On June 26th, 2008 at 08:35 AM, B is for Business said:
Lisa Madigan right now is planning a lawsuit on behalf of the people who were duped into building their houses on the flood plain. More to come...
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:23 AM, logicalpositivist said:
I heard on WDWS this morning that Jon 'Cody' Sokolski is planning a hotel in downtown Champaign.
If I heard correctly, he stated that there is no (private) land available for such a venture. My follow-up question would be...well, why are you contemplating building a hotel, then?
He then stated that there is only municipal land available. The report went on to state that Cody's firm and the city are in accord with regards to development being a boon for the downtown. I smell another hand out of city property to this firm (a la former city parking lots, generous TIFs established well after the downtown was on the upswing, taxpayers subsidizing "entrepreneurship", etc.). Disclosure: Cody is the husband of Champaign City Council Member Marci Dodds. http://www.marcidodds.com/bio.html
What I find interesting is that if you drive by M2 only 25% of the condos are sold (according to the sign posted at the construction site). Compare that with his firm's website where 25% were sold as of July 31, 2007. http://www.1-main.com/news/index.php They had 25% of the condos sold approximately a year ago. Surely, if there were more takers the firm would put a new percentage sold sticker on their sign (like a license plate renewal sticker).
My contention is that Mr. Sokolski should focus on growing his current businesses before coming up with new grandiose ideas (paid for, at least partially and probably more, by Champaign taxpayers).
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:24 AM, Champaign Dweller said:
Was he referring to a new project at a different location? Is there City land near M2 that he wants? With parking at a premium, I can't imagine that the City Council would be so foolish as to give or sell parking area to the husband of a City council member to build a hotel. Downtown is developing now without the need for more City giveaways.
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:29 AM, Regnad Kcin said:
Lisa Madigan right now is planning a lawsuit on behalf of the people who were duped into building their houses on the flood plain.
More to come... You bet.
Why stop there?
How about a lawsuit on behalf of the clueless unfortunates who were duped into buying lottery tickets?
the list of possibilities is endless for this valiant Queen of Torts.
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:28 AM, B is for Business said:
Too bad the voters will not get to choose directly on the hotel project.
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:29 AM, pattsi said:
He owns the buildings at Neil and Washington and yes, he plans/dreams a boutique hotel.
Pattsi Petrie
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:33 AM, Champaign Dweller said:
I'm wondering if the problem is that there's insufficient space at that location to build what he wants--the parking requirements for a hotel must be significant. I would be opposed to any giveaways to him for such a project--why can't he develop the Christie site?
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:35 AM, Regnad Kcin said:
maybe lisalisa could file a suit on behalf of all the champaign district 4 people who got duped into voting for marci dodds.
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:36 AM, pattsi said:
Section 8 housing and increase in crime--this AM on C-SPAN Hanna Rosin talked about recent research on an overlap between the destruction of inner city housing projects and an increase in crime in historically quiet neighborhoods. She explained her article on the Memphis research and the impact these findings could have on the national effort to diffuse inner-city poverty. This article is in the current Atlantic. Here is the url to view the program http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=565121910
This folds in nicely with the on going discussion about subprime loans and building in flood plains. Housing policy is so complex and the fallout is such a huge unknown as Rosin's article covers.
On June 26th, 2008 at 09:36 AM, logicalpositivist said:
Champaign Dweller--
It was for a new project at a different location. I can't remember exactly where the city property is located. I think Hill Street was mentioned in the report.
On June 26th, 2008 at 10:38 AM, B is for Business said:
There's more....
A dress maker is being sued because their dresses make women look fat. Lisa Madigan argues that billboards only showed skinny models and this practice is misleading and deceptive. More to come shortly....
On June 26th, 2008 at 11:01 AM, prairie biker (not verified) said:
The USSC, in no uncertain terms, upheld the traditionalist reading of the 2nd Amendment and declared DC's handgun ban unconstitutional. They also clearly stated it is an individual right.
"The USSC, in no uncertain terms, upheld the traditionalist reading of the 2nd Amendment and declared DC's handgun ban unconstitutional. They also clearly stated it is an individual right."
On June 26th, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Annoying Mike said:
Does this mean I'm no longer a bitter, churchifying xenophone clinging to my guns?
On June 26th, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Annoying Mike said:
xenophobe not "xenophone"-darn my giddiness
On June 26th, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
It means you don't have to do as much clinging as you have before. Let the wrong President get in and it will swing back the other way. After a few hundred years of gun rights now we have to take a constitutional right to the Supreme Court for a 5 to 4 decision?
On June 26th, 2008 at 01:11 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
"I smell another hand out of city property to this firm (a la former city parking lots, generous TIFs established well after the downtown was on the upswing, taxpayers subsidizing "entrepreneurship", etc.)."
"Downtown is developing now without the need for more City giveaways."
The downtown TIF was established well before ANYTHING was happening in downtown Champaign. It was established, in fact, to help get things going in downtown. Even with the TIF, so little happened prior to One Main that the TIF has had to be extended. Second, the only thing big that has happened in downtown has been One Main. Sokolski teamed up with Volition to come downtown. He brought Merry Ann's downtown, Jim Gould's and KoFusion. All of those businesses, plus One Main itself, contribute to the TIF.
That TIF is what is "subsidizing" M2. So money that One Main has contributed into the TIF over the last few years is the big "giveaway" that it's getting - and M2 will pay that "giveaway" right back into the TIF. Compare that to the road the City built for Atkins, or the 3 million it's giving to Fox/Atkins for the conference center/hotel.
The City has needed a parking garage in downtown forever. I remember when David Meyer was trying to get the City to pay millions for his crumbling, unsafe, un-maintained, too-small parking garage - and the City came close to doing so just because it needed a parking garage so badly. They didn't, and now there's a flat, too-small parking lot that real people can't use next to the crumbling old Howard Johnson's hotel that Robeson won't fix-up or sell around the corner from a whole bunch of properties that Youngerman won't fix up or sell.
Yeah, Sokolski has grandiose plans, but at least he has them. The alternative is crumbling, half-vacant buildings owned by Robeson or Youngerman - or another bar owned by Nieto.
On June 26th, 2008 at 01:52 PM, D. Boon said:
Today is the day the Supreme Court finally told the states what gun laws they can or cannot have. It is as simple as that.
Today the DC ban is illegal, twenty years from now all guns may be illegal. This is the precedent that was really set.
So enjoy your handgun. Get a new holster and be ready to shoot someone! But when this court switches to a liberal set of judges they will now have precedent with which to start passing national bans of many guns.
Which is fine with me. But if I was a gun-toting yahoo I probably wouldn't be celebrating right now.
Have a great day!
On June 26th, 2008 at 02:02 PM, Glock21 said:
Boon... That'd make sense if you also felt a ruling upholding free speech and tossing a law that infringed it was the slippery slope towards banning all free speech.
But if nothing else, we can agree that "liberal judges" are a threat to the limits on government powers which leads directly to a threat against our rights... even those enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
"We are confident that this does not invalidate Chicago's ordinance at this point," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city Law Department."
The federal government can't ban guns, but states and cities can?
On June 26th, 2008 at 02:37 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
DBoon as soon as I see a "gun-toting yahoo" I will tell him if, I can get him to stop jumping up and down long enough.
On June 26th, 2008 at 03:45 PM, Champaign Dweller said:
Anonymous, downtown development has been good for downtown, for the most part. However, don't you think the City should concentrate on developing parking for people who want to go downtown and patronize all of these new businesses? What good are they if people won't go downtown because they can't find a place to park? And City incentives at a time when downtown wasn't attracting development was a good idea. However, it seems to me that with all of the development going on, there's really no reason to offer more incentives--if developers want to be there now, they're not taking as much of a chance as the first one to develop--shouldn't they now invest and gamble with their own money; and shouldn't the City use TIF's, etc to attract development to places other than Campustown and downtown? Remember, that TIF's take away dollars from the school district, etc unless there's some kind of agreement to replace those dollars.
On June 26th, 2008 at 04:48 PM, akibare said:
cheesy poofs: Yeah, that's the reading people are coming up with - the Bill of Rights applies to the feds, not the states, unless the right is specifically applied to the states under the 14th amendment, or some such. So the end result is that the feds can't ban, but the states can.
I have no idea how valid that argument is, just pointing out I saw it flash by my eyes on some site or other over lunchtime. So you might want to read around there - as will I, later.
Either way if they've settled the "militia, or not?" question that alone is probably valuable.
On June 26th, 2008 at 04:58 PM, logicalpositivist said:
Anon. 1:11--
We actually agree on more than you think. I didn't address some of the other issues you touched upon b/c I was talking about the news report.
I was talking mainly about the scattershot and pell-mell direction his operations seem to be going (and, subsequently, the City Council's pampering thereof). One week it's an international bourse, the next it's half a million dollar condos (without a waterfront, mind you, but a nice view of Cotter Glass), the next it's a brew-pub, the next it's another hotel. The newest child isn't even out of the birth canal (let alone viable) and the next big thing is needing to be financed.
I agree with your assessment. There really isn't much alternative b/c the downtown area is an exclusive little oligopoly of the names you've mentioned. With little exception, the vast majority of real property is in the hands of maybe four or five large owners. One hand washes the other when it concerns downtown "development".
There are probably many people who have ideas of how downtown can grow and prosper. There are probably many "entrepreneurs" who would love to set up shop downtown. However, those people are now outbid and outspent b/c of a very cozy little relationship which has been established. This situation has effectively shut out anyone else. It's now a matter of connections (both spousal and non), flashy PowerPoint presentations to woo the City Council and packaging any idea as "development".
It's true that there are a few people who are making out like Croesus in this town--not just downtown. Amazingly, Champaign is probably more like Chicago than we care to admit in that respect. In Chicago, "development" usually happens not so much because of good ideas, but b/c of political connections and close-knit consortiums.
I think there should be a greater understanding of our own "sweetheart deals" and how the council spends tax money. We are constantly hearing about proposals for new tax levies, increased parking rates, super high property tax assessments (while the houses of some of the people you mention go years w/out a property tax increase),charges for sending out sewer bills, ad nauseum. Yet, the council always has money to throw around when the "developers" and "entrepreneurs" come knocking hat in hand. The council is always eager to throw money at another pet project in the name of development.
This sort of tulip mania is creating some very big expectations. With every doling out of millions of dollars the council creates more of a necessity that things have to work. More of the burden is placed on the taxpayers. You can be certain, people like Sokolski, Fox, Atkins, Tatman, Youngerman, Nieto and the Robesons won't be left holding the bag if we have "lowered expectations" or if downtown doesn't become Portland on the Prairie.
On June 26th, 2008 at 08:06 PM, one who hopes t... said:
Why can't the empty spaces in M2 be combined and turned into a hotel? The brew pub could be the in-house restaurant and bar, and hotel guests could go to Jim Gould's or Merry Ann's for breakfast.
I personally doubt that the International Bourse will go very far...
On June 26th, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
"Municipal land" just means land owned by the city. It doesn't mean West Side Park. Most developable land owned by the city was acquired as derelict or abandoned property, or assembled over time like the parcels where M2 is being built, the Burnham site, or the city parking lot at Sixth and Green. In residential areas this property sits around until it can be sold to a developer or given to a non-profit like Habitat for Humanity. Downtown it usually gets used as a parking lot until something better comes along. It's fair to object to the city giving a developer too good a deal, but there's nothing inherently wrong with "municipal land" being sold for development--it happens all the time.
On June 26th, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Champaign Dweller: I think, with the parking garage, that "developing parking" is just what the City is doing. But we disagree on the point that there is "so much development going on downtown." The only thing going on downtown is stuff that Sokolski did or is doing - and most everything else comes from what he did or is doing. I remember when Jupiter's, Kopi, and Radio Maria were all that was downtown (for food) and for retail there was Carrie's, Circles and Periscope (which I think was owned by Sokolski). One Main was the nudge that inspired all the other stuff - but even that, no one is doing anything big but Sokolski. Now, maybe you and Logical Positivist prefer that nothing big happen. OK. But one of the things that Sokolski has brought downtown is jobs and people, and that creates the energy - the urban feel - that those four blocks we all call downtown have. That wasn't there before, and people are taking it for granted now.
Logical Positivist: there IS no other developer coming downtown, and I just don't buy it that one guy with one building can out-bully Fox and Atkins. Nor do I think his wife is that all-fired powerful that she can influence the ENTIRE Council and ALL of City staff to vote to give her husband money from the TIF so that he can build M2 that will turn around and pay the rebate back into the TIF. She wasn't even on the Council until AFTER One Main was built, and she always leaves the room when it votes on M2. But maybe Dodds really is that powerful and I'm wrong. (if that's the case, maybe we ought to be sending her to Springfield. With that kind of power, she could get rid of Jones, Madigan, and Blago and still have dinner on the table by 6 pm.)
I don't know. Maybe it's because I've lived here a long time or because I'm old, but I don't put Sokolski in the same camp as Fox/Atkins. They guy hasn't lived here his whole life, he's only built one (now almost two) buildings, and he gives a lot of money back to the community without a quid pro quo. Plus he builds pretty high quality, and he's trying new stuff, like building green. Yeah, the Bourse was pretty far-fetched, but the City hasn't put any money in it. According to the paper, most of the office space has been leased.
Downtown isn't an oligopoly. It's hard. There's no ground to do anything because Youngerman won't sell any (or fix what he has up), and most developers in town either feed off the University or build in the cornfields.
I like the new downtown, and I like the direction the City's going, with the Boneyard fix-up and linking downtown and campus with it and Burnham 310. I hope Christie stays downtown so that all us older folk around Westside Park can continue to walk to their doctor. But this stuff is risky. It's a lot easier to do what we've always done - tear up farmland to build new subdivisions and big box stores and leave our core to rot. It wasn't much fun, and everyone was always stuck in their cars.
Maybe even front porches will make a comeback?
On June 27th, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Champaign Dweller said:
In order to get the kind of information and analysis that you want on downtown development, you're going to have to persuade the City Council to ask the City manager and staff hard questions rather than just accept whatever they recommend. You're also going to have to persuade the City Council to have more discussion and analysis in public rather than their little one on one meetings with staff to avoid the Open Meetings Act. Finally, you're going to have to persuade people like Tom Bruno that development downtown and Campustown doesn't necessarily benefit the entire public--I keep hearing him say time and time again that all of this development benefits all taxpayers because it adds to the tax base, increases property values, etc., but so far, all I've seen are higher tax bills and precious little to show for it.
We are constantly nickeled and dimed to death. We pay for: water, sewer, garbage, higher fees for parking, and a host of other things, and if you really start to add up all of these things, the taxes and user fees are substantial; Yet the City doesn't have enough money to repair collector streets, etc, and it does have enough money to give the City manager a 4.25% raise when people are losing jobs and gas is at an all-time high. Government is essentially asking all of us to do without (by increasing fees and taxes), and yet they are unwilling to do what they ask of the rest of us. I appreciate that things are not as bad here as they are in other parts of the country, but we have not seen the bottom of the market fall, or the top of the gas prices yet.
On June 27th, 2008 at 11:07 AM, pattsi said:
Champaign Dweller has made several good points. Unless the residents of Champaign start attending the city council meeting in much larger numbers, the decisions will continue to be made before the council meetings.
Bruno does constantly contend that development is good for the economy of the community. This book will arm you with the arguments to counter what is happening throughout Champaign. All of this development is not paying for itself and the TIF districts are costing the residents along with the other taxing bodies.
What interests me about the development in downtown Champaign is how skewed it is as to the targeted population. It is as if people over 40 years old have no money to spend in downtown. The development is so far from balanced and serving the whole community, yet the whole community is paying for it.
