach, the parks, etc as well as from programs.
Somewhere it appears, in the rush to develop anything that stands, the City fathers and mothers have forgotten, along with their staff, that they have a responsiblity above and beyond meeting the budget.
What ever happened to a greater vision for the City? Oh, it is year 150 and we have a new approach to making Evanston livable. Let us discard all public properties and privatize the land, the buildings, etc. A good way to keep the budget down, even as tax revenues begin to rise. But once these properties are sold and gone, you can never go back.
Piven Executive Director Leslie Brown estimates that the expanded 200-seat theater will be used 200 nights a year with an average of 75 percent of seats filled for each performance and a total of 30,000 theater-goer visits per year.
Assuming the target of 30,000 in total attendance is reached immediately, Evanston Now's analysis of the proposed deal indicates the city should receive the following benefits over the 53-year term:
• $782,280 in estimated sales tax revenue on ancillary spending by theater audiences. This is based on the $24.60 etimated average nonprofit arts attendee ancillary spending from an Americans for the Arts survey and the 2 percent city share of sales tax.
• $376,067 in estimated liquor tax revenue, based on an estimated $13.14 average meals spending per visitor from the Americans for the Arts survey and a city estimate that 30 percent of restaurant sales is subject to the city's 6 percent liquor tax.
• $2 million in increased value of the Noyes building after the rehab work is completed, based on Piven's estimate.
==========================
If the Council goes ahead and bankrolls Piven---esp. with the easy terms that have been mentioned----perhaps the rent and maintenance should be based on Piven's [if they standby estimates listed above]. For example if they estimate 30,000 attendance and revenue for the city of $X per year, then if their rent+payments are $Y per year, then actual rent+payments should increase by 80% (30000-actual)* $X *(1/ 30,000-1/-actual)
i.e. if Revenue for the city is $1 million and actual attendance is 20,000 then stated rent should increase by
10,000 [the shortfall] * $1 million *(1/30000-1/20000) or $166, 000. If you only charge 80% of that then rent would increse by $133,000.
Will they thus now stand behind their estimates or want to revise them ?
It is a perfectly reasonable bid. It should only be considered a low bid if the proposal were to demolish the property for new commercial development.
As is the bid retains and refurbishes the building, something everyone seems to desire. The refurbishing and the addition to make the project long term self sustaining will cost many-many-many more millions than the bid price.
When that is taken into consideration the bid is more than reasonable. Otherwise the property can continue to deterioate until it reaches a stage beyond repair and need demolition.
It's a fabulous sounding proposal to retain the property and the city would be short sighted to not work with this offer.
Only request I would make is that a dining/cafe facility be built with a patio facing the lake, I for one would love to enjoy open air lunches there, that would be a fantastic place the whole community could enjoy.
My husband and I attend so many benefits, weddings, special occassions in Evanston. We, along with most everyone we've spoken with, have found it sad that Evanston does not have a waterfront fine dining or event venue. The comment has always been, "Wouldn't the Evanston Art Center location be a great?"
This is the opportunity. That $1.2 million would be made up easily in booked events, contracts with caterers, valet parking, you name it.
This is not only a bad deal for everyone in Evanston: it's downright insulting.
The billionaire Pritzker is offering only $1.2 million of 2.5 acres of prime lakefront property!!! That is unacceptable!
The city manager and the Council should have ended negotiations right on the spot and sent out another bid to LEASE the property. On the face of it, I think $3 million is a low appraisal for 2.5 acres of prime lakefront property. The very idea our city leaders are still negotiating with Pritzker on this deal should sound the alarm bells.
On top of that, the audio tapes of the meeting of Human Service Committee, which was discussing the terms and conditions of the proposed sale lakefront property, were destroyed. That also is unacceptable and someone should be disciplined.
The Council should NOT sell OUR lakefront property.
I'm all for people expressing their views and would agree that the city government many/most times decides what it wants to do and then closes their ears.