Pattsi Petrie
On June 27th, 2008 at 11:24 AM, redstatewannabe said:
I sure hope there has been no discussion of the city using eminent domain to get some land for a hotel.
On June 27th, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
"What interests me about the development in downtown Champaign is how skewed it is as to the targeted population. It is as if people over 40 years old have no money to spend in downtown. The development is so far from balanced and serving the whole community, yet the whole community is paying for it."
Pattsi Petrie
I respectfully disagree. In fact, I would argue it's just the opposite. Who EXCEPT people over the age of 40 have the money to spend at Gould's, Bacarro, Luna, Escobar's, The Creperie, in the numbers needed to keep them afloat? Who, EXCEPT people over the age of 40, can afford $3 cupcakes, Circles or Rick Orr (again, in the amount of repeat business to keep them afloat)? No, downtown isn't skewing to young people. It's skewing to people between the ages of college and death, who don't want to hang out on campus or at big box stores along North Prospect, who would like to leave their houses every once in awhile, and who aren't ready for a nursing home. By the way - aren't you the same Pattsi Petrie who brought Richard Florida here several years ago? Isn't downtown part of what he/you were arguing for?
I agree with Champaign Dweller that we haven't seen the top of gas prices yet. That makes what is happening downtown in terms of housing and jobs, and in the corridor between campus and downtown, all that much more important. I would like to see more companies locate along that corridor, in fact, and not so much in a research park. Both of ours are far away from everything.
On June 27th, 2008 at 03:42 PM, Politicalchemy said:
"What interests me about the development in downtown Champaign is how skewed it is as to the targeted population. It is as if people over 40 years old have no money to spend in downtown. The development is so far from balanced and serving the whole community, yet the whole community is paying for it."
As someone over forty who gladly spends money downtown on a weekly basis for food, drinks, coffee, entertainment, art, clothes, movies, music, musical gear, jewelry, gifts, outdoor gear -- and who notices a conspicuous number of folks who share my demographics -- I think you're off-base on this one.
On June 27th, 2008 at 04:15 PM, D. Boon said:
It's skewing to people between the ages of college and death, who don't want to hang out on campus or at big box stores along North Prospect, who would like to leave their houses every once in awhile, and who aren't ready for a nursing home.
Actually, it is skewing to upper-middle-class "creatives" without children. It doesn't matter whether you are 21 or 61, it takes a lot of cash to play in dowtown Champaign these days. Like it or not, that makes it a playground for the well-to-do, childless set, which will naturally exclude the vast majority of residents who don't see the logic in paying $50 for a plate of pasta and a glass of wine on Friday night, and for whom the word tapas brings up visions of the waitresses at the Silver Bullet.
I don't really have a problem with that except for the fact that I have a family and downtown is not a place for people with families. At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles. At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons, but also the staff.
So no, we don't choose downtown Champaign much anymore. There is nothing there for middle class families. It is all about upper class childless couples - the "creative class". Kids, apparently, are not very creative.
Which is all fine. But let's not pretend the development is really in the best interest of the majority of our residents, whose tax dollars are funding large swaths of said development. No, this is development designed to make a select group of residents comfortable in their pseudo-hip-faux-urban lifestyle and to make an even more select group extremely wealthy. That is the beginning and the end of the story. Hopefully someday the bubble will burst and Village Green records will make a re-appearance. In the meantime, how 'bout those $8.00 martinis?
On June 27th, 2008 at 04:22 PM, redstatewannabe said:
No, this is development designed to make a select group of residents comfortable in their pseudo-hip-faux-urban lifestyle
we aren't too hip/urban/cosmopolitan yet, or there would have been a crowd of people watching the Euro soccer games this week somewhere - and buying hip $6 imported beers :-)
On June 27th, 2008 at 05:03 PM, pattsi said:
Anonymous--indeed, I did bring Richard Florida to the community as part of the annual Planning Institute. What is happening downtown is not the creative class. Those who have responded to my comment about the targeted population have done a better job of describing who can afford to be downtown and who is tolerated. Though I do see a lot of the college crowd on certain nights. Florida argues for the 3 T's--talent, technology, and tolerance. The community has 2 of the 3 and this is not changing. One of the posters mentioned that there is little tolerance for children at the downtown venues. When I moved here in 1971, there were 5 department stores, 5 theaters (yes, one was a skin flick), hotel, elementary schools, dime stores, drug store, no grocery store (there were two south on Neil), ice cream shop, active train station, bus station, restaurants (not as elegant as now), several jewelry stores, Christie Clinic, News-Gazette office, etc.--all downtown. In other words, there was a true mix of uses. Many reasons for wanting to go downtown for all of the residents. Today this is not the case as a result of a previous city council decision to redevelop downtown and pass an ordinance to do so that resulted in the proliferation of bars and restaurants. This is not creative class nor an emulation of the communitys that Florida tends to use as examples, Portland, Seattle, Denver. An environment for interactions of community residents of all ages and all levels of income has not been designed.
Just the other day, I had a conversation with one of my children's friends, now a local business man, about the incredible changes in the community. In particular, we talked about how my son and all the friends rode their bikes around the community to the movies, stores, ice cream, hung out at the parks, spent most of the day in the lake, even department stores, went to the Union to bowl. The commuity as presently designed does not encourage this sense of freedom for the younger generation. Summer evenings were filled with kids all over town riding their bikes to play baseball games because the fields were near by not out in East Urbana and SW Champaign. There is virtually no connectivity designed to facilitate travel by bicycle. Yes, I know that work is being done on bicycle pathways. This is important, but so is the development of trails to connect the perimeters of the sprawl.
Fold all of this into the rising gas prices, as mentioned by another poster, then residents ought to be at the city council meetings pounding the table demanding infill and no more sprawl. This will be hard to combat with the development north of I-74, the new interchange, playing fields in SW Champaign, and the new elementary school in that area.
Back to the Planning Institutes--the main criteria for choosing the presenters was what can they teach about community planning based on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Locally, I have had little success. :-) Best I did along with 4 others is establish PACA.
What would you like to see happening in the community, not just downtown?
Pattsi Petrie
On June 27th, 2008 at 05:39 PM, D-Man said:
At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons...
That was probably me. Seriously, though, it's no more appropriate to take children to Radio Maria than it is for me to take my wife to Chuck E. Cheese. Actually, it's even more inappropriate, because there's not much chance that kids to go Chuck E. Cheese to celebrate their anniversaries, and if they did, I still cry a lot less than they do.
No, this is development designed to make a select group of residents comfortable in their pseudo-hip-faux-urban lifestyle...
No, Champaign is not even pseudo-hip, nor is it even faux-urban. It's not a bad place to live, but let's face it, it's a very poor second to Indianapolis, and that's not saying much, so let's not get carried away in describing how unbearably hip a mere four blocks of Champaign is. The problem is trying to keep younger UIUC faculty from going somewhere else (among others). Many of them are from more interesting places than this, and unless they have kids - and this is a good place to raise kids - they are probably looking for the exits. You can deride them as "creatives" all you want, but they are the reason why CU is bigger than, say, Paxton.
I understand that your beef is not that there are upscale places in downtown (or I think so), but that they are getting a special break. I would far prefer that there be a generalized lower tax rate across the board, so that everyone gets some of the same benefits, although I think that we need to realize that TIFs are good development tools to revitalize specific areas.
Anyway, the goodies were never spread evenly. Many daycare facilities are run as nonprofits, as are private schools, and public schools not only pay no taxes but absorb them. My tax dollars go for playground equipment for other peoples' children, and for park district programs for the kiddies. In fact, from my perspective, it looks like people with kids are hogging all of the benefits and services. Still, I'm ok with paying for your childrens' education, just as long as I can get a good martini every once in a while.
On June 27th, 2008 at 05:57 PM, wayward said:
I don't really have a problem with that except for the fact that I have a family and downtown is not a place for people with families. At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles. At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons, but also the staff.
Are the other patrons annoyed just because the children are there, or were they acting up? Letting children run up and down the aisles of a restaurant doesn't sound like the safest idea, given that servers are sometimes carrying trays of food. Sure, it's not unusual for children to cry, but I think it's considered polite to take them outside if you can't readily calm them down.
On June 27th, 2008 at 07:02 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Twelve years ago the downtown of Champaign was a dead as a doornail. Now that things are going well and property values are increasing everyone is a critic. We have taken kids to eat in downtown Champaign lots of times. We never got dirty looks, but they were not misbehaving and they are over the age of 2. During a recent visit from a family member from out of town the entire family went to see a movie at the Virginia and then we walked over to the cupcake bar. The out-of -towner was blown away by all the people outside eating, drinking, talking, having a good time and all the different places we could go. They were very impressed and loved it.
Dozens of times we have taken the kids to the Virginia and then had a bite to eat. Now that my kids are old enough to get around on their own they go eat at Mary Ann's Diner. I do not think one needs to be concerned about price or snobbishness there. Anyway, the one thing we do lack in this community is high end condo options for folks who do not want to live in the land of sprawl. I have no idea why some people continue to believe that 1-Main is vacant. It has been a big success or they would not be able to finance M-2. And speaking of tolerance, why are some of you intolerant when it comes to older wealthy people? I want them to come and spend as much money as possible. We get sales tax revenue from them and it helps pay for improvements to our city.
On June 27th, 2008 at 10:12 PM, akibare said:
I spend plenty of time at Cafe Kopi, and there are always kids in there. No one much minds unless they start screaming AND won't respond to other patrons telling them to keep it down, and that's pretty rare.
Going to the bars, a bottle of microbrew beer is around $3.50, not too horridly expensive (and at any rate, it's the same price in Urbana or Campustown).
I haven't had the cupcakes yet but this thread makes me think maybe tomorrow I should get one.
On June 28th, 2008 at 03:50 AM, Dan Fielding said:
"In the meantime, how 'bout those $8.00 martinis?"
Are they on sale this week, or is that the base price before all the fruit-flavored syrups?
On June 28th, 2008 at 04:26 AM, Glock21 said:
"At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles. At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons, but also the staff."
During the whole smoking ban debate I was really hoping my compromise would go through. I don't really mind not smoking while I'm at a sit-down restaurant... but I sure as hell mind screams, tantrums, and toddler-olympic style nonsense. Long before I ever started smoking, I sat in the smoking section to avoid that crap. I was hoping they'd at least maintain the two section format for babysitting or non-babysitting.
Something about going out for some special occasion along the lines of your "paying $50 for a plate" example...only to get seated next to Damian or his daycare pals, GAH! It's probably even more annoying for the people who aren't childless... since they're probably having a night without the kids, and trying to take a nice relaxing break from all that until Wally the Wailer gets seated at the next table.
Dirty looks seem well deserved in that situation. I prefer the less confrontational approach though, as I'll just ask to be seated at another table as far away as possible from shrieks, squeels, smells like it needs a change, food-flinging, hiding-n-seeking sprinters, and table-side miniture interputers. If you can afford the nice place... throw a little extra down for a babysitter. If that'll break the bank... you can't afford the nice place. Save up for next month.
Oh, my child is really quite charming and rarely throws a tantrum (seriously). It is the entire presence of a child that seems to be objected to in downtown Champaign. I mean, come on - name a business down there that is actually geared toward families. Uh ... right - there are none.
It is a place for cool people to feel cool. And kids/families are not cool. Which is fine. But those are my tax dollars at work too, you know. Why are we in the business of creating entire districts that are family unfriendly when, last time I counted, the vast majority of people in this community live in family units? Why has so much money and effort being put into keeping the fickle graduate student demographic in town?
Last thing - no amount of tapas or imported beer is going to keep the "creatives" in this town. What is needed is not nice hotels and condos, it is cutting edge business development. People don't really care if they work in a business park when they are working on amazing technologies and being paid lots of money. Take a look at the I-88 corridor outside of Chicago. Not exactly a hipster paradise, but doing quite nicely.
So cut some more tax breaks for the wealthy developers and keep you fingers crossed that Tad the software developer will hang around for a few years. As far as city planning goes, that idea falls under Chapter 10: Desperate and Pathetic.
On June 28th, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
It's funny to listen to all the childless folks bitch and whine about children.
On June 28th, 2008 at 12:46 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
D. Boon wrote: It is a place for cool people to feel cool. And kids/families are not cool.
I disagree. Kids have nothing to do with cool. There are a LOT of interesting, artistic, fun people in town, all with kids. There are also a lot of boring people with kids. And I've seen both downtown. There are lots of family-friendly places that use tax dollars (Sholem Aquatic Center or the library anyone?); just because you don't feel comfortable in some PRIVATE businesses - last time I checked, the super-hip Art Theatre, Radio Maria, and KoFusion were every bit as private as the super unhip El Toro - doesn't mean the City has failed with your tax dollars. There are lots of un-family friendly places in town, too - the new research park and Clearview spring to mind - that are supported with tax dollars. Why are those OK, but downtown isn't?
Cutting edge businesses won't come to town if the work force can't support them. And the work force won't come to town if there's nothing fun to do. Champaign has a big university that needs to stay world class. That means it needs to attract the best and the brightest, and then keep them here. Right now, even with the four blocks of downtown, the people who create things at this University LEAVE. That's ridiculous. The University can't do it alone, and Champaign has to step up. Mostly, it needs to stop acting like it's all that and has always been all that because it has a couple nice parks and is "family-friendly." Big deal. So is West Lafayette - but Columbus and Ann Arbor have a whole lot more. Their Universities have a whole lot more than Purdue, too. So do their economies.
Hotels and condos are needed. So are good schools. The two go together because that's what attracts all different types of people and allows a City to have a diverse economy. No community has ever survived being ONLY family-oriented - at least, not without cheating and locating right next to a bigger, more diverse City (ie: Savoy, St. Jo.)
On June 28th, 2008 at 01:33 PM, Glock21 said:
"It's funny to listen to all the childless folks bitch and whine about children."
Not sure if that was directed towards me, but please note that I'm not complaining about children in general, but parents who take their children to places where children shouldn't be. If someone regularly brought a howling dog into a fancy restaurant and I complain about it, it doesn't mean I hate dogs... I'm a big fan of dogs. The complaint is about manners and being respectful of others.
As far as kids go, I'm not interested in having any, but I'm all for everyone else having them. I'll need cheap labor at my oppressive factories someday, and of course I'll need to tax them to death so I won't have to waste my own retirement savings for retirement. ;-)
I'd argue that it's the unwillingness to bring children to place that makes them incapable of conducting themselves in the rare case where they are taken out.
When I was a kid (2 and up), my folks took me EVERYWHERE--to class, to their friends' wild parties, to work, etc. I'd usually just find someone to talk to or a book to read.
On June 28th, 2008 at 06:11 PM, Run4cvrlib said:
I think the children issue depends on how well behaved the child is. There are plenty of places to go downtown at all kinds of different prices and foods.
Yes I have gone to have Cupcakes and it is rather a nice place not only because the cupcakes are good but the place is nice and is fun to go into.
On June 29th, 2008 at 04:46 PM, one who hopes t... said:
Anon 7:02: No one is saying 1 Main is vacant. No one here will argue that Cody didn't do well on it; what we're talking about are the complaints regarding the quality of the construction and the fact that no one seems to be able to resell their unit in that building. Aren't ease of resale and resale value important indicators of the health of a neighborhood?
anon 12:46: check out the Sat. Wall St. Journal. There is an article in there complaining about the decline of Ohio, and it doesn't have much good to say about Columbus being exciting or growing...
Showing my age here, but downtown started coming back 17 years ago (!!) when the original Blind Pig opened (now Cowboy Monkey). One can argue about the pace of redevelopment or how "exciting" (a subjective comparision, based on whether you're contrasting to Chicago or Charleston or Cairo) it's been over those year, but it has been happening...
On June 30th, 2008 at 06:43 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
I guess D. Boon has never taken kids to the Orpheum Children's Museum that is a real gem in our community. My kids loved it when they were younger and now they volunteer there off and on. My kids also have taken classes at the Champaign Park District, right in downtown Champaign. My kids love shopping at the used clothing and bookstores stores in downtown Champaign and my daughter loves 10,000 Villages because their prices are so good and they have great kid stuff. Pekara Bakery has wonderful goodies that are inexpensive and a great menu that is very affordable. There is Cafe Kopi, the Thai place, Chinese, etc. that are all affordable and family friendly. The least expensive popcorn and snacks are at the Virginia Theater that shows great family movies.
Honestly, the folks complaining about downtown Champaign strike me as folks who have not really even walked around downtown Champaign. There are lots of inexpensive family friendly places to go. I never have trouble finding parking and walking around is a lot more fun than walking through the parking lot at the mall or even the mall itself. The landscaping and people really make it a fun place to walk. There are lots of benches and places to people watch. If the kids need a place to blow off some steam West Side Park has a wonderful playground and a beautiful fountain.
On July 4th, 2008 at 03:15 PM, D. Boon said:
So ... the good things for young kids in downtown Champaign include West Side Park, which I believe was developed sometime in the late 19th century (wouldn't the developers love to get their hands on that prime piece of real estate! - can anyone say "deluxe condos"?), the Orpheum Children's Museum, which was developed in the mid-90s and is open for about three hours every week, the Champaign Park District which has been in the same location for 20 odd years now, the Virginia which was built 75 years ago, a bakery (???), a thai restaurant (???), a coffee shop, and an imported goods store?
What I hear you saying is that any of the remnants from the by-gone days are still good for the kids, and if you want to see how well the City of Champaign is catering to families with recent development then you should be happy to take the two-year-old to a coffee shop (mocha latte, perhaps?) a bite of pad thai, and then shopping for an imported rug. Fun!
Sure, the old stuff is still family friendly. But let's not pretend that the Council has any interest in creating a downtown that is useful for much besides getting drunk, eating overpriced meals, and hooking up. After all, there are 20 or 30 graduate students who may consider staying here if we creating a 25-year-old hipster playground. Obviously they are more important than the 100,000 people who are a part of a family and now avoid downtown Champaign like the plague.
Cheers!
On July 5th, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Arvid said:
Obviously they are more important than the 100,000 people who are a part of a family and now avoid downtown Champaign like the plague.
Help me out here, Boon...are you wanting them to open a Chuck E. Cheese in M2 or something? It's more than a bit of a misnomer to say that 100,000 people who are part of a family now avoid downtown like the plague. I don't know how long you've lived around here, but you clearly don't remember what downtown used to be like about 12 years ago when it was more than people with families avoiding downtown like the plague. You obviously spend little to no time downtown, and seem to have zero understanding of what actually takes place. I seem to remember seeing plenty of kids at the Festival of the Arts during the day last August, and all kinds of rugrats running around the Taste of C-U.
I suppose you also are demanding that the campus area provide you with adequate entertainment for your child? Also, how is the research park family-friendly? Why aren't you arguing for your kids to be able to run up and down the aisles between the cubicles or that you get good service at Kam's for your daughter (who, being 2, might already be too old for the establishment anyway) You completely glossed over all of this. Not every place must accomodate your toddler or your bad parenting by letting them run around the place. And isn't Radio Maria a bit of a waste on a child anyway? Would you take a two-year old to Kennedy's at Stone Creek and expect the staff there to be ok with them running up and down the aisles?
I usually agree with you on a lot of what you have to say, but you're just way way off on this one. So far, all you've done is bitch about people at night who are getting drunk, eating overpriced meals, and hooking up because you can't bring your child there at any hour of the night. I ask you, what would make downtown, a place that 10 years ago NOBODY wanted to go to, more attractive to families? Before you answer, here are a few corrections to your horribly informed rant:
The Orpheum is open 38 hours every week (M-F 10am - 4pm, Sa & Su 1-5)
While the Virginia Theater has been around for 75 years, it was mostly underutilized ever since GKC stopped showing movies in the 90's in favor of the more "family friendly" multiplexes. It has only really come back to life in the past 10 years, and gotten a lot of attention with the Roger Ebert film festival.
As for West Side Park, you didn't bring your kids there 12 years ago, it just wasn't safe.
Edit: fixing a glaring typo
----- At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
On July 5th, 2008 at 03:52 AM, Glock21 said:
I don't usually think of downtowns as being kid-oriented places generally except in perhaps some larger cities with lots of big museums, aquariums, etc. For a town our size it seems pretty reasonable to have the children's museum, the pretty reasonably sized park with fairly regular kids events, an even bigger/better library a short drive or walk south from there... and probably most importantly for a kid... a diner right in downtown that serves milkshakes. There are more kid friendly establishments, and of course tons of parks outside of downtown... since we're more of an automobile friendly town that generally seems to work. Downtown has kid friendly spots too, but there's obviously going to be a lot more for grown-ups, which to me makes sense, but others may certainly disagree.
Help me out here, Boon...are you wanting them to open a Chuck E. Cheese in M2 or something?
Ok, that would be a start.
You obviously spend little to no time downtown, and seem to have zero understanding of what actually takes place.
I used to spend a lot of time downtown. But that was a long time ago. Once the restaurants became more interested in attracting golfer money and less interested in supporting community I went elsewhere. But I do have a pretty good understanding of what usually takes place.
I suppose you also are demanding that the campus area provide you with adequate entertainment for your child?
Campustown has it's own set of problems, but you are right that I wouldn't take my child down there at certain times of day. Is that supposed to be ok?
Not every place must accomodate your toddler or your bad parenting by letting them run around the place.
Well, I don't think I am a bad parent, and I don't expect "every place" to be accomodating to my children. But let's be realistic. Downtown is not family-friendly. That is a decision that was made, apparently in the desperate hope that 20 or 30 graduate students might be more inclined to stay in central Illinois if they have a nice place to sip martinis on the weekend. As I have said, that is fine. But let's be straight about it: this is not a downtown developed for the enjoyment of the vast majority of our community. It is a downtown developed for the enjoyment of a select, privileged few.
I ask you, what would make downtown, a place that 10 years ago NOBODY wanted to go to, more attractive to families?
Well, let's start with that Chuck E. Cheese. This isn't a question of picking two new storefronts that are attractive to families. It is a question of purpose. The purpose of downtown is to provide a small, select group of people a grown-up playland. It is not designed to attract or accomodate families. And yes, I question that purpose.
Moreover, have you noticed that there were very few good indie rock shows in downtown these days? Why is that? Because it is not even a playland for the faux-hipsters anymore. It has been turned over and is being turned over to the wealthy middle class white golfer set. In other words, it is so about the dollars at this point that even the grad students with the good "techie" ideas are going to find it lacking.
It is all a game designed to line the pockets of a select few developers who will make their mints while the going is good. The fact that all of us contribute to their success through our tax dollars is an irony that seems to escape so many of us. Why is that?
On July 5th, 2008 at 05:26 PM, Glock21 said:
"It is a downtown developed for the enjoyment of a select, privileged few."
While there are certainly some spots that are, or at least try to be posh, that attract those who are 'privileged' or at least pretend to be for a night, I've found that downtown appeals to a much larger swath of those who live paycheck to paycheck. Everyone from blue collar folks wanting to catch a beer and a game with friends, to young neo-hippy types picking up some retro clothes or furniture and some good java to yack about the military industrial complex with their comrades ;-), and all sorts in between who enjoy shopping for nicknacks from music (lots of music shops for the 'privileged' local bands) and of course the frequent passing traveler waiting for his bus/train stopping in to tell their story over a quick brew (sometimes with all their wordly possessions on their back).
Probably more ironic about this statement is that many of the folks I've met who work at the relative 'posh' establishments, will come into the establishment of ill repute afterwork to relax with the rest of us and tell their tales of the 'priveleged' yahoos that did something obnoxious or downright idiotic. But there is a recognition that helping them feel like royalty or rockstars for a day at the fancy restaurant or club is what helps bring in more money for their non-privileged lifestyles.
I think the impression you got of downtown may be skewed by the political issues of new developments and possibly of limited time spent out there since it is mainly geared towards grownups, and with a kid in tow, which means a day in downtown probably won't include grabbing some greasy goods from Sam's before hitting up Abbots for a new book and sitting around reading out in one of the shady 'beer gardens' of a coffee shop while checking it out over some coffee or wine... going for a walk through the park to reflect on it, and then heading down to one of the more down to earth social pubs to talk about it with regular joes from all walks of life before you catch the movie or show at the art theater, hit up Merry Ann's for some grub before catching a blues show or just hang out with a group of friends at one of the establishments of ill repute who are finally off work from the posh spots. Hardly a priviledged way to spend a day off, but quite enjoyable... though the book on Turkey's political upheavals with its unique system of Kemalism was a bit too disjointed for my tastes. It was still worth the used price.
I've found that downtown appeals to a much larger swath of those who live paycheck to paycheck.
Well, it's official. We've officially found someone who knows less about downtown than I do. And I don't even claim to be a scenester!
Probably more ironic about this statement is that many of the folks I've met who work at the relative 'posh' establishments, will come into the establishment of ill repute afterwork to
Sorry, there are no more establishments of ill repute. Believe me, I spent many a night in downtown Champaign over the last 15 years and all the good bars are long gone. But I suppose feeling that the place you are buying your PBR is a place of ill repute is a pretty good sales pitch.
lots of music shops for the 'privileged' local bands
Really? I only count one (Exile on Main Street?), unless you are wrapping Record Swap into the mix. Record Swap is a gem of a store, to be sure, but it is a long way from downtown.
I think the impression you got of downtown may be skewed by the political issues of new developments and possibly of limited time spent out there since it is mainly geared towards grownups, and with a kid in tow ...
This is my entire point. It is geared toward single grownups without kids. Most of this community (believe it or not!) is grownups with kids. What point are you trying to make?
grabbing some greasy goods from Sam's = $7.00
hitting up Abbots for a new book = $5 to $10
checking it out over some coffee or wine = $3.50
going for a walk through the park to reflect on it = dorks are priceless
catch the movie or show at the art theater = $7.00
Merry Ann's for some grub = $10.00
catching a blues show = $20.00 w/beers
TOTAL FOR DAY = $40-$50 (at least)
Hardly a priviledged way to spend a day off.
If you say so.
On July 6th, 2008 at 11:41 AM, ThoughtPolice said:
This is my entire point. It is geared toward single grownups without kids. Most of this community (believe it or not!) is grownups with kids. What point are you trying to make?
Or it gives grownups with kids a grownup place to escape to for that once-a-week/month/season night out.
Sorry, there are no more establishments of ill repute
And you're complaining that the current downtown is LESS family-friendly that before?
On July 6th, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Laura Sandefur said:
Gosh, it wasn't too long ago that downtown was where you went to find the "working girls" and the benches all had arm rests so the homeless guys couldn't sleep on them. Used to be that downtown was NO place to go after dark and functional businesses like the Esquire were a minority.
Just peeves me to no end to see anyone out in downtown after dark spending money. This development stuff is for the birds!
OK--you busted me--I AM being really sarcastic here. I honestly do not understand why everybody is so quick to criticize the guys who do choose to try and improve our communities. I have met these guys at one time or another and I will personally vouch for the fact that not a one of them has horns or a forked tail that I could spot.
Maybe you personally have no interest in a trip to one of the new clubs or restaurants, and maybe your family has zero plans to use any of these new buildings. But isn't this development a LOT better than having a downtown that is nothing more than a haven for the criminals, the hookers and the street people?
Laura
On July 6th, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Glock21 said:
Snarkiness aside, I think the difference in perspective is based less on people not knowing what they're talking about as opposed to having different experiences... which is certainly possible even in our small downtown. I can't really comment if downtown was more fun back in your hayday than it is today in mine though. Your nostalga for the 'good ol' days' is all your own. As far as music shops there's several, but to play music, not just listen. I suppose Exile would still work for local DJs... but that's not really what I meant by local bands.
We all heard your point, which was exaggerated. That there is nothing for kids ("there is none"), even though you've since conceded that there is some. And that downtown is generally for the wealthy types, even though (although you dispute this) most of the people I run into in downtown are anything but (myself included).
As far as your breakdown of the days costs, you'll note that this was the same amount total that you were complaining about the privileged spots for a single plate of pasta and glass of wine. While it may have been a dorky day, it was just a personal example of an admittedly unhip yahoo. Normally an outing to downtown would entail doing a few things as opposed to making a day of it though. Sometimes it's just nice to grab an early breakfast at Sam's. Or grab some diner food and a milkshake at Merry Ann's... or just go out to catch a show (music/movie/other)... or just stop in at your favorite watering hole to watch your favorite team. Stuff like that. Not the kind of stuff a wealthy or privileged person would necessarily do, unless they wanted to hang with the unwashed masses.
An afternoon at Chuck E Cheese might cost you far more than any of that. Us poor kids had to go to Showbiz Pizza... and that was a special outing for a birthday or something. Not a regular event. Downtown may not be kid friendly enough for you, but there is some family stuff to do, as noted above and there is more, though less notable... but there are tons of parks here in town and fun places all around town. It helps to have a car though since we're a typical midwest big-town/small-city geared towards the automobile dependent. In that sense it's certainly not a poor-with-kids friendly town. But being a poor kid sucks no matter where you are... even Peoria, where I grew up.
On July 6th, 2008 at 12:40 PM, ThoughtPolice said:
Most of this community (believe it or not!) is grownups with kids.
I don't believe it. Neither does the U.S. Census Bureau. Of 28,110 households, only 6,887 have children under 18.
And while we're at it, singles and couples without children already pay for plenty of services used exclusively or predominately by families with children (schools, park district, WIC, etc.). Is it really so bad to provide them something?
Don't forget that Chuck E. Cheese already was in Champaign - it closed because of slow business. Ants in Their Pants had to add additional services (their gym, gymnastics, and martial arts) to stay in business.
On July 6th, 2008 at 12:52 PM, D. Boon said:
All of these posts bring up good points, and I am sure there are good times left to be had in downtown Champaign. Personally, I don't feel particularly welcome down there any more. It is kind of like your old friend who you knew in the college days when he drank a bit too much, had the TV on crates and a beat up old couch on the front porch. Good times. Then you run into him ten years later driving a Lexus and talking about stock prices. Just not the same experience. Not the same guy, I guess.
I have tried to look under the hood in downtown Champaign and I have not found my old friend. Swept aside are the late nights when a community of musicians and fans would belt out tunes at the Blind Pig, only to stumble back to campustown high on music bliss. Gone are the days when a youngster could spend an afternoon sifting through the vinyl at Village Green Records. The days of $10 martinis and the beautiful people are upon downtown Champaign, and apparently everyone likes it just fine, thank you very much.
Fair enough! I am sentimental for a time long past. Bring on the tapas! Bring on the Belgian brews! Bring on the cover bands! As long as we don't have to step over the homeless (where did they go, anyway?) or deal with those kinds of people all is well and right with the world.
Cheers!
On July 6th, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Arvid said:
That Census Bureau report above provides other interesting numbers, too. Of the 37,026 people in the City of Champaign alone who are 25 and older, 8,563 "only have" a bachelor's degree and an additonal 9,012 have some kind of graduate degree (masters, doctorate). That seems to be a lot more than the 20-30 grad students who would come and stay here as Boon alluded to. Again, usually I agree with you, but you're just completely and utterly WRONG on your assessment of downtown.
Also, you haven't explained how this is worse than downtown was when you were frequenting it 15 years ago.
----- At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
On July 6th, 2008 at 07:12 PM, PropertyRights said:
D.Boon
What bars have disappeared in the last 15 years from downtown? Can't find a good local band? What the hell are you talking about.. Have you missed Mike N Molly's, Coyboy Monkey, and even the Brass Rail on occasion.. All have excellent local bands and frequently low cost beers.. All of which one can frequently see a band or three and catch a decent buzz for under $20....