However when parties like this continue to go ater issues long settled and prevent others from speaking, then something has to be done. Condo/Coop Boards [and I'm sure many others] have a few people that always want to talk and talk and talk and many times that is all they do---never come to meetings that aren't on their topic, never help out or even cooperate with business of the condo/coop, etc.. The 'Condo Lawyer' column in the Trib often said this type of behavior was the number one complaint he got. He said to tell such people that they are their to listen to the Board who is to make decisions [i admit i'm afraid if the city government took this strongly and prevented comments but then again do they ever listen ?], tell them if they don't participate in the condo business, the Board has necessary business to take care of, and after a fair hearing [single or multiple meetings] to sit down and shut-up.
When it comes all the business that the city has, some order is needed. Perhaps like some courts do, impose fines and/or costs of the meeting on those who file and continue to take over meetings with nusiance business.
Given how the city government has a "ready, fire, aim" approach to city business [like all its gifts to selected business and zoning], an independent 'judge' would be needed to make such determinations of when steps over the line---probably also including the proceedures by which the Council and all its boards ram through their favorites causes.
Simply put, where will this funding come from ? State employees need someone to fund their platinum-plated pension plans. If we already know by how much the pension plans are underfunded, can't someone calculate by how much our income taxes will rise ?
Also, consider the guarantees that are being made by politicians to these unions. Because the guarantees are absolute, it means that it is now the unions which will decide how much income tax will be levied on Illinois taxpayers.
How about investing, as the city does frequently, into some business. A wine bar, perhaps? Or how about a theater?
If we can invest in those things, certainly we should be able to invest in the repair of this building, at least. We have made millions of dollars of investments into odd things, why not try and hold onto something that is an Evanston landmark, if not an historic one?
Agreed. No one is afraid to let Ms. Rao or her mother speak. They have been doing it for years and their position on a single issue has been rejected. Why should others be prevented from speaking because these two women are on a mission to hog the microphone (and camera for TV coverage) at every meeting when their issue has been discussed and deliberated ad nauseum.
Here's a suggestion for Ms. Rao and her mother: if you both remain so passionate about the sole issue of some trees on a stretch of land, how about a letter-writing campaign? Write to every government official you can find, every day of the week. But oh so sad -- no TV coverage each time that you write a letter. And those nasty stamps cost money.
How about this, ladies -- YouTube videos? Get yourself a handheld video camera and tape each other pontificating endlessly about the same trees. Low cost and plenty of face time in front of a camera without the taxpayers paying the cost or endlessly surrendering time as you demand that your mugs appear on TV whenever you want.
Either move on to another issue in public comments or beat a dead horse on your own time and nickel.
I hope this means a nicer bar will end up there...for those of us at the west end of south Evanston/Rogers Park, there aren't a whole lot of walkable options of any kind. Besides Gulliver's, which is good but pricey, there's the new sushi place and the new vegetarian place (Big Twist, destined, I fear to follow in the footsteps of the last two failed restaurants in that location) and that's pretty much it. I wany a decent restaurant and/or bar to walk to - is that too much to ask?
This is one way to guarantee that the city "investments" in all the Howard bars are good- Push the competition out of business through government pressure!
Who is John Galt anyway?
Will the Aldermen be banned from droning on and on?
I'd rather the City Council were more specific in their ban, and more efficient. Why don't we combine our drone ban with our nuclear-free zone, and have a ban on nuclear drones?
Howard Handler cites many examples of when renting a house, for a short term, makes sense:
a family whose house is being repaired, a family visiting the hospital, a researcher visiting NU for a few weeks, etc...
I agree that letting people rent houses for a week would be a good idea, so I think that REALTORS ( sorry...that's REALTORS® ) are correct in opposing this ordinance.
But I can think of another option...instead of renting houses...for people who need short-term housing. Something that would apply to all of the situations above....
Maybe we could get something like Extended Stay in downtown Evanston. A place where visitors could stay for a week or month on a short assignment....without having to pay for all the extras like daily maid service and swimming pools at the Hiltons.
We have an empty lot on Chicago Ave. where the Heil & Heil building used to be...that seems like a nice spot for a Residence Inn, Extended Stay, or similar longer term hotel.