Belgian beers are awful expensive... SO DON'T BUY THEM!!!
And I agree with others on this thread who say that they frequently see those who live from paycheck to paycheck out at night.. They follow the specials... it's not hard... and they're not all out every night.
Your old buddy has been replaced by a younger generation... but they are there..
Sounds to me like your old buddy got off his ass, gave away his bong, and decided that wasn't the way he wanted to live his whole life.. btw yes I know you were being figurative.. so am I.
And as long as I am at it will point out that NONE of the businesses in downtown were "planned" by the city.. The City had NO say in what they sold nor set their prices.. That was done at the RISK of PRIVATE individuals... and so please don't talk about it as if the Voters had any say nor any Right to say what businesses are downtown..
That being said, I will concede the idea that the city should stop giving coporate welfare to businesses that can well afford their own risk of expansion, or risk waiting for competitors to arrive..
On July 6th, 2008 at 07:32 PM, D. Boon said:
What I find so interesting about this discussion is how animated and upset I seem to have made so many people. I wonder why (honestly). If I am such an idiot who can't see the green pastures of plenty in front of his own face, then why even bother to point out my idiocy? Why not just dismiss me out of hand and move on to the next thread?
Do yourself a favor - go and enjoy downtown Champaign. Have a drink on me (figuratively, of course)! Enjoy the lovely breeze blowing along the alleyway in front of Cowboy Monkey, or stroll over to Jim Gould's on Sunday morning for the buffett. Don't worry about it. This is an amusement park created for your pleasure, nothing is amiss. Just accept what is happening and don't think twice about it.
Now you won't see me 'round there, but that is no matter. If I were there I would offer a hearty, "Cheers!"
Cheers!
On July 7th, 2008 at 04:16 AM, PropertyRights said:
I'm not mad, but you can't seem to see the forrest for the trees.
When I turned 21, almost 20 years ago, minimum wage was something like $4.25 an hour.. A pint of "cheap beer" (not on special) was $1.50 and a pint of Guinness (cuz that was the closest thing on campus to an "expensive beer") was $3.00. I have no idea what a martini cost then, If memory serves... maybe $4 ( for "good stuff" $2.75 for rail) on campus ( cuz that's where I was drinking then).. but the Illinois Happy Hour Law was a year or two old.. My point there is that it was still rather ill-defined.. Often times a medium grade shot was let's say $2.50 but a double was $0.50 more.
Now the Happy Hour Law (as the state, and city would like it interpreted, not to say that it is in practice, or that they have a lot of legal ground to make it that way) would have bars charge "double for double"... so if a bar does that, they're doing as the gov't would have them do.. to combat "Binge Drinking". And as a "martini" generally is a double shot, don't be so surprised that it costs so much.
BUT, a pint of "cheap beer" now is $1.75-2.00 and a pint (16oz) of Guinness is $3.75 and minimum wage is $7.75. (OK server pay is less than that... but it was $2.50 and now $6.20).
When I go to Podunk Wisconsin, a pint of "cheap beer" is $2.50, Guinness is $5-$7.... The competition downtown has kept the beer prices "pretty freaking reasonable" compared to the increases in Min.Wage, raises in the cost of product, and increases in taxes.
So forgive me for sounding upset, I am not... I just think you're getting caught up in the "old man" syndrome of wondering why everything costs so much more than it did 20 years ago, when, in fact, the cost of drinking in a bar has gone down in comparison to raises in the minimum wage and other cost increases (product, rent/mortgage, insurance, power, cable TV, music licensing, maintenance) of which bars have to absorb more and more.
Personally, I don't care where you go, or if you go anwhere... I just think your cost analysis is off. I went to IGA last week and 1 red bell pepper was $3... 1.5x the cost of a beer in bar... that seems a little "off" to me. Heck, I was told by a bar owner last year... "if you want to get some free beers... bring in your home grown tomatoes for trade... those things are WAY expensive, and what you're growing (I grow organically) are better than what I get from my suppliers."
I guess I am saying, if you wanna bitch about the price of something, there are better battlegrounds than the price of beer in a bar.
And BTW, don't be so surprised at the response to your muckraking... that's just being passive aggressive.. You lit that fire and stoked it... which in itself isn't a "problem" just uh... what'd you expect?
On July 7th, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Glock21 said:
Boon... Nobody who has responded to your various downtown comments seems all that upset as much as disagreeing with your impression, which by your own admission is based on limited experience with the place in recent years (not very solid ground to tell other people they don't know what they're talking about). You wonder why we don't just ignore you in the same breath you bait people with a comment that amounts to telling people, 'enjoy being oblivious.'
Your comments have been both contradictory (none vs some kids stuff, downtown was both better and worse before, complaints of fancier restaurants while ignoring the diner fare, etc), inaccurate (the numbers of and types of folks who patronize downtown and why), and antagnoistic (implying others who disagree are part of some elite that actively resents others and/or are just oblivious). I could see such things being ignored sitting at the coffee counter, but when posted on a forum such as this, it seems a bit silly to expect people to let it go unchecked. Not to mention you started off with a pretty common pet peeve of what you described as crying children running up and down aisles in a nice restaurant... a pet peeve common everywhere, not just in our little downtown. Not sure why you'd expect either agreement or silence in response to all of that.
There's plenty of room for improvement here, but your complaints are so exaggerated that even people (like me) who'd love to see some cool new stuff for kids in town, and who (like me) are generally put off by some of the snobby types in downtown who are attracted to the fancier fare, are likely to disagree with the exaggeration and likely to get defensive for the way you try to put people who disagree with you under the same label as those you disparage.
Not to mention you started off with a pretty common pet peeve of what you described as crying children running up and down aisles in a nice restaurant... a pet peeve common everywhere, not just in our little downtown.
I didn't say crying children. I said:
At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles. At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons, but also the staff.
So no, we don't choose downtown Champaign much anymore. There is nothing there for middle class families. It is all about upper class childless couples - the "creative class". Kids, apparently, are not very creative.
And I stand by these statements. Restaurants are either family friendly or they aren't. There are not a lot of family friendly restaurants in downtown Champaign, and that is by design. I find that a little disturbing, but I seem to be alone in that sentiment. So be it. It aint the first time and I doubt it will be the last.
On July 7th, 2008 at 03:16 PM, Glock21 said:
Sorry. Crying child. Not crying children. My mistake.
On July 7th, 2008 at 03:44 PM, Pops (not verified) said:
Personally, I don't give a flying damn about what you think about my children. If I want to eat at a nice place with the family, I take the kids. If I want to eat a lesser place with the family, I take the kids.
If you don't like being in a nice place with kids there, it's your problem, not mine. Because this is America, my kids are welcome where I am welcome, which is everywhere that is open to the public.
If you don't like kids around you, don't come around where kids are.
What's up next, libraries? Keep the loud little children out sometimes, lets have "adults only" hours, quiet time for the intolerant, vote yes or no.
Sheesh. Champaign must have become part of the Middle East over the July 4th weekend.
On July 7th, 2008 at 03:59 PM, Glock21 said:
Plenty of rude behavior is legal. Doesn't make it any less rude. You're free to be rude as much as I'm free to be rude. And we're both free to argue that it is or isn't rude. But the legality of it and your right to do so isn't what is being argued. You could also walk by my table and fart. But I won't be happy about it, nor would I expect any reasonable person to be happy about it... even if you are free to do so.
I agree with the last poster, but on the flipside, I cannot fathom living in such a way that I am bothered by dirty looks from strangers. Are you secure with the decisions you are making? Then who cares? They could be giving you dirty looks because your kids are too smart or too the wrong color or not wearing the kind of jeans or because they just don't think kids should be out in public. Hell, maybe their spouse just farted and they don't like the smell.
Why does it matter?
On July 7th, 2008 at 04:04 PM, redstatewannabe said:
If you don't like being in a nice place with kids there, it's your problem, not mine. Because this is America, my kids are welcome where I am welcome, which is everywhere that is open to the public.
I find this lack of respect for others quite disappointing. If my kids are being disruptive, I am embarrassed, and attempt to rectify the situation. And some places simply aren't appropriate for screaming babies.
The fact that there are not a lot of "family" places downtown doesn't bother me alot, except to the extent that development there is being subsidized. If it all happens/happened naturally, so be it.
On July 7th, 2008 at 04:48 PM, Pops (not verified) said:
"I find this lack of respect for others quite disappointing."
Me, too. Respect my children. They are children, after all, not adults. Adults who act like children, farting by my table, as you say, are rude and boorish, but surprisingly, they have a right to be in nice places too.
Maybe you think children are little butterflies emerging from cocoons, and do not need the training and experience life on the outside might give them. The children are acceptable anywhere, anytime.
After you kick out the rude children, kick out the ugly ones. I don't want to have to look at ugly children and their parents should know better than bring them to a fine dining establishment. Take 'em to Chucky Cheese where the ugly lower class kids go. Then kick out the foreign lookin' ones. And their parents. And people who aren't in my political party. Or church. Or school, or neighborhood.... Or race.
Yeah, the lack of respect is amazing.
And BTW, when you find a "fine dining establishment" in Champaign Urbana, let us know. If you think Radio Maria's, or Miko's, or The Great Impasta, is fine dining, you need to get to a big city once in awhile. They are all pretty good places with good food, nice owner's, nice clientele, I'm not dissing them at all, but they are far, far from fine dining.
On July 7th, 2008 at 05:49 PM, redstatewannabe said:
As Glock stated, you have the "right" to do a lot of things that are rude - congratulations.
On July 7th, 2008 at 05:58 PM, D. Boon said:
Sorry. Crying child. Not crying children. My mistake.
Still mistaken. No crying children in the aisle. Children in the aisles. In some places, people like to see children. They might even smile, ask their name, call them cute - that sort of thing. In other places they wonder why this small human is allowed out of the house, or how dare the parents bring a child into this restaurant.
Why does it matter?
It matters because some restaurants welcome families, make it a great experience, and get repeat business. Other places do not make families welcome, and nobody really wants to eat somewhere you don't feel welcome. Families are not really welcome in downtown Champaign. That was the point of this whole argument in the first place. I would mention that no one has really refuted that point. They have just argued that I shouldn't care. After all, there are libraries and parks for families (and everyone else, of course, but I digress), so I should happily sign off on tax breaks for wealthy developers to create a downtown where I don't feel welcome.
Makes sense to me!
On July 7th, 2008 at 06:05 PM, Glock21 said:
An amazing slippery slope there. But utterly irrelevant since nobody is talking about kicking anybody out, just appropriately guaging whether their kids are beyond the running in the aisle and wailing bit before taking them in such an environment. As far as whether such places are 'fine dining' or not, I'll let the experts judge. My 'fine living' days were over before they began. But when I strike it rich and can become a fine dining connoisseur I'll be sure to check them all out.
So do people support the tax money going to developers of the downtown? I think this is a fair question, as it would seem to discourage the free market.
On July 7th, 2008 at 06:12 PM, Glock21 said:
I didn't say crying children. I said:
At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles.
Boon... So who are the staff being understanding of when they cry? You? Not the child? Who is crying? Are they being understanding of crying that isn't happening? Is there any way to take what you said and what you're saying now and make any sense of it without totally stretching the imagination?
Not to mention you started off with a pretty common pet peeve of what you described as crying children running up and down aisles in a nice restaurant... a pet peeve common everywhere, not just in our little downtown.
And here is what I did say:
At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles.
There is probably a psychological condition for people who just assume that children in the aisles will be crying and disrupting everyone's dinner in a negative way. Child-a-phobia, maybe? Either way, don't twist my words to make your point. Obviously parents need to comfort their crying children if that happens in a public place and even take them home if the behavior is out-of-control. That is not what I was talking about, I was talking about normal child-like behavior and restaurants that understand that behavior vs. restaurants that do not want that behavior anywhere near their important customers.
It is really pretty obvious if you read what I wrote instead of projecting what you think I wrote.
On July 8th, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
I just moved to town with my family and a friend told me about this blog as a place to find out what goes on here. We had no idea that kids were not welcome at Radio Maria's restaurant. We have heard good things about it but we won't go there now. My wife doesn't want to go anywhere in the downtown area now with or without our children. We did our research before she took her new job here and thought that Champaign was a family friendly city and a good place to raise children. Now we are not so sure.
Can anyone tell us where there is a a nice place to eat where we can take our usually well mannered 6 year old and 10 year old? We certainly do not want to feel unwelcome, but that is what it sounds like if we go to downtown Champaign to go out to eat.
On July 8th, 2008 at 11:22 AM, IlliniPundit said:
You can go anywhere you want. I've taken our nine-month-old to a number of places downtown, and never felt unwelcome.
And I can't think of anywhere I'd rather raise a family than Champaign.
On July 8th, 2008 at 11:50 AM, xian said:
Just eat downtown. If people give you a hard time, that's their problem. The town was a family friendly town long before it yuppified and if people want share, that's fine, but they shouldn't expect to move families out.
On July 8th, 2008 at 12:10 PM, D. Boon said:
Find a place with other children present and try that restaurant. As someone mentioned earlier, going downtown to eat probably requires a sitter.
But your experience may vary. We like restaurants where the staff seems genuinely happy to see our young person with us. If there are high chairs around the restaurant that is also a good sign. Best of luck and welcome to town. It is a wonderful place to raise children.
On July 8th, 2008 at 01:10 PM, Glock21 said:
"There is probably a psychological condition for people who just assume that children in the aisles will be crying and disrupting everyone's dinner in a negative way."
Boon... Sorry if I'm totally lost by your own description of crying, making messes and running around in the aisles as meaning that they cry, make messes and run around in the aisles. You keep posting the same line about how you appreciate that the staff put up with that and claiming you said nothing of the sort, over and over. You tell me I'm just distorting your words and making something up out of whole cloth and possibly insane to take your description of crying, making messes, and running around in the aisles to mean exactly what you said. As best I can figure it, you are now just arguing you didn't mean any of that at the same time and that my phrasing as such is somehow a gross mentally ill distortion. Would it be accurate to say they cry, make messes, OR run around in the aisles? Or am I not allowed to use your description unless I swear that they do so normally or in an extremely cute kid way?
"Can anyone tell us where there is a a nice place to eat where we can take our usually well mannered 6 year old and 10 year old?"
Anon... anywhere. Sorry if you were under the impression we were talking about anything but toddlers who were described as anything but. Probably got lost in the scroll.
On July 8th, 2008 at 01:33 PM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
Anon 10;26am wrote: I just moved to town with my family and a friend told me about this blog as a place to find out what goes on here. We had no idea that kids were not welcome at Radio Maria's restaurant. We have heard good things about it but we won't go there now. My wife doesn't want to go anywhere in the downtown area now with or without our children.
I just read this thread, and one of the points of this whole thing is that there are plenty of places to take kids downtown. Only one person on this thread says s/he doesn't feel welcome downtown with kids. Heck, there are families with kids living downtown (some of whom have been downtown for years and years.) To listen to the one over the many is poor research, at best; rationalization for fear, at worst. Basically, as far as I can tell, D. Boon had ownership of downtown fifteen years ago. S/He doesn't feel that way now, and s/he is blaming evil developers, the home-grown restaurants and retail shops, and his/her kids for what is, essentially, nothing more than life change. It would have happened even without the evil developers or the restaurants/shops. Boston is a very different place now from when I went to school there. I don't blame the developers or restaurant owners for changing something I loved, nor do I blame my kids for making me feel less comfortable in parts of Boston I used to "own." If cities don't change and grow, they change and die. There's no such thing as status quo in a city.
Downtown has the largest collection of non-chain restaurants and stores in town. To advocate not supporting them because it's not the place one person on this thread knew and played in fifteen years ago is self-destructive.
By the way, we've taken our children all over downtown. Bacaro's has made mac and cheese for our kids (off-menu), Gould's brunch is full of kids, Radio Maria has high chairs. And unlike Chuck E Cheese, not one is a chain.
On July 9th, 2008 at 09:26 AM, D. Boon said:
I would love to hear what the anon experiences when he/she takes the 6 and 10 year old downtown to the restaurants. Good luck!
Glock - you might want to review the use of commas in a sentence. They actually separate ideas. So when a kid cries, makes a rice mess, or runs down an aisle that doesn't mean he or she is doing all three at the same time. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Families are not welcome downtown. Go down there tonight and check it out. Let me know how many kids you see or, better yet, parents with kids in tow. Come on, we all know they aren't the point.
And Gould's is great for brunch. Just bring the credit card. A family of four will easily approach $100. Pretty expensive breakfast, eh?
Cheers!
On July 9th, 2008 at 10:40 AM, xian said:
Original statement:
At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles.
Interpretative statement:
Not to mention you started off with a pretty common pet peeve of what you described as crying children running up and down aisles in a nice restaurant... a pet peeve common everywhere, not just in our little downtown.
Complete not the same thing.
On July 9th, 2008 at 02:26 PM, Glock21 said:
Boon... Sorry my wording made it sound like it was all at the same time. I should have phrased it better so that they didn't do all of the above at the same time but do all of it at different times. When you start telling me you weren't talking about crying children at all though I suddenly had no idea what the heck you were trying to say.
xian... the interpretative statement was what Radio Maria staff and patrons should be expected to put up with. It wasn't some attempt to paraphrase that sentence, it was a comment about the claim made as a whole. One that apparently wasn't quite accurate as my wording, referring to both happening, sounds more like both happening at the exact same time in unison. Now that I have a clear answer about the complaint about my wording, I feel far less confused on what the complaint was.
Doesn't seem to matter at this point, though. We've beat this zombie thread to death. For some, such behavior, even done individually, can be really obnoxious and is often avoidable... others seem to think that it falls more in line with something that's "cute" and something kids do, so others should be okay with it, and if not they're the ones with the problem. It seems that the differences in this opinion have been pushed and pulled in every which way with some more moderate opinions in between. I'll happily leave this thread to rest-in-peace. :-)
Lisa Madigan right now is planning a lawsuit on behalf of the people who were duped into building their houses on the flood plain. More to come...
I heard on WDWS this morning that Jon 'Cody' Sokolski is planning a hotel in downtown Champaign.
If I heard correctly, he stated that there is no (private) land available for such a venture. My follow-up question would be...well, why are you contemplating building a hotel, then?
He then stated that there is only municipal land available. The report went on to state that Cody's firm and the city are in accord with regards to development being a boon for the downtown. I smell another hand out of city property to this firm (a la former city parking lots, generous TIFs established well after the downtown was on the upswing, taxpayers subsidizing "entrepreneurship", etc.). Disclosure: Cody is the husband of Champaign City Council Member Marci Dodds. http://www.marcidodds.com/bio.html
What I find interesting is that if you drive by M2 only 25% of the condos are sold (according to the sign posted at the construction site). Compare that with his firm's website where 25% were sold as of July 31, 2007. http://www.1-main.com/news/index.php They had 25% of the condos sold approximately a year ago. Surely, if there were more takers the firm would put a new percentage sold sticker on their sign (like a license plate renewal sticker).
My contention is that Mr. Sokolski should focus on growing his current businesses before coming up with new grandiose ideas (paid for, at least partially and probably more, by Champaign taxpayers).
Was he referring to a new project at a different location? Is there City land near M2 that he wants? With parking at a premium, I can't imagine that the City Council would be so foolish as to give or sell parking area to the husband of a City council member to build a hotel. Downtown is developing now without the need for more City giveaways.
Lisa Madigan right now is planning a lawsuit on behalf of the people who were duped into building their houses on the flood plain.
More to come... You bet.
Why stop there?
How about a lawsuit on behalf of the clueless unfortunates who were duped into buying lottery tickets?
the list of possibilities is endless for this valiant Queen of Torts.
Too bad the voters will not get to choose directly on the hotel project.
He owns the buildings at Neil and Washington and yes, he plans/dreams a boutique hotel.
Pattsi Petrie
I'm wondering if the problem is that there's insufficient space at that location to build what he wants--the parking requirements for a hotel must be significant. I would be opposed to any giveaways to him for such a project--why can't he develop the Christie site?
maybe lisalisa could file a suit on behalf of all the champaign district 4 people who got duped into voting for marci dodds.
Section 8 housing and increase in crime--this AM on C-SPAN Hanna Rosin talked about recent research on an overlap between the destruction of inner city housing projects and an increase in crime in historically quiet neighborhoods. She explained her article on the Memphis research and the impact these findings could have on the national effort to diffuse inner-city poverty. This article is in the current Atlantic. Here is the url to view the program http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=565121910
This folds in nicely with the on going discussion about subprime loans and building in flood plains. Housing policy is so complex and the fallout is such a huge unknown as Rosin's article covers.
Here is the url to the article titled America's Murder Mystery http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime
Pattsi Petrie
Champaign Dweller--
It was for a new project at a different location. I can't remember exactly where the city property is located. I think Hill Street was mentioned in the report.
There's more....
A dress maker is being sued because their dresses make women look fat. Lisa Madigan argues that billboards only showed skinny models and this practice is misleading and deceptive. More to come shortly....
The USSC, in no uncertain terms, upheld the traditionalist reading of the 2nd Amendment and declared DC's handgun ban unconstitutional. They also clearly stated it is an individual right.
Take THAT, Chicago!
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
"The USSC, in no uncertain terms, upheld the traditionalist reading of the 2nd Amendment and declared DC's handgun ban unconstitutional. They also clearly stated it is an individual right."
A-friggin-men!
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Does this mean I'm no longer a bitter, churchifying xenophone clinging to my guns?
xenophobe not "xenophone"-darn my giddiness
It means you don't have to do as much clinging as you have before. Let the wrong President get in and it will swing back the other way. After a few hundred years of gun rights now we have to take a constitutional right to the Supreme Court for a 5 to 4 decision?
"I smell another hand out of city property to this firm (a la former city parking lots, generous TIFs established well after the downtown was on the upswing, taxpayers subsidizing "entrepreneurship", etc.)."
"Downtown is developing now without the need for more City giveaways."
The downtown TIF was established well before ANYTHING was happening in downtown Champaign. It was established, in fact, to help get things going in downtown. Even with the TIF, so little happened prior to One Main that the TIF has had to be extended. Second, the only thing big that has happened in downtown has been One Main. Sokolski teamed up with Volition to come downtown. He brought Merry Ann's downtown, Jim Gould's and KoFusion. All of those businesses, plus One Main itself, contribute to the TIF.
That TIF is what is "subsidizing" M2. So money that One Main has contributed into the TIF over the last few years is the big "giveaway" that it's getting - and M2 will pay that "giveaway" right back into the TIF. Compare that to the road the City built for Atkins, or the 3 million it's giving to Fox/Atkins for the conference center/hotel.
The City has needed a parking garage in downtown forever. I remember when David Meyer was trying to get the City to pay millions for his crumbling, unsafe, un-maintained, too-small parking garage - and the City came close to doing so just because it needed a parking garage so badly. They didn't, and now there's a flat, too-small parking lot that real people can't use next to the crumbling old Howard Johnson's hotel that Robeson won't fix-up or sell around the corner from a whole bunch of properties that Youngerman won't fix up or sell.
Yeah, Sokolski has grandiose plans, but at least he has them. The alternative is crumbling, half-vacant buildings owned by Robeson or Youngerman - or another bar owned by Nieto.
Today is the day the Supreme Court finally told the states what gun laws they can or cannot have. It is as simple as that.
Today the DC ban is illegal, twenty years from now all guns may be illegal. This is the precedent that was really set.
So enjoy your handgun. Get a new holster and be ready to shoot someone! But when this court switches to a liberal set of judges they will now have precedent with which to start passing national bans of many guns.
Which is fine with me. But if I was a gun-toting yahoo I probably wouldn't be celebrating right now.
Have a great day!
Boon... That'd make sense if you also felt a ruling upholding free speech and tossing a law that infringed it was the slippery slope towards banning all free speech.
But if nothing else, we can agree that "liberal judges" are a threat to the limits on government powers which leads directly to a threat against our rights... even those enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
I'm glad we finally agree on that.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Interesting take on how this ruling effects Chicago's gun ban.
"We are confident that this does not invalidate Chicago's ordinance at this point," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city Law Department."
The federal government can't ban guns, but states and cities can?
DBoon as soon as I see a "gun-toting yahoo" I will tell him if, I can get him to stop jumping up and down long enough.
Anonymous, downtown development has been good for downtown, for the most part. However, don't you think the City should concentrate on developing parking for people who want to go downtown and patronize all of these new businesses? What good are they if people won't go downtown because they can't find a place to park? And City incentives at a time when downtown wasn't attracting development was a good idea. However, it seems to me that with all of the development going on, there's really no reason to offer more incentives--if developers want to be there now, they're not taking as much of a chance as the first one to develop--shouldn't they now invest and gamble with their own money; and shouldn't the City use TIF's, etc to attract development to places other than Campustown and downtown? Remember, that TIF's take away dollars from the school district, etc unless there's some kind of agreement to replace those dollars.
cheesy poofs: Yeah, that's the reading people are coming up with - the Bill of Rights applies to the feds, not the states, unless the right is specifically applied to the states under the 14th amendment, or some such. So the end result is that the feds can't ban, but the states can.
I have no idea how valid that argument is, just pointing out I saw it flash by my eyes on some site or other over lunchtime. So you might want to read around there - as will I, later.
Either way if they've settled the "militia, or not?" question that alone is probably valuable.
Anon. 1:11--
We actually agree on more than you think. I didn't address some of the other issues you touched upon b/c I was talking about the news report.
I was talking mainly about the scattershot and pell-mell direction his operations seem to be going (and, subsequently, the City Council's pampering thereof). One week it's an international bourse, the next it's half a million dollar condos (without a waterfront, mind you, but a nice view of Cotter Glass), the next it's a brew-pub, the next it's another hotel. The newest child isn't even out of the birth canal (let alone viable) and the next big thing is needing to be financed.
I agree with your assessment. There really isn't much alternative b/c the downtown area is an exclusive little oligopoly of the names you've mentioned. With little exception, the vast majority of real property is in the hands of maybe four or five large owners. One hand washes the other when it concerns downtown "development".
There are probably many people who have ideas of how downtown can grow and prosper. There are probably many "entrepreneurs" who would love to set up shop downtown. However, those people are now outbid and outspent b/c of a very cozy little relationship which has been established. This situation has effectively shut out anyone else. It's now a matter of connections (both spousal and non), flashy PowerPoint presentations to woo the City Council and packaging any idea as "development".
It's true that there are a few people who are making out like Croesus in this town--not just downtown. Amazingly, Champaign is probably more like Chicago than we care to admit in that respect. In Chicago, "development" usually happens not so much because of good ideas, but b/c of political connections and close-knit consortiums.
I think there should be a greater understanding of our own "sweetheart deals" and how the council spends tax money. We are constantly hearing about proposals for new tax levies, increased parking rates, super high property tax assessments (while the houses of some of the people you mention go years w/out a property tax increase),charges for sending out sewer bills, ad nauseum. Yet, the council always has money to throw around when the "developers" and "entrepreneurs" come knocking hat in hand. The council is always eager to throw money at another pet project in the name of development.
This sort of tulip mania is creating some very big expectations. With every doling out of millions of dollars the council creates more of a necessity that things have to work. More of the burden is placed on the taxpayers. You can be certain, people like Sokolski, Fox, Atkins, Tatman, Youngerman, Nieto and the Robesons won't be left holding the bag if we have "lowered expectations" or if downtown doesn't become Portland on the Prairie.
Why can't the empty spaces in M2 be combined and turned into a hotel? The brew pub could be the in-house restaurant and bar, and hotel guests could go to Jim Gould's or Merry Ann's for breakfast.
I personally doubt that the International Bourse will go very far...
"Municipal land" just means land owned by the city. It doesn't mean West Side Park. Most developable land owned by the city was acquired as derelict or abandoned property, or assembled over time like the parcels where M2 is being built, the Burnham site, or the city parking lot at Sixth and Green. In residential areas this property sits around until it can be sold to a developer or given to a non-profit like Habitat for Humanity. Downtown it usually gets used as a parking lot until something better comes along. It's fair to object to the city giving a developer too good a deal, but there's nothing inherently wrong with "municipal land" being sold for development--it happens all the time.
Champaign Dweller: I think, with the parking garage, that "developing parking" is just what the City is doing. But we disagree on the point that there is "so much development going on downtown." The only thing going on downtown is stuff that Sokolski did or is doing - and most everything else comes from what he did or is doing. I remember when Jupiter's, Kopi, and Radio Maria were all that was downtown (for food) and for retail there was Carrie's, Circles and Periscope (which I think was owned by Sokolski). One Main was the nudge that inspired all the other stuff - but even that, no one is doing anything big but Sokolski. Now, maybe you and Logical Positivist prefer that nothing big happen. OK. But one of the things that Sokolski has brought downtown is jobs and people, and that creates the energy - the urban feel - that those four blocks we all call downtown have. That wasn't there before, and people are taking it for granted now.
Logical Positivist: there IS no other developer coming downtown, and I just don't buy it that one guy with one building can out-bully Fox and Atkins. Nor do I think his wife is that all-fired powerful that she can influence the ENTIRE Council and ALL of City staff to vote to give her husband money from the TIF so that he can build M2 that will turn around and pay the rebate back into the TIF. She wasn't even on the Council until AFTER One Main was built, and she always leaves the room when it votes on M2. But maybe Dodds really is that powerful and I'm wrong. (if that's the case, maybe we ought to be sending her to Springfield. With that kind of power, she could get rid of Jones, Madigan, and Blago and still have dinner on the table by 6 pm.)
I don't know. Maybe it's because I've lived here a long time or because I'm old, but I don't put Sokolski in the same camp as Fox/Atkins. They guy hasn't lived here his whole life, he's only built one (now almost two) buildings, and he gives a lot of money back to the community without a quid pro quo. Plus he builds pretty high quality, and he's trying new stuff, like building green. Yeah, the Bourse was pretty far-fetched, but the City hasn't put any money in it. According to the paper, most of the office space has been leased.
Downtown isn't an oligopoly. It's hard. There's no ground to do anything because Youngerman won't sell any (or fix what he has up), and most developers in town either feed off the University or build in the cornfields.
I like the new downtown, and I like the direction the City's going, with the Boneyard fix-up and linking downtown and campus with it and Burnham 310. I hope Christie stays downtown so that all us older folk around Westside Park can continue to walk to their doctor. But this stuff is risky. It's a lot easier to do what we've always done - tear up farmland to build new subdivisions and big box stores and leave our core to rot. It wasn't much fun, and everyone was always stuck in their cars.
Maybe even front porches will make a comeback?
In order to get the kind of information and analysis that you want on downtown development, you're going to have to persuade the City Council to ask the City manager and staff hard questions rather than just accept whatever they recommend. You're also going to have to persuade the City Council to have more discussion and analysis in public rather than their little one on one meetings with staff to avoid the Open Meetings Act. Finally, you're going to have to persuade people like Tom Bruno that development downtown and Campustown doesn't necessarily benefit the entire public--I keep hearing him say time and time again that all of this development benefits all taxpayers because it adds to the tax base, increases property values, etc., but so far, all I've seen are higher tax bills and precious little to show for it.