Don't worry, Howard, the city does nothing to enforce its existing zoning and property standards codes so if people want to rent property in those senarios they will still be able to.
A call to the city to complain about these matters doesn't get looked at for weeks--by the time they investigate all of the scenarios you described will no longer be occuring so property owners have no fear of being penalized for not following the new ordinance.
Have at it!
PBS NewsHour had a story [see below] about a Maine Middle School that had a robtics building and competition as first part of a 'practical' [as in hands on] education in science. Ultimate goal was to develop a useful energy saving [e.g. windmill] or other type of application.
Several female students were scared of failing--- 'I know nothing about electricity', 'I've never used a drill', etc.
Before the end---even on the first project---they were not only 'in to it' but seemed to be having the time of their lives.
Very impressive. I wondered how well this could translate to other school----cost and teachers. At least for the teachers, it appears they were existing staff.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june13/learning_05-06.html
================
The following night the NewsHour had a program on hands on science at San Francisco's Exploratorium Boasts Fun, Interactive Science.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june13/science_05-07.html
I do hope our council will end this nonsense once and for all. This entire string of events is the result of one person complaining about one house, which all agreed was clearly a situation that our existing laws could have addressed. If there was ever a case of a solution looking for a problem, it is this. We do not need any new laws here, and they will certainly only spark litigation and frustration. Please, please, let this go away, and put our government's focus on real problems and issues that impact the people of Evanston
This staff-proposed approach is a big step backwards. The proposed ordinance essentially prohibits all rentals for periods of less than 30 days unless the property owner applies for and receives a special use permit. If adopted, the following scenarios would be essentially outlawed:
- A property owner that sells their home but rents the home from one week from the new owner until the seller's new home closes.
- An Evanston family, whose home was impacted by sever flooding, that rents a vacant home down the street while their home undergoes renovation.
- A family from Florida that travels to Evanston for specialized medical treatment for their child and rents an apartment for two weeks.
- A visiting researcher from Europe that travels to Evanston for a two week period to collorabate with a Northwestern Univ. professor and rents an apartment for that time period.
This ordinance seeks to burden and stifle the entire community instead of narrowly addressing the types of properties of concern – those running quasi-hotels in residential neighborhoods. Instead of a very narrow approach, this ordinance casts a wide net that will detrimentally impact Evanston's real estate and economy. It should be soundly rejected.
Howard Handler
Government Affairs Director
North Shore - Barrington Assoc. of REALTORS
Around 2 million to redevelop?, LOL! Talk about a lowball number.
What is all this talk about some developer coming in and paying more millions? Didn't the city put out an open, public, RFP on this, isn't Pritzker the only one responding? Pritzker is actually generous in his offer, the market has proposed and offered nothing else, therefore that is market price. Simple fact of life.
Sell it now.
If you look at the city web site and check the maps that show property subdivisions, most of Lighthouse beach is behind the Art Center as is the path down to the lake and the beach house with showers and toilets. If they sell off the property there is no beach, no bathhouse, no road leading in from Sheridan and no parking lot. You would have to start over on the undeveloped park land to the north of the parking lot, build new facilites and figure out how to get in from Sheridan.
The NIMBY's should be all Evanstonians who use that park and the beach telling our City fathers and mothers: NIMBY.
We probably won't get a better deal for the city.
We have seen from the old Kendall College property what happens when someone wants to build. The NIMBY fight every idea. If they 'agreed' on an idea, as soon as someone would taken them up on it, they would revise their goal. I bet if a developer offered to put duplicates of their houses on the Kendall lot, they would still object.
Pritzker could always give-up [on doing anything with the property and the city] and tear the house down, the land would sit vacant for years but their taxes would be reduced---and revenue to the city would be decreased---not what the city/taxpayers need.