We are constantly nickeled and dimed to death. We pay for: water, sewer, garbage, higher fees for parking, and a host of other things, and if you really start to add up all of these things, the taxes and user fees are substantial; Yet the City doesn't have enough money to repair collector streets, etc, and it does have enough money to give the City manager a 4.25% raise when people are losing jobs and gas is at an all-time high. Government is essentially asking all of us to do without (by increasing fees and taxes), and yet they are unwilling to do what they ask of the rest of us. I appreciate that things are not as bad here as they are in other parts of the country, but we have not seen the bottom of the market fall, or the top of the gas prices yet.
Champaign Dweller has made several good points. Unless the residents of Champaign start attending the city council meeting in much larger numbers, the decisions will continue to be made before the council meetings.
Again I recommend reading Greg Leroy's book, The great American jobs scam: Corporate tax dodging and the myth of job creation. Read about the book here http://www.greatamericanjobsscam.com/ Listen to him being interviewed on Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/22/the_great_american_jobs_scam_corporate
He is an economist who started Good Jobs First http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/
Bruno does constantly contend that development is good for the economy of the community. This book will arm you with the arguments to counter what is happening throughout Champaign. All of this development is not paying for itself and the TIF districts are costing the residents along with the other taxing bodies.
What interests me about the development in downtown Champaign is how skewed it is as to the targeted population. It is as if people over 40 years old have no money to spend in downtown. The development is so far from balanced and serving the whole community, yet the whole community is paying for it.
Pattsi Petrie
I sure hope there has been no discussion of the city using eminent domain to get some land for a hotel.
"What interests me about the development in downtown Champaign is how skewed it is as to the targeted population. It is as if people over 40 years old have no money to spend in downtown. The development is so far from balanced and serving the whole community, yet the whole community is paying for it."
Pattsi Petrie
I respectfully disagree. In fact, I would argue it's just the opposite. Who EXCEPT people over the age of 40 have the money to spend at Gould's, Bacarro, Luna, Escobar's, The Creperie, in the numbers needed to keep them afloat? Who, EXCEPT people over the age of 40, can afford $3 cupcakes, Circles or Rick Orr (again, in the amount of repeat business to keep them afloat)? No, downtown isn't skewing to young people. It's skewing to people between the ages of college and death, who don't want to hang out on campus or at big box stores along North Prospect, who would like to leave their houses every once in awhile, and who aren't ready for a nursing home. By the way - aren't you the same Pattsi Petrie who brought Richard Florida here several years ago? Isn't downtown part of what he/you were arguing for?
I agree with Champaign Dweller that we haven't seen the top of gas prices yet. That makes what is happening downtown in terms of housing and jobs, and in the corridor between campus and downtown, all that much more important. I would like to see more companies locate along that corridor, in fact, and not so much in a research park. Both of ours are far away from everything.
"What interests me about the development in downtown Champaign is how skewed it is as to the targeted population. It is as if people over 40 years old have no money to spend in downtown. The development is so far from balanced and serving the whole community, yet the whole community is paying for it."
As someone over forty who gladly spends money downtown on a weekly basis for food, drinks, coffee, entertainment, art, clothes, movies, music, musical gear, jewelry, gifts, outdoor gear -- and who notices a conspicuous number of folks who share my demographics -- I think you're off-base on this one.
It's skewing to people between the ages of college and death, who don't want to hang out on campus or at big box stores along North Prospect, who would like to leave their houses every once in awhile, and who aren't ready for a nursing home.
Actually, it is skewing to upper-middle-class "creatives" without children. It doesn't matter whether you are 21 or 61, it takes a lot of cash to play in dowtown Champaign these days. Like it or not, that makes it a playground for the well-to-do, childless set, which will naturally exclude the vast majority of residents who don't see the logic in paying $50 for a plate of pasta and a glass of wine on Friday night, and for whom the word tapas brings up visions of the waitresses at the Silver Bullet.
I don't really have a problem with that except for the fact that I have a family and downtown is not a place for people with families. At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles. At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons, but also the staff.
So no, we don't choose downtown Champaign much anymore. There is nothing there for middle class families. It is all about upper class childless couples - the "creative class". Kids, apparently, are not very creative.
Which is all fine. But let's not pretend the development is really in the best interest of the majority of our residents, whose tax dollars are funding large swaths of said development. No, this is development designed to make a select group of residents comfortable in their pseudo-hip-faux-urban lifestyle and to make an even more select group extremely wealthy. That is the beginning and the end of the story. Hopefully someday the bubble will burst and Village Green records will make a re-appearance. In the meantime, how 'bout those $8.00 martinis?
No, this is development designed to make a select group of residents comfortable in their pseudo-hip-faux-urban lifestyle
we aren't too hip/urban/cosmopolitan yet, or there would have been a crowd of people watching the Euro soccer games this week somewhere - and buying hip $6 imported beers :-)
Anonymous--indeed, I did bring Richard Florida to the community as part of the annual Planning Institute. What is happening downtown is not the creative class. Those who have responded to my comment about the targeted population have done a better job of describing who can afford to be downtown and who is tolerated. Though I do see a lot of the college crowd on certain nights. Florida argues for the 3 T's--talent, technology, and tolerance. The community has 2 of the 3 and this is not changing. One of the posters mentioned that there is little tolerance for children at the downtown venues. When I moved here in 1971, there were 5 department stores, 5 theaters (yes, one was a skin flick), hotel, elementary schools, dime stores, drug store, no grocery store (there were two south on Neil), ice cream shop, active train station, bus station, restaurants (not as elegant as now), several jewelry stores, Christie Clinic, News-Gazette office, etc.--all downtown. In other words, there was a true mix of uses. Many reasons for wanting to go downtown for all of the residents. Today this is not the case as a result of a previous city council decision to redevelop downtown and pass an ordinance to do so that resulted in the proliferation of bars and restaurants. This is not creative class nor an emulation of the communitys that Florida tends to use as examples, Portland, Seattle, Denver. An environment for interactions of community residents of all ages and all levels of income has not been designed.
Just the other day, I had a conversation with one of my children's friends, now a local business man, about the incredible changes in the community. In particular, we talked about how my son and all the friends rode their bikes around the community to the movies, stores, ice cream, hung out at the parks, spent most of the day in the lake, even department stores, went to the Union to bowl. The commuity as presently designed does not encourage this sense of freedom for the younger generation. Summer evenings were filled with kids all over town riding their bikes to play baseball games because the fields were near by not out in East Urbana and SW Champaign. There is virtually no connectivity designed to facilitate travel by bicycle. Yes, I know that work is being done on bicycle pathways. This is important, but so is the development of trails to connect the perimeters of the sprawl.
Fold all of this into the rising gas prices, as mentioned by another poster, then residents ought to be at the city council meetings pounding the table demanding infill and no more sprawl. This will be hard to combat with the development north of I-74, the new interchange, playing fields in SW Champaign, and the new elementary school in that area.
Back to the Planning Institutes--the main criteria for choosing the presenters was what can they teach about community planning based on the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Locally, I have had little success. :-) Best I did along with 4 others is establish PACA.
What would you like to see happening in the community, not just downtown?
Pattsi Petrie
At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons...
That was probably me. Seriously, though, it's no more appropriate to take children to Radio Maria than it is for me to take my wife to Chuck E. Cheese. Actually, it's even more inappropriate, because there's not much chance that kids to go Chuck E. Cheese to celebrate their anniversaries, and if they did, I still cry a lot less than they do.
No, this is development designed to make a select group of residents comfortable in their pseudo-hip-faux-urban lifestyle...
No, Champaign is not even pseudo-hip, nor is it even faux-urban. It's not a bad place to live, but let's face it, it's a very poor second to Indianapolis, and that's not saying much, so let's not get carried away in describing how unbearably hip a mere four blocks of Champaign is. The problem is trying to keep younger UIUC faculty from going somewhere else (among others). Many of them are from more interesting places than this, and unless they have kids - and this is a good place to raise kids - they are probably looking for the exits. You can deride them as "creatives" all you want, but they are the reason why CU is bigger than, say, Paxton.
I understand that your beef is not that there are upscale places in downtown (or I think so), but that they are getting a special break. I would far prefer that there be a generalized lower tax rate across the board, so that everyone gets some of the same benefits, although I think that we need to realize that TIFs are good development tools to revitalize specific areas.
Anyway, the goodies were never spread evenly. Many daycare facilities are run as nonprofits, as are private schools, and public schools not only pay no taxes but absorb them. My tax dollars go for playground equipment for other peoples' children, and for park district programs for the kiddies. In fact, from my perspective, it looks like people with kids are hogging all of the benefits and services. Still, I'm ok with paying for your childrens' education, just as long as I can get a good martini every once in a while.
I don't really have a problem with that except for the fact that I have a family and downtown is not a place for people with families. At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles. At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons, but also the staff.
Are the other patrons annoyed just because the children are there, or were they acting up? Letting children run up and down the aisles of a restaurant doesn't sound like the safest idea, given that servers are sometimes carrying trays of food. Sure, it's not unusual for children to cry, but I think it's considered polite to take them outside if you can't readily calm them down.
Twelve years ago the downtown of Champaign was a dead as a doornail. Now that things are going well and property values are increasing everyone is a critic. We have taken kids to eat in downtown Champaign lots of times. We never got dirty looks, but they were not misbehaving and they are over the age of 2. During a recent visit from a family member from out of town the entire family went to see a movie at the Virginia and then we walked over to the cupcake bar. The out-of -towner was blown away by all the people outside eating, drinking, talking, having a good time and all the different places we could go. They were very impressed and loved it.
Dozens of times we have taken the kids to the Virginia and then had a bite to eat. Now that my kids are old enough to get around on their own they go eat at Mary Ann's Diner. I do not think one needs to be concerned about price or snobbishness there. Anyway, the one thing we do lack in this community is high end condo options for folks who do not want to live in the land of sprawl. I have no idea why some people continue to believe that 1-Main is vacant. It has been a big success or they would not be able to finance M-2. And speaking of tolerance, why are some of you intolerant when it comes to older wealthy people? I want them to come and spend as much money as possible. We get sales tax revenue from them and it helps pay for improvements to our city.
I spend plenty of time at Cafe Kopi, and there are always kids in there. No one much minds unless they start screaming AND won't respond to other patrons telling them to keep it down, and that's pretty rare.
Going to the bars, a bottle of microbrew beer is around $3.50, not too horridly expensive (and at any rate, it's the same price in Urbana or Campustown).
I haven't had the cupcakes yet but this thread makes me think maybe tomorrow I should get one.
"In the meantime, how 'bout those $8.00 martinis?"
Are they on sale this week, or is that the base price before all the fruit-flavored syrups?
"At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles. At at place like Radio Maria children are considered a nuisance, conjuring dirty looks of annoyance by not only the other patrons, but also the staff."
During the whole smoking ban debate I was really hoping my compromise would go through. I don't really mind not smoking while I'm at a sit-down restaurant... but I sure as hell mind screams, tantrums, and toddler-olympic style nonsense. Long before I ever started smoking, I sat in the smoking section to avoid that crap. I was hoping they'd at least maintain the two section format for babysitting or non-babysitting.
Something about going out for some special occasion along the lines of your "paying $50 for a plate" example...only to get seated next to Damian or his daycare pals, GAH! It's probably even more annoying for the people who aren't childless... since they're probably having a night without the kids, and trying to take a nice relaxing break from all that until Wally the Wailer gets seated at the next table.
Dirty looks seem well deserved in that situation. I prefer the less confrontational approach though, as I'll just ask to be seated at another table as far away as possible from shrieks, squeels, smells like it needs a change, food-flinging, hiding-n-seeking sprinters, and table-side miniture interputers. If you can afford the nice place... throw a little extra down for a babysitter. If that'll break the bank... you can't afford the nice place. Save up for next month.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Oh, my child is really quite charming and rarely throws a tantrum (seriously). It is the entire presence of a child that seems to be objected to in downtown Champaign. I mean, come on - name a business down there that is actually geared toward families. Uh ... right - there are none.
It is a place for cool people to feel cool. And kids/families are not cool. Which is fine. But those are my tax dollars at work too, you know. Why are we in the business of creating entire districts that are family unfriendly when, last time I counted, the vast majority of people in this community live in family units? Why has so much money and effort being put into keeping the fickle graduate student demographic in town?
Last thing - no amount of tapas or imported beer is going to keep the "creatives" in this town. What is needed is not nice hotels and condos, it is cutting edge business development. People don't really care if they work in a business park when they are working on amazing technologies and being paid lots of money. Take a look at the I-88 corridor outside of Chicago. Not exactly a hipster paradise, but doing quite nicely.
So cut some more tax breaks for the wealthy developers and keep you fingers crossed that Tad the software developer will hang around for a few years. As far as city planning goes, that idea falls under Chapter 10: Desperate and Pathetic.
It's funny to listen to all the childless folks bitch and whine about children.
D. Boon wrote: It is a place for cool people to feel cool. And kids/families are not cool.
I disagree. Kids have nothing to do with cool. There are a LOT of interesting, artistic, fun people in town, all with kids. There are also a lot of boring people with kids. And I've seen both downtown. There are lots of family-friendly places that use tax dollars (Sholem Aquatic Center or the library anyone?); just because you don't feel comfortable in some PRIVATE businesses - last time I checked, the super-hip Art Theatre, Radio Maria, and KoFusion were every bit as private as the super unhip El Toro - doesn't mean the City has failed with your tax dollars. There are lots of un-family friendly places in town, too - the new research park and Clearview spring to mind - that are supported with tax dollars. Why are those OK, but downtown isn't?
Cutting edge businesses won't come to town if the work force can't support them. And the work force won't come to town if there's nothing fun to do. Champaign has a big university that needs to stay world class. That means it needs to attract the best and the brightest, and then keep them here. Right now, even with the four blocks of downtown, the people who create things at this University LEAVE. That's ridiculous. The University can't do it alone, and Champaign has to step up. Mostly, it needs to stop acting like it's all that and has always been all that because it has a couple nice parks and is "family-friendly." Big deal. So is West Lafayette - but Columbus and Ann Arbor have a whole lot more. Their Universities have a whole lot more than Purdue, too. So do their economies.
Hotels and condos are needed. So are good schools. The two go together because that's what attracts all different types of people and allows a City to have a diverse economy. No community has ever survived being ONLY family-oriented - at least, not without cheating and locating right next to a bigger, more diverse City (ie: Savoy, St. Jo.)
"It's funny to listen to all the childless folks bitch and whine about children."
Not sure if that was directed towards me, but please note that I'm not complaining about children in general, but parents who take their children to places where children shouldn't be. If someone regularly brought a howling dog into a fancy restaurant and I complain about it, it doesn't mean I hate dogs... I'm a big fan of dogs. The complaint is about manners and being respectful of others.
As far as kids go, I'm not interested in having any, but I'm all for everyone else having them. I'll need cheap labor at my oppressive factories someday, and of course I'll need to tax them to death so I won't have to waste my own retirement savings for retirement. ;-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I'd argue that it's the unwillingness to bring children to place that makes them incapable of conducting themselves in the rare case where they are taken out.
When I was a kid (2 and up), my folks took me EVERYWHERE--to class, to their friends' wild parties, to work, etc. I'd usually just find someone to talk to or a book to read.
I think the children issue depends on how well behaved the child is. There are plenty of places to go downtown at all kinds of different prices and foods.
Yes I have gone to have Cupcakes and it is rather a nice place not only because the cupcakes are good but the place is nice and is fun to go into.
Anon 7:02: No one is saying 1 Main is vacant. No one here will argue that Cody didn't do well on it; what we're talking about are the complaints regarding the quality of the construction and the fact that no one seems to be able to resell their unit in that building. Aren't ease of resale and resale value important indicators of the health of a neighborhood?
anon 12:46: check out the Sat. Wall St. Journal. There is an article in there complaining about the decline of Ohio, and it doesn't have much good to say about Columbus being exciting or growing...
Showing my age here, but downtown started coming back 17 years ago (!!) when the original Blind Pig opened (now Cowboy Monkey). One can argue about the pace of redevelopment or how "exciting" (a subjective comparision, based on whether you're contrasting to Chicago or Charleston or Cairo) it's been over those year, but it has been happening...
I guess D. Boon has never taken kids to the Orpheum Children's Museum that is a real gem in our community. My kids loved it when they were younger and now they volunteer there off and on. My kids also have taken classes at the Champaign Park District, right in downtown Champaign. My kids love shopping at the used clothing and bookstores stores in downtown Champaign and my daughter loves 10,000 Villages because their prices are so good and they have great kid stuff. Pekara Bakery has wonderful goodies that are inexpensive and a great menu that is very affordable. There is Cafe Kopi, the Thai place, Chinese, etc. that are all affordable and family friendly. The least expensive popcorn and snacks are at the Virginia Theater that shows great family movies.
Honestly, the folks complaining about downtown Champaign strike me as folks who have not really even walked around downtown Champaign. There are lots of inexpensive family friendly places to go. I never have trouble finding parking and walking around is a lot more fun than walking through the parking lot at the mall or even the mall itself. The landscaping and people really make it a fun place to walk. There are lots of benches and places to people watch. If the kids need a place to blow off some steam West Side Park has a wonderful playground and a beautiful fountain.
So ... the good things for young kids in downtown Champaign include West Side Park, which I believe was developed sometime in the late 19th century (wouldn't the developers love to get their hands on that prime piece of real estate! - can anyone say "deluxe condos"?), the Orpheum Children's Museum, which was developed in the mid-90s and is open for about three hours every week, the Champaign Park District which has been in the same location for 20 odd years now, the Virginia which was built 75 years ago, a bakery (???), a thai restaurant (???), a coffee shop, and an imported goods store?
What I hear you saying is that any of the remnants from the by-gone days are still good for the kids, and if you want to see how well the City of Champaign is catering to families with recent development then you should be happy to take the two-year-old to a coffee shop (mocha latte, perhaps?) a bite of pad thai, and then shopping for an imported rug. Fun!
Sure, the old stuff is still family friendly. But let's not pretend that the Council has any interest in creating a downtown that is useful for much besides getting drunk, eating overpriced meals, and hooking up. After all, there are 20 or 30 graduate students who may consider staying here if we creating a 25-year-old hipster playground. Obviously they are more important than the 100,000 people who are a part of a family and now avoid downtown Champaign like the plague.
Cheers!
Obviously they are more important than the 100,000 people who are a part of a family and now avoid downtown Champaign like the plague.
Help me out here, Boon...are you wanting them to open a Chuck E. Cheese in M2 or something? It's more than a bit of a misnomer to say that 100,000 people who are part of a family now avoid downtown like the plague. I don't know how long you've lived around here, but you clearly don't remember what downtown used to be like about 12 years ago when it was more than people with families avoiding downtown like the plague. You obviously spend little to no time downtown, and seem to have zero understanding of what actually takes place. I seem to remember seeing plenty of kids at the Festival of the Arts during the day last August, and all kinds of rugrats running around the Taste of C-U.
I suppose you also are demanding that the campus area provide you with adequate entertainment for your child? Also, how is the research park family-friendly? Why aren't you arguing for your kids to be able to run up and down the aisles between the cubicles or that you get good service at Kam's for your daughter (who, being 2, might already be too old for the establishment anyway) You completely glossed over all of this. Not every place must accomodate your toddler or your bad parenting by letting them run around the place. And isn't Radio Maria a bit of a waste on a child anyway? Would you take a two-year old to Kennedy's at Stone Creek and expect the staff there to be ok with them running up and down the aisles?
I usually agree with you on a lot of what you have to say, but you're just way way off on this one. So far, all you've done is bitch about people at night who are getting drunk, eating overpriced meals, and hooking up because you can't bring your child there at any hour of the night. I ask you, what would make downtown, a place that 10 years ago NOBODY wanted to go to, more attractive to families? Before you answer, here are a few corrections to your horribly informed rant:
Edit: fixing a glaring typo
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
I don't usually think of downtowns as being kid-oriented places generally except in perhaps some larger cities with lots of big museums, aquariums, etc. For a town our size it seems pretty reasonable to have the children's museum, the pretty reasonably sized park with fairly regular kids events, an even bigger/better library a short drive or walk south from there... and probably most importantly for a kid... a diner right in downtown that serves milkshakes. There are more kid friendly establishments, and of course tons of parks outside of downtown... since we're more of an automobile friendly town that generally seems to work. Downtown has kid friendly spots too, but there's obviously going to be a lot more for grown-ups, which to me makes sense, but others may certainly disagree.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Help me out here, Boon...are you wanting them to open a Chuck E. Cheese in M2 or something?
Ok, that would be a start.
You obviously spend little to no time downtown, and seem to have zero understanding of what actually takes place.
I used to spend a lot of time downtown. But that was a long time ago. Once the restaurants became more interested in attracting golfer money and less interested in supporting community I went elsewhere. But I do have a pretty good understanding of what usually takes place.
I suppose you also are demanding that the campus area provide you with adequate entertainment for your child?
Campustown has it's own set of problems, but you are right that I wouldn't take my child down there at certain times of day. Is that supposed to be ok?
Not every place must accomodate your toddler or your bad parenting by letting them run around the place.
Well, I don't think I am a bad parent, and I don't expect "every place" to be accomodating to my children. But let's be realistic. Downtown is not family-friendly. That is a decision that was made, apparently in the desperate hope that 20 or 30 graduate students might be more inclined to stay in central Illinois if they have a nice place to sip martinis on the weekend. As I have said, that is fine. But let's be straight about it: this is not a downtown developed for the enjoyment of the vast majority of our community. It is a downtown developed for the enjoyment of a select, privileged few.
I ask you, what would make downtown, a place that 10 years ago NOBODY wanted to go to, more attractive to families?
Well, let's start with that Chuck E. Cheese. This isn't a question of picking two new storefronts that are attractive to families. It is a question of purpose. The purpose of downtown is to provide a small, select group of people a grown-up playland. It is not designed to attract or accomodate families. And yes, I question that purpose.
Moreover, have you noticed that there were very few good indie rock shows in downtown these days? Why is that? Because it is not even a playland for the faux-hipsters anymore. It has been turned over and is being turned over to the wealthy middle class white golfer set. In other words, it is so about the dollars at this point that even the grad students with the good "techie" ideas are going to find it lacking.
It is all a game designed to line the pockets of a select few developers who will make their mints while the going is good. The fact that all of us contribute to their success through our tax dollars is an irony that seems to escape so many of us. Why is that?
"It is a downtown developed for the enjoyment of a select, privileged few."
While there are certainly some spots that are, or at least try to be posh, that attract those who are 'privileged' or at least pretend to be for a night, I've found that downtown appeals to a much larger swath of those who live paycheck to paycheck. Everyone from blue collar folks wanting to catch a beer and a game with friends, to young neo-hippy types picking up some retro clothes or furniture and some good java to yack about the military industrial complex with their comrades ;-), and all sorts in between who enjoy shopping for nicknacks from music (lots of music shops for the 'privileged' local bands) and of course the frequent passing traveler waiting for his bus/train stopping in to tell their story over a quick brew (sometimes with all their wordly possessions on their back).
Probably more ironic about this statement is that many of the folks I've met who work at the relative 'posh' establishments, will come into the establishment of ill repute afterwork to relax with the rest of us and tell their tales of the 'priveleged' yahoos that did something obnoxious or downright idiotic. But there is a recognition that helping them feel like royalty or rockstars for a day at the fancy restaurant or club is what helps bring in more money for their non-privileged lifestyles.
I think the impression you got of downtown may be skewed by the political issues of new developments and possibly of limited time spent out there since it is mainly geared towards grownups, and with a kid in tow, which means a day in downtown probably won't include grabbing some greasy goods from Sam's before hitting up Abbots for a new book and sitting around reading out in one of the shady 'beer gardens' of a coffee shop while checking it out over some coffee or wine... going for a walk through the park to reflect on it, and then heading down to one of the more down to earth social pubs to talk about it with regular joes from all walks of life before you catch the movie or show at the art theater, hit up Merry Ann's for some grub before catching a blues show or just hang out with a group of friends at one of the establishments of ill repute who are finally off work from the posh spots. Hardly a priviledged way to spend a day off, but quite enjoyable... though the book on Turkey's political upheavals with its unique system of Kemalism was a bit too disjointed for my tastes. It was still worth the used price.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I've found that downtown appeals to a much larger swath of those who live paycheck to paycheck.
Well, it's official. We've officially found someone who knows less about downtown than I do. And I don't even claim to be a scenester!
Probably more ironic about this statement is that many of the folks I've met who work at the relative 'posh' establishments, will come into the establishment of ill repute afterwork to
Sorry, there are no more establishments of ill repute. Believe me, I spent many a night in downtown Champaign over the last 15 years and all the good bars are long gone. But I suppose feeling that the place you are buying your PBR is a place of ill repute is a pretty good sales pitch.
lots of music shops for the 'privileged' local bands
Really? I only count one (Exile on Main Street?), unless you are wrapping Record Swap into the mix. Record Swap is a gem of a store, to be sure, but it is a long way from downtown.
I think the impression you got of downtown may be skewed by the political issues of new developments and possibly of limited time spent out there since it is mainly geared towards grownups, and with a kid in tow ...
This is my entire point. It is geared toward single grownups without kids. Most of this community (believe it or not!) is grownups with kids. What point are you trying to make?
Hardly a priviledged way to spend a day off.
If you say so.
This is my entire point. It is geared toward single grownups without kids. Most of this community (believe it or not!) is grownups with kids. What point are you trying to make?
Or it gives grownups with kids a grownup place to escape to for that once-a-week/month/season night out.
Sorry, there are no more establishments of ill repute
And you're complaining that the current downtown is LESS family-friendly that before?
Gosh, it wasn't too long ago that downtown was where you went to find the "working girls" and the benches all had arm rests so the homeless guys couldn't sleep on them. Used to be that downtown was NO place to go after dark and functional businesses like the Esquire were a minority.
Just peeves me to no end to see anyone out in downtown after dark spending money. This development stuff is for the birds!
OK--you busted me--I AM being really sarcastic here. I honestly do not understand why everybody is so quick to criticize the guys who do choose to try and improve our communities. I have met these guys at one time or another and I will personally vouch for the fact that not a one of them has horns or a forked tail that I could spot.
Maybe you personally have no interest in a trip to one of the new clubs or restaurants, and maybe your family has zero plans to use any of these new buildings. But isn't this development a LOT better than having a downtown that is nothing more than a haven for the criminals, the hookers and the street people?
Laura
Snarkiness aside, I think the difference in perspective is based less on people not knowing what they're talking about as opposed to having different experiences... which is certainly possible even in our small downtown. I can't really comment if downtown was more fun back in your hayday than it is today in mine though. Your nostalga for the 'good ol' days' is all your own. As far as music shops there's several, but to play music, not just listen. I suppose Exile would still work for local DJs... but that's not really what I meant by local bands.
We all heard your point, which was exaggerated. That there is nothing for kids ("there is none"), even though you've since conceded that there is some. And that downtown is generally for the wealthy types, even though (although you dispute this) most of the people I run into in downtown are anything but (myself included).
As far as your breakdown of the days costs, you'll note that this was the same amount total that you were complaining about the privileged spots for a single plate of pasta and glass of wine. While it may have been a dorky day, it was just a personal example of an admittedly unhip yahoo. Normally an outing to downtown would entail doing a few things as opposed to making a day of it though. Sometimes it's just nice to grab an early breakfast at Sam's. Or grab some diner food and a milkshake at Merry Ann's... or just go out to catch a show (music/movie/other)... or just stop in at your favorite watering hole to watch your favorite team. Stuff like that. Not the kind of stuff a wealthy or privileged person would necessarily do, unless they wanted to hang with the unwashed masses.
An afternoon at Chuck E Cheese might cost you far more than any of that. Us poor kids had to go to Showbiz Pizza... and that was a special outing for a birthday or something. Not a regular event. Downtown may not be kid friendly enough for you, but there is some family stuff to do, as noted above and there is more, though less notable... but there are tons of parks here in town and fun places all around town. It helps to have a car though since we're a typical midwest big-town/small-city geared towards the automobile dependent. In that sense it's certainly not a poor-with-kids friendly town. But being a poor kid sucks no matter where you are... even Peoria, where I grew up.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Most of this community (believe it or not!) is grownups with kids.
I don't believe it. Neither does the U.S. Census Bureau. Of 28,110 households, only 6,887 have children under 18.
And while we're at it, singles and couples without children already pay for plenty of services used exclusively or predominately by families with children (schools, park district, WIC, etc.). Is it really so bad to provide them something?
Don't forget that Chuck E. Cheese already was in Champaign - it closed because of slow business. Ants in Their Pants had to add additional services (their gym, gymnastics, and martial arts) to stay in business.
All of these posts bring up good points, and I am sure there are good times left to be had in downtown Champaign. Personally, I don't feel particularly welcome down there any more. It is kind of like your old friend who you knew in the college days when he drank a bit too much, had the TV on crates and a beat up old couch on the front porch. Good times. Then you run into him ten years later driving a Lexus and talking about stock prices. Just not the same experience. Not the same guy, I guess.
I have tried to look under the hood in downtown Champaign and I have not found my old friend. Swept aside are the late nights when a community of musicians and fans would belt out tunes at the Blind Pig, only to stumble back to campustown high on music bliss. Gone are the days when a youngster could spend an afternoon sifting through the vinyl at Village Green Records. The days of $10 martinis and the beautiful people are upon downtown Champaign, and apparently everyone likes it just fine, thank you very much.
Fair enough! I am sentimental for a time long past. Bring on the tapas! Bring on the Belgian brews! Bring on the cover bands! As long as we don't have to step over the homeless (where did they go, anyway?) or deal with those kinds of people all is well and right with the world.
Cheers!
That Census Bureau report above provides other interesting numbers, too. Of the 37,026 people in the City of Champaign alone who are 25 and older, 8,563 "only have" a bachelor's degree and an additonal 9,012 have some kind of graduate degree (masters, doctorate). That seems to be a lot more than the 20-30 grad students who would come and stay here as Boon alluded to. Again, usually I agree with you, but you're just completely and utterly WRONG on your assessment of downtown.
Also, you haven't explained how this is worse than downtown was when you were frequenting it 15 years ago.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
D.Boon
What bars have disappeared in the last 15 years from downtown? Can't find a good local band? What the hell are you talking about.. Have you missed Mike N Molly's, Coyboy Monkey, and even the Brass Rail on occasion.. All have excellent local bands and frequently low cost beers.. All of which one can frequently see a band or three and catch a decent buzz for under $20....
Belgian beers are awful expensive... SO DON'T BUY THEM!!!
And I agree with others on this thread who say that they frequently see those who live from paycheck to paycheck out at night.. They follow the specials... it's not hard... and they're not all out every night.
Your old buddy has been replaced by a younger generation... but they are there..
Sounds to me like your old buddy got off his ass, gave away his bong, and decided that wasn't the way he wanted to live his whole life.. btw yes I know you were being figurative.. so am I.
And as long as I am at it will point out that NONE of the businesses in downtown were "planned" by the city.. The City had NO say in what they sold nor set their prices.. That was done at the RISK of PRIVATE individuals... and so please don't talk about it as if the Voters had any say nor any Right to say what businesses are downtown..