"All in all the low-ball offer was truly a low-ball offer. I have not asked any developers, but if they could divide up the land into smaller lots much like the homes to the south or like the ill-fated developer of District 65 tried to do with main building and other stuff on same site, or even Lohr Park over along Ridge, they would make a profit immediately if they got the land for the amount now being discussed, even before they sold a single home or unit, i.e., just on the land sales. Of course, much like the hotel, we lose the last piece of lakefront truly accessible to the public between the south end of NU and the City limits."
I say, forget the "landmark" business....please permit developers to subdivide, and build some nice new tax-generating houses or condos on the lake where the dilapidated mansion now stands...
BUT...
keep the beach! With its public access!
It would be hilarious to see people buy houses at the new Lighthouse Estates Subdivision....and then watch them act like NIMBYs every summer when they find out that people are using the neighboring beach! They would INSIST that the beach be closed to protect the sanctity of their "residential" neighborhood. They might even find one or two (but no more than two) sympathetic aldermen.
Lots of talk on all sides of this one that seem to oscillate from those who simply want a new building to replace the old, those who feel that any use is better than none, those who fear any spending, and, of course those who view giving away the lakefront, beach and other amentities is wrong.
I won't go into all of what has been written but for the record the building is an Evanston Landmark and not a historic or architectural landmark. The City got it from one of NU's fraternities that did a masterful job of trashing it before leaving it to the City and providing little in the way of maintenance. The City, BTW did not do much for years either if you look at the big greenhouse (now metal-working shop)along the south that got a roof but is a wooden structure ready for massive help, or the exterior and the greenhouse west of the coachhouse that is completely abandoned.
Nevertheless if you search the various City maps and other data you find that this property seems to belong to the City from Sheridan to the lake. The Lighthouse next door was federal propoerty and has a different legal status although it may belong to the City under some arrangement regarding the lighthouse. There is a park to the north that is Lighthouse Park District but they have no beach. Then we have more City land. Basically a mess that has pepole walking across various legal entities and one can only imaging what may happen when the hotel prevent you from getting to the handicapped park playground or whatever (Mary B - kiss the Jen Jensen firepit goodbye).
Pritzker seems to want all of the land, which implies no beach, no beach house (Nice. It only got rebuilt witihn the past few years, the parking lot, etc. I doubt an upscale hotel would want a lot of screaming kids, let alone Gatsby at "their" beach and so there goes the beach.
Someone remarked as to costs of repair. This I was able to get from those somewhat in the know. The main building was made accessible on the main floor with a ramp, automatic doors and toilets about ten years ago. That cost about $50,000 and Art Center is "paying it off" over about 25 to 50 years (another deal that indicates why there has been no money for rehab). Otherwise they only pay $1 per year.
Oh yes, there is also a coachhouse that got rehabbed on the outside, but the two one or two-bedroom aparmtents never got redone because City was about $100,000 short. Rather than spend that extra money they vacated both apartments that, since they were to be air-conditioned and upgraded comletely (AC, electrical, heating, plaster paint, new kitchens and baths) would have brought in at least $2,000 to $2,500 per month which might be cheap given lakeside locale. Thus, the rent alone would have paid for the upgrades witihn 5-6 years especially if the 3 garage spaces were also rented. Right now the lighthouse keeper gets one free enclosed parking space and no one else pays rent for any parking.
As to the buliding. It needs windows which might cost about $200K. If made a public facility it needs handicapped access for upper floors (forget about that rabbit warren of a basement). An elevator would cost about $200 to $250K, as well. From what i learned the elevator at Noyes cost about $75K ten years ago, but that will go free to Piven. The exterior needs cleaning and probably vine removal. I hear the roof may be OK. Other interior work, if the Art Center leaves, might add more money and there is probably electrical, lighting, heating and plumbing plus ADA toilets on upper flooors, etc. conservatively, about $1 million or so depending on what gets done and for what purpose. Worse case if truly restored (not needed) less than $2 million.
Pritzker would need to spend lots and lots to make it a hotel because of kitchens, bedrooms, toilets all over the place, and many requirements that are required or expected at the "high-end". But as a public building with programs there is less need to "doll it up", which is why $1.5 to 2.0 million would probably suffice.
All in all the low-ball offer was truly a low-ball offer. I have not asked any developers, but if they could divide up the land into smaller lots much like the homes to the south or like the ill-fated developer of District 65 tried to do with main building and other stuff on same site, or even Lohr Park over along Ridge, they would make a profit immediately if they got the land for the amount now being discussed, even before they sold a single home or unit, i.e., just on the land sales. Of course, much like the hotel, we lose the last piece of lakefront truly accessible to the public between the south end of NU and the City limits.
Someone recalled that the original sale requirement was the building with a land lease, but that seems to have disappeared along with the audio tapes (is this really another conspiracy or are we just paranoid in Evanston?). Obviously, Pritzker does not want to invest his money into a building if he cannot own it all. That is, by the way, why the Art Center will not stay. Why fix someone else's building?
In conclusion, we now have two buildings that might each cost $2 million to repair (although other than the roof that is underway anyhow, what is left to do at Noyes other than what Piven wants for themselves). Reasonable rents from proper uses and tenants could recover that money while, let us not forget, the public benefits from the beach, the parks, etc as well as from programs.
Somewhere it appears, in the rush to develop anything that stands, the City fathers and mothers have forgotten, along with their staff, that they have a responsiblity above and beyond meeting the budget.
What ever happened to a greater vision for the City? Oh, it is year 150 and we have a new approach to making Evanston livable. Let us discard all public properties and privatize the land, the buildings, etc. A good way to keep the budget down, even as tax revenues begin to rise. But once these properties are sold and gone, you can never go back.
Padma will probably keep nagging until she gets her way even though decisions have been made. Lotsa luck quieting her.
I quote from EvanstonNow post:
Piven Executive Director Leslie Brown estimates that the expanded 200-seat theater will be used 200 nights a year with an average of 75 percent of seats filled for each performance and a total of 30,000 theater-goer visits per year.
Assuming the target of 30,000 in total attendance is reached immediately, Evanston Now's analysis of the proposed deal indicates the city should receive the following benefits over the 53-year term:
• $782,280 in estimated sales tax revenue on ancillary spending by theater audiences. This is based on the $24.60 etimated average nonprofit arts attendee ancillary spending from an Americans for the Arts survey and the 2 percent city share of sales tax.
• $376,067 in estimated liquor tax revenue, based on an estimated $13.14 average meals spending per visitor from the Americans for the Arts survey and a city estimate that 30 percent of restaurant sales is subject to the city's 6 percent liquor tax.
• $2 million in increased value of the Noyes building after the rehab work is completed, based on Piven's estimate.
==========================
If the Council goes ahead and bankrolls Piven---esp. with the easy terms that have been mentioned----perhaps the rent and maintenance should be based on Piven's [if they standby estimates listed above]. For example if they estimate 30,000 attendance and revenue for the city of $X per year, then if their rent+payments are $Y per year, then actual rent+payments should increase by 80% (30000-actual)* $X *(1/ 30,000-1/-actual)
i.e. if Revenue for the city is $1 million and actual attendance is 20,000 then stated rent should increase by
10,000 [the shortfall] * $1 million *(1/30000-1/20000) or $166, 000. If you only charge 80% of that then rent would increse by $133,000.
Will they thus now stand behind their estimates or want to revise them ?
"As is the bid retains and refurbishes the building, something everyone seems to desire"
Not everyone.
I don't understand this fascination with old buildings. I would like a nice, shiny building there on the lakefront.
It is a perfectly reasonable bid. It should only be considered a low bid if the proposal were to demolish the property for new commercial development.
As is the bid retains and refurbishes the building, something everyone seems to desire. The refurbishing and the addition to make the project long term self sustaining will cost many-many-many more millions than the bid price.
When that is taken into consideration the bid is more than reasonable. Otherwise the property can continue to deterioate until it reaches a stage beyond repair and need demolition.
It's a fabulous sounding proposal to retain the property and the city would be short sighted to not work with this offer.
Only request I would make is that a dining/cafe facility be built with a patio facing the lake, I for one would love to enjoy open air lunches there, that would be a fantastic place the whole community could enjoy.
My husband and I attend so many benefits, weddings, special occassions in Evanston. We, along with most everyone we've spoken with, have found it sad that Evanston does not have a waterfront fine dining or event venue. The comment has always been, "Wouldn't the Evanston Art Center location be a great?"
This is the opportunity. That $1.2 million would be made up easily in booked events, contracts with caterers, valet parking, you name it.
Has the city even considered this option?
This is not only a bad deal for everyone in Evanston: it's downright insulting.
The billionaire Pritzker is offering only $1.2 million of 2.5 acres of prime lakefront property!!! That is unacceptable!
The city manager and the Council should have ended negotiations right on the spot and sent out another bid to LEASE the property. On the face of it, I think $3 million is a low appraisal for 2.5 acres of prime lakefront property. The very idea our city leaders are still negotiating with Pritzker on this deal should sound the alarm bells.
On top of that, the audio tapes of the meeting of Human Service Committee, which was discussing the terms and conditions of the proposed sale lakefront property, were destroyed. That also is unacceptable and someone should be disciplined.
The Council should NOT sell OUR lakefront property.
I'm all for people expressing their views and would agree that the city government many/most times decides what it wants to do and then closes their ears.
However when parties like this continue to go ater issues long settled and prevent others from speaking, then something has to be done. Condo/Coop Boards [and I'm sure many others] have a few people that always want to talk and talk and talk and many times that is all they do---never come to meetings that aren't on their topic, never help out or even cooperate with business of the condo/coop, etc.. The 'Condo Lawyer' column in the Trib often said this type of behavior was the number one complaint he got. He said to tell such people that they are their to listen to the Board who is to make decisions [i admit i'm afraid if the city government took this strongly and prevented comments but then again do they ever listen ?], tell them if they don't participate in the condo business, the Board has necessary business to take care of, and after a fair hearing [single or multiple meetings] to sit down and shut-up.
When it comes all the business that the city has, some order is needed. Perhaps like some courts do, impose fines and/or costs of the meeting on those who file and continue to take over meetings with nusiance business.
Given how the city government has a "ready, fire, aim" approach to city business [like all its gifts to selected business and zoning], an independent 'judge' would be needed to make such determinations of when steps over the line---probably also including the proceedures by which the Council and all its boards ram through their favorites causes.
Simply put, where will this funding come from ? State employees need someone to fund their platinum-plated pension plans. If we already know by how much the pension plans are underfunded, can't someone calculate by how much our income taxes will rise ?
Also, consider the guarantees that are being made by politicians to these unions. Because the guarantees are absolute, it means that it is now the unions which will decide how much income tax will be levied on Illinois taxpayers.
In my view the Rao's are acting like bratty children. Bullies, really. Kudos to the council for standing up to these brats.
How about investing, as the city does frequently, into some business. A wine bar, perhaps? Or how about a theater?
If we can invest in those things, certainly we should be able to invest in the repair of this building, at least. We have made millions of dollars of investments into odd things, why not try and hold onto something that is an Evanston landmark, if not an historic one?
Agreed. No one is afraid to let Ms. Rao or her mother speak. They have been doing it for years and their position on a single issue has been rejected. Why should others be prevented from speaking because these two women are on a mission to hog the microphone (and camera for TV coverage) at every meeting when their issue has been discussed and deliberated ad nauseum.
Here's a suggestion for Ms. Rao and her mother: if you both remain so passionate about the sole issue of some trees on a stretch of land, how about a letter-writing campaign? Write to every government official you can find, every day of the week. But oh so sad -- no TV coverage each time that you write a letter. And those nasty stamps cost money.
How about this, ladies -- YouTube videos? Get yourself a handheld video camera and tape each other pontificating endlessly about the same trees. Low cost and plenty of face time in front of a camera without the taxpayers paying the cost or endlessly surrendering time as you demand that your mugs appear on TV whenever you want.
Either move on to another issue in public comments or beat a dead horse on your own time and nickel.