That being said, I will concede the idea that the city should stop giving coporate welfare to businesses that can well afford their own risk of expansion, or risk waiting for competitors to arrive..
What I find so interesting about this discussion is how animated and upset I seem to have made so many people. I wonder why (honestly). If I am such an idiot who can't see the green pastures of plenty in front of his own face, then why even bother to point out my idiocy? Why not just dismiss me out of hand and move on to the next thread?
Do yourself a favor - go and enjoy downtown Champaign. Have a drink on me (figuratively, of course)! Enjoy the lovely breeze blowing along the alleyway in front of Cowboy Monkey, or stroll over to Jim Gould's on Sunday morning for the buffett. Don't worry about it. This is an amusement park created for your pleasure, nothing is amiss. Just accept what is happening and don't think twice about it.
Now you won't see me 'round there, but that is no matter. If I were there I would offer a hearty, "Cheers!"
Cheers!
I'm not mad, but you can't seem to see the forrest for the trees.
When I turned 21, almost 20 years ago, minimum wage was something like $4.25 an hour.. A pint of "cheap beer" (not on special) was $1.50 and a pint of Guinness (cuz that was the closest thing on campus to an "expensive beer") was $3.00. I have no idea what a martini cost then, If memory serves... maybe $4 ( for "good stuff" $2.75 for rail) on campus ( cuz that's where I was drinking then).. but the Illinois Happy Hour Law was a year or two old.. My point there is that it was still rather ill-defined.. Often times a medium grade shot was let's say $2.50 but a double was $0.50 more.
Now the Happy Hour Law (as the state, and city would like it interpreted, not to say that it is in practice, or that they have a lot of legal ground to make it that way) would have bars charge "double for double"... so if a bar does that, they're doing as the gov't would have them do.. to combat "Binge Drinking". And as a "martini" generally is a double shot, don't be so surprised that it costs so much.
BUT, a pint of "cheap beer" now is $1.75-2.00 and a pint (16oz) of Guinness is $3.75 and minimum wage is $7.75. (OK server pay is less than that... but it was $2.50 and now $6.20).
When I go to Podunk Wisconsin, a pint of "cheap beer" is $2.50, Guinness is $5-$7.... The competition downtown has kept the beer prices "pretty freaking reasonable" compared to the increases in Min.Wage, raises in the cost of product, and increases in taxes.
So forgive me for sounding upset, I am not... I just think you're getting caught up in the "old man" syndrome of wondering why everything costs so much more than it did 20 years ago, when, in fact, the cost of drinking in a bar has gone down in comparison to raises in the minimum wage and other cost increases (product, rent/mortgage, insurance, power, cable TV, music licensing, maintenance) of which bars have to absorb more and more.
Personally, I don't care where you go, or if you go anwhere... I just think your cost analysis is off. I went to IGA last week and 1 red bell pepper was $3... 1.5x the cost of a beer in bar... that seems a little "off" to me. Heck, I was told by a bar owner last year... "if you want to get some free beers... bring in your home grown tomatoes for trade... those things are WAY expensive, and what you're growing (I grow organically) are better than what I get from my suppliers."
I guess I am saying, if you wanna bitch about the price of something, there are better battlegrounds than the price of beer in a bar.
And BTW, don't be so surprised at the response to your muckraking... that's just being passive aggressive.. You lit that fire and stoked it... which in itself isn't a "problem" just uh... what'd you expect?
Boon... Nobody who has responded to your various downtown comments seems all that upset as much as disagreeing with your impression, which by your own admission is based on limited experience with the place in recent years (not very solid ground to tell other people they don't know what they're talking about). You wonder why we don't just ignore you in the same breath you bait people with a comment that amounts to telling people, 'enjoy being oblivious.'
Your comments have been both contradictory (none vs some kids stuff, downtown was both better and worse before, complaints of fancier restaurants while ignoring the diner fare, etc), inaccurate (the numbers of and types of folks who patronize downtown and why), and antagnoistic (implying others who disagree are part of some elite that actively resents others and/or are just oblivious). I could see such things being ignored sitting at the coffee counter, but when posted on a forum such as this, it seems a bit silly to expect people to let it go unchecked. Not to mention you started off with a pretty common pet peeve of what you described as crying children running up and down aisles in a nice restaurant... a pet peeve common everywhere, not just in our little downtown. Not sure why you'd expect either agreement or silence in response to all of that.
There's plenty of room for improvement here, but your complaints are so exaggerated that even people (like me) who'd love to see some cool new stuff for kids in town, and who (like me) are generally put off by some of the snobby types in downtown who are attracted to the fancier fare, are likely to disagree with the exaggeration and likely to get defensive for the way you try to put people who disagree with you under the same label as those you disparage.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Not to mention you started off with a pretty common pet peeve of what you described as crying children running up and down aisles in a nice restaurant... a pet peeve common everywhere, not just in our little downtown.
I didn't say crying children. I said:
And I stand by these statements. Restaurants are either family friendly or they aren't. There are not a lot of family friendly restaurants in downtown Champaign, and that is by design. I find that a little disturbing, but I seem to be alone in that sentiment. So be it. It aint the first time and I doubt it will be the last.
Sorry. Crying child. Not crying children. My mistake.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Personally, I don't give a flying damn about what you think about my children. If I want to eat at a nice place with the family, I take the kids. If I want to eat a lesser place with the family, I take the kids.
If you don't like being in a nice place with kids there, it's your problem, not mine. Because this is America, my kids are welcome where I am welcome, which is everywhere that is open to the public.
If you don't like kids around you, don't come around where kids are.
What's up next, libraries? Keep the loud little children out sometimes, lets have "adults only" hours, quiet time for the intolerant, vote yes or no.
Sheesh. Champaign must have become part of the Middle East over the July 4th weekend.
Plenty of rude behavior is legal. Doesn't make it any less rude. You're free to be rude as much as I'm free to be rude. And we're both free to argue that it is or isn't rude. But the legality of it and your right to do so isn't what is being argued. You could also walk by my table and fart. But I won't be happy about it, nor would I expect any reasonable person to be happy about it... even if you are free to do so.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I agree with the last poster, but on the flipside, I cannot fathom living in such a way that I am bothered by dirty looks from strangers. Are you secure with the decisions you are making? Then who cares? They could be giving you dirty looks because your kids are too smart or too the wrong color or not wearing the kind of jeans or because they just don't think kids should be out in public. Hell, maybe their spouse just farted and they don't like the smell.
Why does it matter?
If you don't like being in a nice place with kids there, it's your problem, not mine. Because this is America, my kids are welcome where I am welcome, which is everywhere that is open to the public.
I find this lack of respect for others quite disappointing. If my kids are being disruptive, I am embarrassed, and attempt to rectify the situation. And some places simply aren't appropriate for screaming babies.
The fact that there are not a lot of "family" places downtown doesn't bother me alot, except to the extent that development there is being subsidized. If it all happens/happened naturally, so be it.
"I find this lack of respect for others quite disappointing."
Me, too. Respect my children. They are children, after all, not adults. Adults who act like children, farting by my table, as you say, are rude and boorish, but surprisingly, they have a right to be in nice places too.
Maybe you think children are little butterflies emerging from cocoons, and do not need the training and experience life on the outside might give them. The children are acceptable anywhere, anytime.
After you kick out the rude children, kick out the ugly ones. I don't want to have to look at ugly children and their parents should know better than bring them to a fine dining establishment. Take 'em to Chucky Cheese where the ugly lower class kids go. Then kick out the foreign lookin' ones. And their parents. And people who aren't in my political party. Or church. Or school, or neighborhood.... Or race.
Yeah, the lack of respect is amazing.
And BTW, when you find a "fine dining establishment" in Champaign Urbana, let us know. If you think Radio Maria's, or Miko's, or The Great Impasta, is fine dining, you need to get to a big city once in awhile. They are all pretty good places with good food, nice owner's, nice clientele, I'm not dissing them at all, but they are far, far from fine dining.
As Glock stated, you have the "right" to do a lot of things that are rude - congratulations.
Sorry. Crying child. Not crying children. My mistake.
Still mistaken. No crying children in the aisle. Children in the aisles. In some places, people like to see children. They might even smile, ask their name, call them cute - that sort of thing. In other places they wonder why this small human is allowed out of the house, or how dare the parents bring a child into this restaurant.
Why does it matter?
It matters because some restaurants welcome families, make it a great experience, and get repeat business. Other places do not make families welcome, and nobody really wants to eat somewhere you don't feel welcome. Families are not really welcome in downtown Champaign. That was the point of this whole argument in the first place. I would mention that no one has really refuted that point. They have just argued that I shouldn't care. After all, there are libraries and parks for families (and everyone else, of course, but I digress), so I should happily sign off on tax breaks for wealthy developers to create a downtown where I don't feel welcome.
Makes sense to me!
An amazing slippery slope there. But utterly irrelevant since nobody is talking about kicking anybody out, just appropriately guaging whether their kids are beyond the running in the aisle and wailing bit before taking them in such an environment. As far as whether such places are 'fine dining' or not, I'll let the experts judge. My 'fine living' days were over before they began. But when I strike it rich and can become a fine dining connoisseur I'll be sure to check them all out.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
So do people support the tax money going to developers of the downtown? I think this is a fair question, as it would seem to discourage the free market.
I didn't say crying children. I said:
Boon... So who are the staff being understanding of when they cry? You? Not the child? Who is crying? Are they being understanding of crying that isn't happening? Is there any way to take what you said and what you're saying now and make any sense of it without totally stretching the imagination?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Oh Lord Almighty. Here's what you think I said:
And here is what I did say:
There is probably a psychological condition for people who just assume that children in the aisles will be crying and disrupting everyone's dinner in a negative way. Child-a-phobia, maybe? Either way, don't twist my words to make your point. Obviously parents need to comfort their crying children if that happens in a public place and even take them home if the behavior is out-of-control. That is not what I was talking about, I was talking about normal child-like behavior and restaurants that understand that behavior vs. restaurants that do not want that behavior anywhere near their important customers.
It is really pretty obvious if you read what I wrote instead of projecting what you think I wrote.
I just moved to town with my family and a friend told me about this blog as a place to find out what goes on here. We had no idea that kids were not welcome at Radio Maria's restaurant. We have heard good things about it but we won't go there now. My wife doesn't want to go anywhere in the downtown area now with or without our children. We did our research before she took her new job here and thought that Champaign was a family friendly city and a good place to raise children. Now we are not so sure.
Can anyone tell us where there is a a nice place to eat where we can take our usually well mannered 6 year old and 10 year old? We certainly do not want to feel unwelcome, but that is what it sounds like if we go to downtown Champaign to go out to eat.
You can go anywhere you want. I've taken our nine-month-old to a number of places downtown, and never felt unwelcome.
And I can't think of anywhere I'd rather raise a family than Champaign.
Just eat downtown. If people give you a hard time, that's their problem. The town was a family friendly town long before it yuppified and if people want share, that's fine, but they shouldn't expect to move families out.
Find a place with other children present and try that restaurant. As someone mentioned earlier, going downtown to eat probably requires a sitter.
But your experience may vary. We like restaurants where the staff seems genuinely happy to see our young person with us. If there are high chairs around the restaurant that is also a good sign. Best of luck and welcome to town. It is a wonderful place to raise children.
"There is probably a psychological condition for people who just assume that children in the aisles will be crying and disrupting everyone's dinner in a negative way."
Boon... Sorry if I'm totally lost by your own description of crying, making messes and running around in the aisles as meaning that they cry, make messes and run around in the aisles. You keep posting the same line about how you appreciate that the staff put up with that and claiming you said nothing of the sort, over and over. You tell me I'm just distorting your words and making something up out of whole cloth and possibly insane to take your description of crying, making messes, and running around in the aisles to mean exactly what you said. As best I can figure it, you are now just arguing you didn't mean any of that at the same time and that my phrasing as such is somehow a gross mentally ill distortion. Would it be accurate to say they cry, make messes, OR run around in the aisles? Or am I not allowed to use your description unless I swear that they do so normally or in an extremely cute kid way?
"Can anyone tell us where there is a a nice place to eat where we can take our usually well mannered 6 year old and 10 year old?"
Anon... anywhere. Sorry if you were under the impression we were talking about anything but toddlers who were described as anything but. Probably got lost in the scroll.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Anon 10;26am wrote: I just moved to town with my family and a friend told me about this blog as a place to find out what goes on here. We had no idea that kids were not welcome at Radio Maria's restaurant. We have heard good things about it but we won't go there now. My wife doesn't want to go anywhere in the downtown area now with or without our children.
I just read this thread, and one of the points of this whole thing is that there are plenty of places to take kids downtown. Only one person on this thread says s/he doesn't feel welcome downtown with kids. Heck, there are families with kids living downtown (some of whom have been downtown for years and years.) To listen to the one over the many is poor research, at best; rationalization for fear, at worst. Basically, as far as I can tell, D. Boon had ownership of downtown fifteen years ago. S/He doesn't feel that way now, and s/he is blaming evil developers, the home-grown restaurants and retail shops, and his/her kids for what is, essentially, nothing more than life change. It would have happened even without the evil developers or the restaurants/shops. Boston is a very different place now from when I went to school there. I don't blame the developers or restaurant owners for changing something I loved, nor do I blame my kids for making me feel less comfortable in parts of Boston I used to "own." If cities don't change and grow, they change and die. There's no such thing as status quo in a city.
Downtown has the largest collection of non-chain restaurants and stores in town. To advocate not supporting them because it's not the place one person on this thread knew and played in fifteen years ago is self-destructive.
By the way, we've taken our children all over downtown. Bacaro's has made mac and cheese for our kids (off-menu), Gould's brunch is full of kids, Radio Maria has high chairs. And unlike Chuck E Cheese, not one is a chain.
I would love to hear what the anon experiences when he/she takes the 6 and 10 year old downtown to the restaurants. Good luck!
Glock - you might want to review the use of commas in a sentence. They actually separate ideas. So when a kid cries, makes a rice mess, or runs down an aisle that doesn't mean he or she is doing all three at the same time. I thought that was pretty obvious.
Families are not welcome downtown. Go down there tonight and check it out. Let me know how many kids you see or, better yet, parents with kids in tow. Come on, we all know they aren't the point.
And Gould's is great for brunch. Just bring the credit card. A family of four will easily approach $100. Pretty expensive breakfast, eh?
Cheers!
Original statement:
At a restaurant like the ultra-unhip El Toro the patrons and staff will entertain my child, and are completely understanding about crying, little rice messes, or the occasional running down the aisles.
Interpretative statement:
Not to mention you started off with a pretty common pet peeve of what you described as crying children running up and down aisles in a nice restaurant... a pet peeve common everywhere, not just in our little downtown.
Complete not the same thing.
Boon... Sorry my wording made it sound like it was all at the same time. I should have phrased it better so that they didn't do all of the above at the same time but do all of it at different times. When you start telling me you weren't talking about crying children at all though I suddenly had no idea what the heck you were trying to say.
xian... the interpretative statement was what Radio Maria staff and patrons should be expected to put up with. It wasn't some attempt to paraphrase that sentence, it was a comment about the claim made as a whole. One that apparently wasn't quite accurate as my wording, referring to both happening, sounds more like both happening at the exact same time in unison. Now that I have a clear answer about the complaint about my wording, I feel far less confused on what the complaint was.
Doesn't seem to matter at this point, though. We've beat this zombie thread to death. For some, such behavior, even done individually, can be really obnoxious and is often avoidable... others seem to think that it falls more in line with something that's "cute" and something kids do, so others should be okay with it, and if not they're the ones with the problem. It seems that the differences in this opinion have been pushed and pulled in every which way with some more moderate opinions in between. I'll happily leave this thread to rest-in-peace. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed