Harper Court Area (Harper and 52nd and city parking lot) redevelopment question, from mid 2007>
This is the home page for the question. Cache pages, listed following, have with much about the players, background and evolving residents' views.

This page is provided as a resource and record by the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference, its Preservation-Development-Zoning Committee, and its website, www.hydepark.org. Join the Conference, support our work.

Page index. Locator Map. Two Hyde Park plg. experts put HC in larger context. July 14 important meeting.
Survey results online.RFP process from Feb. 26 meeting. About the HPKCC Development Committee; what else is in play? Draft RFP guidelines and committee proposed revision in separate page. To 53rd St. context page. Development home.
Shortcut to March 08 Reporter on Harper guidelines, survey in this page

Next community meetings on Harper Court Sept. 8, 7 pm, Kenwood Academy.

http://www.vision53.org/12.html or text-only here. Proposed revisions by TIF Plg. are in this page. Here or in own page HPKCC comments on original draft. ALL COMMENTS ON DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR HARPER AREA RFP:
http://www.vision53.org/index.html.

Previous 1 (Jan 2003-Nov 2005-March 2006). Previous 2 (March-June 2006 incl. Forums). Previous 3 (mid 2006-mid/late 2007)

Continue with Harper Court Papers-ideas and principles and HPKCC and Harper Court and **special issue May 2006 Conference Reporter (Harper Court forums reports, data) - PDF version. Winter 2006 Conference Reporter has more
Visit Harper Court Story- background and history and Harper Court Chess Controversy.
Visit the Letter of the Save Harper Court group, with contacts, petition. Also:
Harper Theater RFP guidelines (model). Development navigation homepage. Business Climate and District Development page with community views. TIF News home. 2000 Vision for the Hyde Park Retail District study. Newest - 53rd Street Vision and News page.
Summary document of previous public input and studies Priorities for Harper Court.
To reports on February 26 2008 mtg. on Harper Court RFP process.
Final Results of the Harper Court Priorities Survey (HPKCC & TIF comm.) in hydepark.org/survey.

Other websites:Harper Court/ and Harper Court Foundation /with Harper Court Arts Council, and Community Art Fair
Vision process, was in SECC website. http://www.hydeparkchicago.org/3.html. Now up in
http://www.vision53.org/
***Also up in those 2 sites: Harper Court Area Redevelopment Guidelines for RFQ/RFP- comments can be sent to ccs@ccstudio.com.
Sample possible physical rendering- up in http://www.romerocook.com.
You can join a group of neighbors with a list serve: harpercourt@googlegroups.com admin. Jay Mulberry.

Shortcut to Harper Court's statement of RFP Guidelines. Shortcut to Jack Spicer on
Comment on Harper Court's future, development or management of its assets to HPKCC President George Rumsey, and hpkcc@aol.com as Chicago Consultants Studio Inc. at ccs@ccstudioinc.com.

Here: (Shortcuts to Harper Court's Guiding Principles, July 10. Report on that meeting's extended discussion of Harper Court.) To Guidelines and Committee proposed revision in separate page.
To HPKCC letter of concerns to President Zimmer and Alderman Preckwinkle June 30 2008. (Here)

Meetings -

View Guidelines: http://www.vision53.org/12.html. Text here

 

Next TIF meeting is scheduled for Monday, September 8, 7 pm at Kenwood Academy, 5015 S. Blackstone.

Reports and documents on the February 26 community forum on Harper Court RFP process and timeline below.

The Harper Court Priorities Web Survey has closed. Preliminary results below and in the March 2008 Conference Reporter.

Thanks to everyone who participated and worked on it! Over 1600 responses at last released count. Over 56 pages of single-spaced comments!

March 10 TIF Advisory Council heard

1. Update from joint TIF Neighborhood & Business Environment& HPKCC
Development Committee on survey and development process - Jane Comiskey,
Co-Chair TIF Neighborhood & Business Environment & George Rumsey, President
of HPKCC

2. 53rd St. Vision Workshop; distribution of Draft 53rd St. Workshop
Report & discussion of next steps in planning process for 53d St. - Irene
Sherr, Community Counsel - consultant to SECC and 53rd St. TIF Council

Hyde Park Herald, March 19, 2008. By Sam Cholke

53rd St. dominates March TIF meeting

The 3rd Street TIF advisory council meeting on March 10 proved anticlimactic for those who anticipated a breakthrough on redevelopment of Harper Court.

George Rumsey, president of the Hyde Park Kenwood community Conference, presented the initial results of a survey about how people want to see Harper Court redeveloped. The survey is a joint effort of the TIF council and HPKCC. Rumsey said the council has been getting about 00 responses a day and that slightly more since it put a link up on the social networking Web sit Facebook.com. There were more than 1,600 responses to the survey as of March 10, he said. The survey will be available until Thursday at hydepark.org/survey.

"Passing out results of the survey now could skew it," said Irene Sherr of Community Counsel, a local planning and development consulting firm. Rumsey contended that the results compiled so far were too general to dramatically alter the final data.

Half of the responses were from people ages 19 to 39, with ages 19-29 and 30-39 each accounting for about 25 percent of the total. Seventy percent identified themselves as white. "African American results doubled in the last week," Rumsey said. Eighteen percent of respondents identified themselves as African American or Black, according to Rumsey's preliminary results.

"People are really making use of the comment box," Rumsey said. Rumsey said he has 56 single-spaced pages of comments so far to go through. A lot of people say they want more businesses in the neighborhood that are open ate 9 p.m.--and that's not just coming from the younger respondents, it's across the board, he said.

Sherr next presented the draft report analyzing the poll results at the Dec. 8 53rd Street Vision Workshop. There was a tremendous amount of consensus in the results, Sherr said. Diversity of the community ranked very high, she said. "The element is something that comes up all the time when we talk about development," Sherr said. "What does that really mean if we want to have more retail and housing?"

Sherr said another obvious trend that arose in the polling was the desire to see 53rd Street treated like the main street of t he community. The draft report is available online at vision53.org.

A follow-up workshop will attempt to address the questions raised by the draft report. The workshop will be held from 9 a.m. to noon May 3 at Kenwood Academy, 5015 E. Blackstone Ave., Sherr confirmed Friday. Top

April 9, Wednesday, 7 pm.- community showing and comment, renderings of physical visions of what Harper Court and City Lot could look like and work. Hyde Park Neighborhood Club, 5480 S. Kenwood. View one set of concepts at http://www.romerocook.com/hc.html. Others are expected to give their ideas.

Harper Court survey designs on tap for April 9 HP-K conference meeting

Hyde Park Herald, April 2, 2008. By Kate Hawley

The results of the Harper Court survey are in, and some of them will be revealed at the April 9 meeting of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference. The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. at the Hyde Park Neighborhood Club, 5480 S. Kenwood Ave.

A broad array of community groups created the survey, which was meant to find out what kind of redevelopment local people want for the Harper Court shopping center, located on Harper Avenue between 52nd and 53rd streets. While a full analysis will take longer to develop, "preliminary results" will be announced April 9, said George Rumsey, conference president.

The survey circulated for a little more than a month, and in that time 1,697 people participated, according to Rumsey. "There are some very clear statement that came out of the survey," he said..

The most important issue of 73 percent of the participants: the development that replaces Harper Court should provide "well-lit ambience at night," Rumsey said.

Also on the agenda for the meeting: local planner Aaron Cook will again show his proposed designs for Harper Court. Cook's designs are meant to stimulate discussion in the community about what kind of development would best suit Harper Court, according to Jack Spicer, a member of the conference's Development Committee.

A developer hasn't yet been chosen for Harper Court. The city, which owns the parking lot adjacent to the shopping center, will issue a Request for Proposals for t he project, though no timetable has been set.


From the March 2008 (Vol. 14, No. 1) Conference Reporter on Harper Guidelines, Survey

The Conference in Action: HPKCC and 53rd Street TIF Survey Priorities for Harper RFP

by George W. Rumsey

As a followup to the very successful December 8 53rd Street Vision Workshop, the HPKCC Development Committee held a meeting on December 19 to explore other concerns about the retail development in Hyde Park. With the idea that the long-expected Harper Court "request for proposals" (RFP) might be brought before the January TIF meeting, members of the Development Committee felt it was time again to move Harper Court to the head of the list of concerns.

As it turned out, the RFP was not ready in January, but Alderman Toni Preckwinkle used the opportunity to request that the HPKCC Development Committee (chaired by Gary Ossewaarde) and the Neighborhood & Business Committee of he TIF assess the community's concerns for the forthcoming RFP.

At a large planning meeting on January 23, the two committees developed plans to conduct an online survey of community priorities for the redevelopment of Harper Court. A working group comprise od Trish Morse and Gary Ossewaarde (HPKCC) and Charles Newsome (TIF) agreed to review the large volume of documentation on Harper Court, and synthesize the results into a questionnaire framework.

The wording and order was discussed at length at a followup meeting on February 4. An overview group of Jane Comiskey, Irene Sherr, Pat Wilcoxen, and George Rumsey finalized and tested the questions, before launching the survey on February 23. To date, 1,688 respondents have taken the survey.

Survey participants were asked to rate each question on a scale of 5 (Very important) to 1 (Not important):

Redevelopment Goals for Harper Court:
1. Help create a gateway to 53rd Street business district
2. Relate to neighboring buildings through orientation and scale
3. Create a "destination" with appeal to diverse interests
4. Promote environmentally friendly principles (e.g., rooftop gardens, green technology, trees)

Development Components:
5 Retail (apparel)
6. Retail - other (for example, home furnishings, gifts, galleries, craft shops)
7. Restaurants (for example, sidewalk cafes, bakery, ethnic restaurants)
8. Hotel
9. Movie theatre
10 Performance space (for example, a resident theater group, music)
11. Bars and clubs
12. Public space for community events like Farmer's Markets
13. Office space for small businesses and professional services
14. Residential: condo or rental
15. Affordable and/or senior housing
16. Recreation (for example, health clubs, swimming pools, family activities)

Urban Design:
17. Make the landscaping welcoming, with trees, seating, flowers
18. Strengthen the pedestrian character of 53rd Street
19. Provide well-lit ambiance at night

Access, Circulation, and parking:
20. Multilevel parking garage to serve Harper Court and the Hyde Park business district
21. Accessible day and night, with improved transit and handicapped access
22. Planned and separated access for service vehicles and delivery

Public Comment on Proposed Development:
23. City should share evaluation criteria with community for review and comment
24. Selected developer finalists should present possible plans for community input and reaction

The Harper Court Original Mission:
25. The Harper Court Arts Council should use the proceeds from the sale of Harper Court to support the creation of affordable space for startup businesses, artisans, cooperative art galleries, etc.
26. Current tenants in Harper Court should be helped to stay in business.

Several document were used to create the survey:

1. "Guiding Principles to be Incorporated into RFP," July 10, 2006, Harper Court Arts Council.
2. "Harper Court Forum: Ideas and Principles," April 25, 2006, HPKCC Community Meeting.
3. PowerPoint presentation of the development of the 53rd and Harper University property, January 9, 2006, University of Chicago and SECC.
4. "A Vision for the Hyde Park Retail District, March 2000," Skidmore, Owings, & Merrill.
5. "Design Guidelines for Commercial, Industrial, and Mixed-Use Buildings," City of Chicago.
6. www.vision53.org (polling results of the 53rd Street Vision Workshop, December, 2007).

A mid-point report was presented to the March 10 TIF meeting, with a full report to be provided in the net HPKCC Reporter, online at hydepark.org, and at a future TIF meeting.

Part 2 from the March 2008 Conference Reporter:
Community Learns About, Queries RFP Process for Harper Court

By Gary Ossewaarde

On February 26, th HPKCC Development Committee and the 53rd sTreet TIF Business and Neighborhood Environment Committee (chairs Andre Brumfield and Jane Comiskey) convened a community meeting at the Neighborhood Club to learn about and discuss the anticipated Request for Proposals process for Harper Court. George Rumsey, HPKCC President, moderated. James Wilson, 4th Ward Project Manager in the Chicago Department of Planning and Development, presented. Answering questions with Wilson were Alderman Toni Preckwinkle (4th); Howard Males, TIF Advisory Council Chair; and Irene Sherr, Community Counsel, counsel to the TIF.

The meeting followed a series of joint planning meetings (outlined in a handout) which also produced a Community Survey on Harper Court Priorities announced at the meeting (on line at www.hydepark.org/survey) and is also part of o larger community input process on 53rd Street and business district visioning and planning process (information available at www.vision53.org and in www.hydepark.org.)

A two-part Request for Proposals (RFP) for Harper Court and the City Parking Lot at 53rd and Lake Park and likely to last up to a year is likely to be inaugurated at the May 12 TIF Advisory Council meeting. Mr. Wilson and Ald. Preckwinkle said it is their intent to make the process as open and transparent as possible, with opportunity for comment as well as for review. But, the noted, there may be documents, especially in proposals, that are proprietary or involve financial and ability-to-produce and complete the project information that the city has to review in private. Wilson noted that RFP review is th most transparent process the city has. This RFP will be tailored to allow the community to help shape the guidelines and requirements given potential developers. Finalists will be required to present their proposals to the community. Many, and occasionally all, proposals have been rejected in RFP processes.

An RFP is a legislative process whereby a qualified development team is chosen through competition. The Department of Planning controls the process, consulting with or through local aldermen. The selection and planned development must be approved by the Community Development Commission and City Council.

Because of the size an complexity of this project, potential developers wil be gauged and winnowed in two stages. Part of the complexity, Wilson said, is due to the mixed-use nature, this community's sense of identity, historical character, and standards, and some due to goals, especially to enhance the pedestrian character and friendliness of the area, melding with transportation and access, and the combining of public and private land. The first stage, request for qualifications, will mainly judge proof of financial ability and experience to conduct and complete this project. The second stage is also aimed at what fits best for this development and community.

The development framework for RFPs

Community Q an A

Where are the initial points for public input? Ideas for criteria should go to the TIF or Alderman Preckwinkle's office now. The Survey data will also be submitted. As the RFP is prepared, the department will come to the TIF with proposed criteria. Wilson would check with city legal as to whether and how much of the RFP document could be available for view and comment before being issued. The alderman agreed there will be a 30 day comment period as with the Harper Theater. a generic or sample RFP will be provided and posted on line.

Criteria suggested included Minority and Women participation, an affordable housing component, and accessibility, all assured as mandatory components.

How will zoning changes be addressed? Criteria such as height and coverage will be specified, likely using existing limits. RFP does not morph a project to suit a proposal outside the criteria.

How will the private property part be incorporated into the RFP and controlled by its criteria? The legal department is working on this; a memorandum of agreement will be needed. Review at the various stages will have to be done jointly by the owners.

How strict will the guidelines on materials, architecture and of the quality standards be? Very. Much of this is specified in state law.

Are responses likely? Yes, several developers have already met with the city.

When will responses be made available? When there are finalists and only such material as the finalist will make available in a presentation. Audience members insisted that as much as possible to guide preference be made available, including ahead, online.

Who would control the current public and private property once selection is made and a sale concluded? The chosen developer would control all the property, privately.

Top

 

At the July 14 TIF meeting

At the July 14 TIF meeting, TIF Plg. and Dev. Chair Chuck Thurow expanded upon and pushed his committee's strengthening revisions (after a May meeting) to the draft guidelines for Harper Court Area RFQ/RFP. There was general approval from the audience. Tim Brangle of Chicago Consultants Studio echoed these high standards and Hyde Park-consistent principles-- as did also presentation from the UC Student Committee on Retail. Timetable indicated below continues on track.

From the July 14 TIF meeting

July 14 2008 TIF meeting saw much-
1. Roll out of Village Center proposal to enthusiasm(see Antheus page-open Committee to review August 18);
2. Reports on Harper Court Area updates:

At the July 14 TIF meeting, TIF Plg. and Dev. Chair Chuck Thurow expanded upon and pushed his committee's strengthening revisions (after a May meeting) to the draft guidelines for Harper Court Area RFQ/RFP. There was general approval from the audience. Tim Brangle of Chicago Consultants Studio echoed these high standards and Hyde Park-consistent principles-- as did also presentation from the UC Student Committee on Retail. Timetable indicated below continues on track.
3. Reports on other developments/upgrades (Giordano's to keep historic facade on Blackstone s. of 53rd while remodeling and going up a floor-looked attractive; new cafe planned for old HP Produce)
No report on 53rd Theater/Herald (Susan Campbell of UC had a death in the family)
4. UC Student Retail Committee reported on needs and structural, other barriers to drawing students to business districts, esp. 53rd.

Publications point to likely retail devel, possibly a national anchor in Hyde Park.

Real estate publications, study have recently (mid 2008) spotlighted HP retail development prospects, including for a national anchor. Does this point to a possible "other road" the University may be pursuing along side the public process? Neighborhood's diversity cited as a key asset and its dollar leakage as inviting development. (See Antheus page article on Village Center for discussion of another key element--enough space to draw in a set of different retail venues.)

Herald, July 16, 2008

Two recently published reports suggest Hyde Park is poised to experience a spate of retail development and consider the conditions the neighborhood requires to fuel that possibility. Pointing to the University of Chicago's recent real estate acquisitions along 53rd Street, the Illinois Real Estate Journal suggests that one key component to a resurgence of the retail strip--a national retail anchor--is much more likely to emerge.

Meanwhile, an unrelated study by DePaul University's Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development reveals that the neighborhood's diversity is an important element for drawing businesses here.

The Illinois Real Estate Journal quotes Barry Schain, principal of Next Realty, as seeing a large anchor tenant in the neighborhood "within reach" given the university's ownership of the Harper Theater and Herald Building on the northwest corner of 53rd Street and Harper Avenue and its recent purchases of Harper Court on the nearby parcel between 52nd and 53rd streets on Harper Avenue.

The article also points to significant "leakage," meaning residents shopping outside of the neighborhood, as a sure sign of potential new retail development. The article identified $37.32 million in home improvement leakage, and $17.13 and $.16 million in apparel and grocery leakage, respectfully.

The Chaddick Institute study, after describing diversity as "an important business development tool," identified Hyde Park as the third most diverse neighborhood in Chicago and the most diverse in terms of diversity of income.

While exploring the possibilities for Hyde Park's retail future, the Illinois Real Estate Journal cautioned those looking to the possible 2016 Olympic bid as a retail draw. "What people should be considering is, is this the potential home for the Barack Obama Presidential Library in four years? " David Baum, principal of Baum Realty Group LLC, told the journal. "Real estate is something that has to be used 365 days a year - you don't sign a 20-year leases [for the period when the Olympics will be in town]."

Until recently, Baum was the developer for the university's property on the northwest corner of 53rd Street. Baum told the journal that their unsuccessful efforts to land the kind of tenants the university is after reflect shaky retail economy. "It's certainly indicative of the market on some level," Baum said. "There are a lot of people not ready to pull the trigger. We're getting deals done, but [tenants] are more guarded right now."

Baum also said the university had contracted with him to have a certain percentage of the tenants sighed within a time frame and opted out when that goal was not met.

....all eyes appear to be on te neighborhood, ready for signs of a retail resurgence.

Top


The context is now much wider. Since the workshop the University bought Harper Court and will lead the process with Chicago Consultants Studio and indicated it is considering a wider footprint incl. via purchases adjacent to Harper Court and elsewhere along 53rd, is considering an institutional presence via student housing and back-office, and that the Harper Theater project is stalled.

University of Chicago buys Harper Court; jointly announced at May 12 TIF meeting that the two-part request for qualifications/request for proposals will go forward. Farmer's Market continues this year.
To University statements. See details from the May 12 TIF meeting.

Meanwhile, Harper Court Arts Council has announced board expansion and bylaws reform, and Director Leslie Morgan has left.

One month comment period for Guidelines for Harper Court-city lot went online May 12-June 30 at http://www.vision53.org/12.html. Receiver was ccs@ccstudioinc.org. TIF Planning and Development subcommittee meet to take and review comments May 27, resulting in a proposed, stronger revision by the Chairman that may surface at the July 14 TIF meeting.

HPKCC Development Committee met June 18 and subsequently drafted a letter of serious concern that the process may be derailed with UC purchase of HC and firing of its Theater/Herald developmer. Letter is here and in its own page. See report of the June 18 meeting.

Next steps: UC, city, consultants get appraisal for city lot part, prepare RFQ/RFP in accord with previous input such as 53 Vision, Survey, more and comments on Guidelines (post June 12) for issuance in late fall (after Nov. 15 vision workshop III). After receipt and narrowing of proposals, the leaders will present and selection made in spring 2009.

It came as quite a surprise to many at the May 12, 2008 TIF meeting that the University had closed with Harper Court Arts Council for $6.5 million (city appraised value), perhaps more than a month before. The University and city department of planning and development were now working with Chicago Consultants Studio, Inc. to get the necessary appraisals, create an inter party agreement, and start the process of preparing RFQ/RFP text. They said because the clock starts ticking on land values, it was necessary to complete public review and comments on general guidelines for what should be the RFP quickly, between May 12 and June 12. The presentation summarized below and online was given, with means to make comments. In looking at them, some felt privately that the objectives were (necessarily?) general and even buzz-word--(in fact they were largely from the Harper Theater RFP and The SOM 2000 Vision for the Hyde Park Retail District), but most thought that what is there is good--some saying after that they would have to be carefully parsed.

A couple of items were thought not included despite frequent mention at public meetings and in the Survey, namely keeping a part of the original mission re: incubating start-up small businesses and artisans, need for a community center, including intervening and opportunity parcels, as well as concern over tightness of parts of the timetable and that decisions will be set before the November 15 block-building exercise. It also looks as if the full emphasis is on upscale retail while the housing component is to be for diverse income levels.

It was noted by one that it is unclear that HCAC has a right to to hold or sell the public-purpose shopping center est. c. 1965 to further an original purpose, to shelter artisans and incubate small businesses and the arts. (The University was mentioned in the charter as a possible successor to the Foundation; on the other hand it had members on the Arts Council Board and is a different kind of nonprofit. The University said it would its new position to facilitate new spaces for current tenants.)

Noted after or since the meeting: Some are uncomfortable with the models for redevelopment held up for redevelopment of Harper Court and 53rd Street: Delmar at Washington University in St. Louis, redevelopment at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lake Street at the Oak Park/River Forest Illinois transit interchange (some saying the redevelopment to the east of the latter is more in line and scale.)


Top

Herald coverage, May 14, 2008 By Sam Cholke

The University of Chicago announced Monday it has acquired the Harper Court for $6.5 million, close to two years after the university made its first attempt to purchase the 53rd Street shopping center. "The deal is done," said Bob Rosenberg, a spokesman for the university. Rosenberg said he did not know how long the purchase had been in the works but it had begun over a month ago.

The purchase was announced Monday night at the 53rd state Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District advisory council meeting. James Wilson from the Chicago Planning and Development Department said the parcel would include the adjoining parking lot, but the coupling of the tow lots was not yet finalized and the city was awaiting an appraisal of the parking lot parcel.

The University has no plans for the shopping center in the immediate future beyond preparing for the city-mandated development process, Rosenberg said. The university has had individual discussions with current business owners at Harper Court and plan to extend what are for most month-to-month leases through 2008, he said.

Alderman Toni Preckwinkle (4gh) characterized the sale as a "positive development." she said she had been in dialogue with the university for some time concerning their intention to purchase Harper Court. "The Arts council, made up of our friends and neighbors, was having difficulty figuring out what to do with the property," Preckwinkle said. The previous owner of Harper Court, the Harper Court Arts Council, had delayed the sale of the property after the Illinois Attorney General's office became inclined to look into the legality of the transfer of the 40-year-old shopping center from the Harper Court Foundation to the arts Council in December 2005. The Attorney General's office has said it will not pursue criminal charges in the transfer, but has suggested organizational changes. Most recently, lawyer Jorge Sanchez expressed concern that the 501(c)3 nonprofit Harper Court Foundation did not follow accepted practices for dissolving its board when it transferred ownership of the property to the arts Council, a board helmed by many of the same board members as the Harper Court Foundation.

The alderman said after the meeting that she thought more people would be upset by the surprise transfer. I'm still letting it sink in, said George Rumsey, president of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (HPKCC).

The university has contracted with the Chicago Consultants Studio to develop the request for qualifications and requests for proposals (RFP) from developers with the city's Planning and Development Department. The university worked with the downtown firm on the RFP for Harper Theatre, at the corner of Harper Avenue and 53rd Street.

Tim Brangle with Chicago Consultants Studio presented initial guidelines compiled from the Dec. 8 53rd Street Vision Workshop, the HP-K CC survey and other sources at the TIF meeting. Brangle said expectations for the development included retail space in mixed-use buildings and a height limit comparable to the Hyde Park Bank across 53rd Street. The initial briefing used to guide drafting the RFP is available on the Website hydeparkchicago.org and will be made available on vision 53.org in coming days. The public comment period on the document will be from May 12 to June 12. Chuck Thurow will be collecting comments at the f5:30 p.m. May 27 meeting of the 53rd Street Planning and Development committee at the Hyde Park Art Center. Comments can also be e-mailed to ccs@ccstudioinc.com.

Susan Campbell, vice president of community affair at the university, said they hope to issue the request for qualifications in the fall. Campbell assured attendees at the TIF meeting that public comment periods would come at every turn in the in the development process.

Rosenberg said it as "not entirely clear" what the university's expectations would be on a return for their $6.5 million investment. The university's priority is to facilitate a vibrant and livable environment for its students, faculty and neighbors, he said. "Ideally, this project can create something that is reflective of the distinctive nature of Hyde Park and something that represents the best of Chicago's mid-South Side," university President Robert Zimmer said in a prepared statement.

Top

Distributed at the May 12 TIF meeting re Harper Court:

Full Summary Report of the Harper Court Priorities Survey 2008 (includes all comments submitted)
Neighborhood and Business Environment Committee of the 53rd Street TIF Advisory Council and The Planning, Zoning, and Development Committee of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference.
To Alderman Preckwinkle, the TIF Chair Howard Males and to the Department of Planning and Development/Chicago Consultants Studio teams. And online and printable at http://www.hydepark.org/survey.

Summary Report and overview (6 pages) Online in pdf and printable at http://www.hydepark.org/survey.

Follow-up to December 53rd Street Vision Workshop Irene Sherr of Community Counsel. Below and in http://www.hydepark.org/survey. Note that these essentially correspond to list of key conclusions from the December 8 Vision Workshop voting prepared by Irene Sherr of Community Counsel.

[Guidelines for Harper Court Area RFQ/RFP] Heart of Hyde Park. TIF Advisory Council. Harper Court Area Redevelopment Briefing, City of Chicago-University of Chicago. Prepared by the Chicago Consultants Studio, Inc. May 12, 2008. Summarized below; online in pdf at http://www.vision53.org/12.html.

 

Follow-up to December 53rd Street Vision Workshop: numbers = top ten vote-getters in the Harper Court Priorities Survey. Can be viewed and printed from http://www.hydepark.org/survey.

Busy and active, with lots of shopping, dining, entertainment choices

1. Well-lit night-time ambiance

2. Restaurants

Attractive and inviting

4. Welcoming landscaping

5. Destination, appeal to diversity

Green

10. Environmentally friendly

Convenient and easy to get around

3. Stronger pedestrian character

9. Day and night access

Community input

6. Public presentations by developers

7. Community review and feedback

Top

The full document of which the text is below is in http://www.vision53.org/12html and text only also is in a separate page.

Text of the Guidelines to be commented on by June 12 2008

Original by Chicago Consultants Studio, Inc.

Heart of Hyde Park
TIF Advisory Council

Harper Court Area Redevelopment Briefing

City of Chicago - University of Chicago May 12, 2008

I. Overview
  • Development includes the Harper Court Properties and City Parking Lot
  • Collaboration between th e City, Alderman Preckwinkle and the University of Chicago for broader development opportunity
  • Process is a public RFQ/RFP
  • Focus is to create a neighborhood town center
  • Community input into the RFQ/RFP process

II. Project Orientation

  • Neighborhood Context -Central location serving the neighborhood, the University and the mid-south side communities [conceptual map]
  • Recent Initiatives -Positive development environment for investment [map showing location of redevelopments, maps and pictures of the TIF District. Ongoing Hyde Park TIF District Appreciation. Improvements to 53rd street Streetscape & Cleanslate Program, Park 52 Restaurant, Checkerboard Lounge. Hyde Park Produce, Treasure Island Opening. 53rd Street Workshops]
  • Development Parcels - Assemblage of prime contiguous sites [aerial, the parcels on a structures-outline map, photos]

III. Project Framework

  • Development Objectives
    • Create a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood core to serve the neighborhood, University and city-wide visitors
    • Improve the image and identity of 53rd Street/Harper area as an attractive commercial district
    • Leverage the historic character of the neighborhood
    • Attract a high quality mix of commercial uses, local and national, while offering relocation strategies for existing tenants
    • Increase residential offerings in the neighborhood with a mix of product type an for a range of incomes
    • Feature high quality urban design and architecture commensurate with Hyde Park
    • Establish an accessible, pedestrian-friendly environment through quality landscape, open space and design
    • Provide convenient parking to serve the 53rd Street area
  • Urban Design Components - Elements of a Neighborhood Center, Re-establish a "Heart of Hyde Park"
    • Create a Gateway to 53rd Street District
    • Enhance "Town Center" Space
    • Reinforce 53rd Street as Main Street
    • Reopen/Reconnect Harper Avenue
  • Program Criteria - Unique mix of tenants and residents
    • Retail and Entertainment. A creative mix of retail and entertainment tenants to achieve an active, dynamic urban neighborhood center with increased nighttime activity and destination appeal
    • Residential. Apartment and condominium product, including a 20% affordable housing component, to increase the vitality and vibrancy of the area
    • Other Commercial and Specialty Uses. Potential for quality office space to serve the area or a neighborhood/boutique hotel
    • Open Space and High Quality Urban Design. An important urban amenity and "address" for retailers, residents and visitors with potential for cultural and civic uses/programming
    • Access and Circulation. Convenient circulation to and through the area with proximate parking to promote retail activity
    • Development Range. Overall density range of 2.5 - 3.5 FAR with building heights commensurate with adjacent buildings and context (max Hyde Park Bank Building)
  • Community Input
    • Initial Input contributing to this RFP:
      - 53rd Street workshops where over 325 people from Hyde Park and the Mid-South Side attended (December 8, 2007 & May 3, 2008)
      - Harper Court Survey
      - Comments include:
      -----universal desire for a greater variety of retail options
      -----emphasis on 53rd Street a a primary shopping street with more entertainment, cultural and nighttlife options
      -----encourage mixed-use development with retail on the ground floor and residential of office above
      -----promote and maintain a visually clean and attractive environment
      -----structures should reflect the architectural character of Hyde Park
    • Opportunities for Continued Community Input
      - Presentations/input at TIF Advisory meetings
      - Comments from posting of RFP Draft Parameters and guidelines on SECC website
      - Ongoing updates throughout various stages of the RFP process including community presentations Spring 2009
  • Precedents -Examples of quality and character [Delmar Loop, St. Louis; University City, Philadelphia' Oak Park/River Forest

  • The Process and Milestones
    • Open, public process
    • RFQ followed by RFP
    • High quality developers
    • Full development proposals
    • Community review process
    • Predevelopment process
    • Anticipated timetable
    • DPD Presentation of RFQ/RFP Process and Milestone February 26 2008
    • Public presentation of " Objectives & Parameters @ TIF Advisory Meeting May 12 2008
    • 30-day Public Review and Comment Period [closing] June 12, 2008
    • RFQ/RFP Issuance Fall 2008
    • Proposals Due Early Winter 2009
    • Community Presentations and Developer Selection Spring 2009


Please visit the SECC website where a copy of this presentation will be posted for the 30-day Public Review Period. www.hydeparkchicago.org. [http://www.vision53.org]

Forward your comments and input to: ccs@ccstudioinc.com.

     

Top

Note: In response to a query about scale and height RFP specifications, Tim Brangle of Chicago Consultants Studio writes:

With regards to density and heights, the RFP will stipulate that proposals respond to and be in concert with the context, which suggests that the various "sides" of the site will generally be varied in response to adjacent context. Additionally, further designations such as the 53rd street
"pedestrian street" will help establish controls for the size and scale
along this corridor.

The RFP will also require compliance with the City standards with respect to
LEED and green requirements.

Revised Guideline proposed by TIF Planning and Development Chair Chuck Thurow pursuant to May 27 open meeting of c35 people. See it separate (with the original draft).
View all comments submitted: http://www.vision53.org/index.html.

From the tone of Thurow's email and email by TIF Chair Howard Males, it seems likely that ( short of other ideas from the city or UC) this will be submitted with recommendation to be the final Guideline at the July 14 TIF meeting. GO

Here are my conclusions and recommendations from our May 27th meeting:

TIF Advisory Council
Planning and Development Subcommittee

May 27, 2008 at the Hyde Park Art Center

Approximately thirty-five people attended the meeting to discuss the outline of the RFQ and RFP fr the Harper Court Area Redevelopment. The TIF Advisory Council was represented by Chuck Thurow , chair of the committee, and Toni McAllister. The meeting concentrated on the Development Objectives and the Program Criteria within presentation “Harper Court Area Redevelopment Briefing.” Everyone understood why this document was very general, but there was general consensus that it lack any distinct feel or challenge to the developers that would encourage them to be imaginative and be responsive to the specific neighborhood rather than giving generic responses.

The following suggestions are an attempt to embody our discussion in the criteria. In addition, I have added some commentary to explain the changes.

Development Criteria

· Create a vibrant mixed-use neighborhood core that would be recognized as a model of diversity and inclusion as it served the neighborhood, University and city-wide visitors.

There was considerable discussion of wanting to keep Hyde Park ’s unique history of being multi-racial and an economically-mixed neighborhood. This change also reflects the interest in proactively encouraging the developers to do their best and most innovative with key social issues.

· Improve the image and identity of 53rd Street /Harper area as an active, attractive, and street-oriented commercial district.

This change came from interest in having the development oriented to the street and to avoid the style of development, such as Water Tower Place , that is focused on an internal mall concept.

· Attract a high quality mix of commercial uses, local and national, that reflected the tastes, incomes, and needs of not only immediate neighbors but surrounding communities, while assuring effective relocation strategies for existing tenants and opening possibilities for new, locally-generated businesses.

This change directly relates to the first item above: the businesses selection should encourage a diverse clientele to use the development so that it was providing goods of interest to a broad income mix. There was strong appreciation for some of the current businesses in Harper Court so we wanted to strengthen the relocation statement. Also there was interest in the idea of opening up some possibilities for residents who want to become entrepreneurs.

· Feature high quality urban design and architecture that not only is respectful of the architectural context, but also continues Hyde Park ’s traditions of uniqueness and innovation.

Much to the surprise of the Chair, the desire for uniqueness did not come from him but from members of the group and was supported generally by group. The commentaries were mainly on how many developer will find a successful design for Naples , FL and then just reuse it everywhere he or she does a development. The desire is to encourage them to think about Hyde Park ’s architecture heritage and be challenged to live up to it.

· Establish an accessible, pedestrian-friendly environment that, in particular, can be a model of effective handicap accessibility through quality streetscape, open space and design.

Here again the idea is to go beyond simply the expected or the required and ask the developer to really think about handicapped accessibility and use innovations that might become tomorrow’s standards.

· Provide adequate parking to serve the development and the 53rd Street area and work with local and city officials to strengthen the transportation options especially from the surrounding neighborhoods.

The Chair was startled to find himself the only voice for less parking. He was vastly overruled by the rest of the group. However, there was agreement that the public transportation options should be highlighted and be a consideration of how public transportation links to surrounding neighborhoods could enhance the development as a destination for a larger south side.

Program Criteria

Most of the commentary above relates to the recommended changes in the development criteria above.

· Retail and Entertainment

A creative mix of retail and entertainment tenants to achieve an active, diverse, dynamic urban neighborhood with increased daytime and nighttime activity and a destination appeal that builds and complements that strong cultural destinations already present in the neighborhood.

Besides the diversity and inclusion discussed earlier, a very good point was made that there are high destinations, such as the Museum of Science and Industry, the Robie House, and the Hyde Park Art Center , and the development should try to capture people who are already aware of the area. The Chair has to admit that he added the Hyde. It was not one of the examples given by the group.

· Residential

Apartment and condominium product, including a 20% affordable housing component, to increase the vitality and vibrancy of the area. If possible, that range should expand on the typical income levels considered affordable and nontraditional housing types such as work/live.

Most of the discussion emphasized income distribution and housing, but there was also mention of the original intent of Harper Court to replace the artist housing that was lost by urban renewal. The idea of work/live or artist space came from that latter notion.

· Open Space and High Quality Urban Design

An important urban amenity and “address” for retailers, residents and visitors because of the distinctiveness, quality, and innovation of its design and materials with areas specifically design for cultural and civic uses/programming as well as maintain activated building facades to the streets avoiding the parking pedestal facing the street that is so common in many similar buildings.

The group wanted to strengthen the wording of this program criteria so that it is known that the community wants spaces appropriate for chess and other types of communal gathering. Also there was concern that some developer might think the Borders building with its cheap materials was “high quality design.”

· Access and Circulation

Convenient circulation to and through the area with proximate parking to promote retail activity, adequate service access to assure open streets, and a minimum number of curb cuts to enhance pedestrian movement.

These additions are probably self-explanatory.

· Development Range

Overall density range of 2.5-3.5 FAR with building heights appropriate to the context of east Hyde Park.

There seemed to be general agreement at the meeting that this was an appropriate site for high-rise development similar to the buildings east of the tracks; although there was also concern that wind generation and the canyon effect be avoided. The height of the bank should not be a limiting factor.

Chuck Thurow
Executive Director Hyde Park Art Center
5020 S. Cornell
Chicago, IL 60615
phone: 773/324-5520 x. 1001
fax: 773/324-6641
e-mail: cthurow@hydeparkart.org

Top

TIF Plg. and Dev. Committee (chair Chuck Thurow) met May 27 2008 and beefed up the May 12 guidelines

See the results immediately above. (This writer predicts that likely to be controversial - from opposite sides - will be the very last item). Below are reports on the meeting. First by Gary Ossewaarde, then from the Herald.

Report on May 27 Harper Court Area RFP Guidelines
consideration by the TIF Planning-Development Subcommittee

Report by Gary Ossewaarde, HPKCC Vice President and Development Committee Chair

The main object of this report is to relate those proposals for changes and additions that had general consensus, partial consensus, or were raised) to inform the HPKCC Board of Directors in preparing its comments on the Guidelines, and the community. (Not raised: green/LEEDS.) Special attention is suggested to the recommendations at the end of Objectives and of Criteria.

The meeting was convened by Chuck Thurow, chairman, at 6:45 at the Hyde Park Art Center. 30 or more attended, including a good cross section of persons and organizations who have been engaged in Harper Court and 53rd Street development issues. Distributed: copies of Heart of Hyde Park TIF Advisory Council Harper Court Area Redevelopment Briefing-City of Chicago – University of Chicago (draft Guidelines) by Chicago Consultant Studios, also distributed at the May 12 TIF meeting.

Purpose was to review the draft guidelines sections 1) Objectives and 2) Program Criteria as part of a process involving lots of public input. Mr. Thurow said that both the meeting recommendations and all the suggestions would be submitted to Chicago Consultant Studios for use in preparing a revised Guideline, possibly to be ready for the July 14 TIF meeting. Participants (members) were encouraged to submit their comments to ccs@ccstudioinc.com before June 12.

A member read an email she received expressing fear that purchase of Harper Court by the University of Chicago makes the RFP process a charade.

Thurow said his information and experience is that the city will control and conduct the process and decisions. This is a single development for the city lot and Harper Court. The request for qualifications will be put out widely; the request for proposal will by invite, and three to five selected finalists will be invited to present publicly with Q and A. Public input will be serious at each step. The city’s interest in setting forth an RFP is to get the best developers to come forward. Therefore, Thurow suggested, specificity, such as ranking of preferred types of businesses or other uses as well as detailed conditions should be avoided in this document but should be refined (including at the November 15 block exercise) and told to the presenting finalists (asked by George Rumsey to be separate from the TIF meeting). He also reported that the University bought Harper Court to resell to a joint developer and would not itself develop or manage the site. He reviewed the goals of the TIF that development is intended to support: Canter School addition, parking solutions, improvements.
Comments on the Objectives section:

Unlike the residential objective, that for retail does not call for diverse retail appealing to a variety of tastes of customers of all income levels.

Proposed provision for current tenants offers only relocation strategies and not right of first refusal.

Space is not mentioned for start up or other services and businesses, including arts and artisan. The original purpose is omitted and so erased—recommended to add a historic purpose bullet.

Provide clearer, more specific guidance than “High quality design, architecture.” No consensus/wording.

The accessible and pedestrian friendly and parking objectives seemed weak, unimaginative, undefined, or leaving out important related objectives or populations.

Recommended changes to the Development Objectives:

(Recommended wording here and in Criteria Recommendations are those of the author.)
Bullet 4, commercial uses. Re-write to include concepts, for example: “Attract a high quality mix of commercial uses, local and national, providing a variety of retail options for a variety of consumer tastes and income levels. Offer existing tenants relocation opportunities and right of refusal and provide strategies/affordable space for start ups and other desirable services and businesses, including arts and artisan which will increase the vibrancy and appeal of the development and shopping district.”

Bullet 6, accessible… Re-write to include concepts, for example: “Establish a model accessible, pedestrian-friendly and handicapped-friendly environment that includes quality streetscape, a variety of open spaces.

Bullet 7, parking. Recommended rewording such as: “Provide adequate parking solutions to serve the 53rd Street area as part of a strategy of creative solutions to development and to 53rd Street access and transportation that includes taking advantage of proximity to good transportation options.”

Add a Bullet 8 referencing the historic public purpose of Harper Court.
Comments on Program Criteria:

Why reference the height of the bank? Could not higher structures be wanted, for example on Lake Park—but not right on 53rd where it could create a canyon effect. Desired specified was a variety of structure types and sizes. Also, creative solutions to infrastructure challenges like BP site (no consensus).

Going beyond a minimum affordability for residential; indicate that provision is expected for all incomes including Section 8 and that voluntarily poor such as an artist colony would not fulfill the affordable requirement. No consensus on a wording change.

State a preference for full life and safety provisions (sprinkle ring). Not state here but in RFP?

Parking—the whole TIF council needs to have/initiate a conversation on what parking, and how much of it , it wants this development for the TIF purpose. The guideline should call attention to not preclude other development and or parking at sites nearby such as south of Hyde Park Bank.

State that “open space” is to include both and greenery community gathering space such as for markets, concerts, and for relaxation such as chess.”

Specify creative solutions for service vehicles, suggesting use of Lake Park the historic auto corridor.
Recommended modifications to Program Criteria:

• Retail and Entertainment. Insert “more” before “tenants.” Add: with walkable public spaces.
• Residential. “Include components of senior and handicapped accessibility.”
• Open Space…Quality Design: include “unique and distinctive.” Open space is to include greenery, spaces for public gatherings and activities, and for spontaneous activities like chess.
• Re-title “Access, Circulation and Pedestrian Character.” Parking – change to “creative solutions to access including increased parking (friendly and hidden); include synergies with transportation, traffic flow, and pedestrian movement. Minimize curb cuts; separate service vehicles.”
• Range. Maybe delete ref. to bank height? Add: “taking into account the surrounding neighborhood, with a variety of structure types and sizes.”

Adjourned about 8:15 pm. Those signed in will receive a report from the chairman.

Respectfully submitted, Gary Ossewaarde

 

Report from the Herald June 4, 2008. By Kate Hawley

Parking, affordable housing and even a place to play chess came up during a wide-ranging discussion las Tuesday evening about what prospective developers should consider in their plan for the Harper Court shopping center. Roughly 30 Hyde Park residents packed a conference room at the Hyde Park Art Center, 5020 S. Cornell Ave. to share their views as part of a public comment period on developer guidelines for the project.

"This is the beginning of a very lengthy public process," said Chuck Thurow, who led the meeting of the 53rd Street TIF Advisory Council's Planning and Development committee. The council advises the alderman and conducts community workshops about development along 53rd Street. ....

The RFQ and th RFP for Harper Court will be issued in the fall. In the meantime, the public is allowed to weigh in on what these documents should include, in a public comment period that says June 12. Tuesday's meeting was a forum for those comments. In addition, comments can be made online [ccs@ccstudioinc.com]. ...

Right off the bat, Judy Roothaan, co-president of the Hyde Park's Older Women's League, read a message from one of her members suggesting that university-sponsored forum on Harper Court were meant to appease the community while forging ahead regardless of its input.

Thurow, who took notes throughout the meeting, pledged the public's comments would be seriously considered and possibly added to a revised draft of the RFQ and RFP. And he chimed in with a criticism of his own: "I don't know why the Hyde Park Bank sets the height limit" for Harper Court's future buildings, he said.

Parking, too, could be "creative," he suggested. He was generally in favor of scaling back parking, given the nexus of mass transit stops nearby. Others, including George Rumsey, president of the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference, argued that creating adequate parking should be a major priority. It's the best way to draw shoppers from outside the neighborhood, added Hyde Park resident Cal Audrain.

While several people said flexibility was important at this stage in order to lure developers savvy to the market, others wished for more stringent guidelines that would ensure a certain mix of affordable housing and businesses. In particular, some thought the document's call for "high-quality urban design," was too vague. I don't want two blocks of buildings that look like Borders," said Pat Wilcoxen,... I want some diversity and uniqueness."

"I think you guys came up with a lot of interesting suggestions," Thurow said, as the meeting came to a close.

A revised version of t he RFQ and RFP, including comments submitted by the June 12 deadline, may possibly be ready by the June 14 TIF council meeting, he said.

Top


HPKCC submitted comments on the original draft Guidelines for Harper Ct. Area RFP late May 2008

View in their own page.

George W. Rumsey
Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference
1525 East 53rd Street, Suite 907
Chicago, IL 60615
Tel (773) 955-4455
http://www.hydepark.org
-------------------------------------------------------------


Chicago Consultants Studio
19 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603

Dear Chicago Consultants Studio:

In June, 2006, the Board of Directors of HPKCC voted to endorse the following six objectives for redevelopment of Harper Court and the adjoining parking lot:

(1) The original mission of Harper Court is still needed today and should be retained.
There are many innovative ways the original mission can be carried forward, assisting local artisans and start-up businesses without hindering a new burst of retail development. How will the Harper Court Arts Council and the University of Chicago be a part of this process?

(2) The current tenants should be “helped” to stay in business during any construction period.
There is a very devoted following for many of the businesses and restaurants currently operating in Harper Court. Any development proposal should include rapid and immediate assistance to these businesses in finding alternative locations within the neighborhood.

(3) Any development must be appropriate for Hyde Park, and should preferably be appealing to a broad spectrum of the neighborhood, a plus would be a "gateway effect" for 53rd Street.

The “historic” nature and “pedestrian” character of 53rd Street should be preserved and enhanced. New development should also seek to become a “destination” for the mid-Southside, appealing to a diverse mix of customers. The recent survey of Harper Court emphasized these concerns, including accessibility (for handicapped and seniors) and diversity.

(4) Any new development should be kept at a height consistent with 53rd Street, generally no higher than 4 stories.
Although taller buildings will probably need to be included in any development mix, the placement of such buildings should not conflict with existing lower buildings in the area, nor create a canyon effect on 53rd Street itself. Height along Lake Park (a transportation corridor) is preferable to height along 53rd.

(5) More adequate parking must be provided.
Convenient parking is not enough. Off-street parking must be of a scale to meet the needs of a successful retail area, and thought should be given to creative parking fees and/or time limits to entice customers to visit and shop. Residential parking must also meet the need.

(6) Public space (such as for chess benches and the summer farmer’s market) is required.
A community or civic area should be provided, where the neighborhood can come together. Such open space should be active, well-lit at night, safe, and easily accessible to all. Welcoming landscaping throughout should be mandatory.

For this project to succeed, it needs to create activity and nightlife along 53rd Street, appeal to students as well as to the broader Southside, be universally accessible, and be built with “architectural design appropriate to the context.”

The University of Chicago is to be commended for recognizing most of these points in its Harper Court Area Redevelopment Briefing. It is also important for the University to explain the “community review process.” Such a process must certainly begin with the TIF Advisory Council, but it needs to extend beyond that group to achieve real community engagement.

At the May 12 TIF meeting, the presenting team for the University made a verbal commitment to engage the community with the Corridor Housing Initiative (building blocks) process in the planning of the Harper Court area. The Conference would certainly applaud this as real community input.

Sincerely,


George W. Rumsey
President
Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference

cc: Alderman Toni Preckwinkle, 4th Ward
Susan Campbell, Associate Vice President for Community Affairs, University of Chicago
Howard Males, Chair, 53rd Street TIF Advisory Council
Chuck Thurow, Planning & Development Chair, 53rd Street TIF Advisory Council
The Editor, Hyde Park Herald

Top

HPKCC Development Committee June 18 meeting report

Report on the HPKCC Development Committee meeting of June 18, 2008
By Gary Ossewaarde, Chairman

The Committee met June 18 6:30 pm at Hyde Park Bank Bldg. Suite 906, Gary Ossewaarde presiding. Present: Jay Ammerman, George Davis, Mark Granfors, Kate Hawley, Judy Hochberg, Jay Mulberry, Gary Ossewaarde, George Rumsey, Vicki Suchovsky, Pat Wilcoxen, and James Withrow.

Reference documents: May 12 2008 Harper Court Area Presentation, HPKCC 6 point Principles for redevelopment of Harper Court (May 27, 2008), Report of the Chairman of the TIF Planning and Development Committee following meeting of May 27, 2008, and a precise of the state of preservation-concerned properties by Jack Spicer.

First agenda item was to see whether we have additional or clarifying comments on the Harper RFP Guidelines process (via Chicago Consultants Studio). We concluded we will not submit additional.

Second agenda item was to evaluate and consider response to a changed development landscape in Hyde Park. Some altered conditions that concerned members were:
• Perception of diminished opportunity for public input and sound planning, and great uncertainty as to outcome, particularly in University-led development, related to:
o increased commercial dominance of the University of Chicago north of 55rd Street, in particular in the future of 53rd Street and adjacent (combined with a lack of confidence in University commercial management competence),
o changed control and possible outcome in redevelopment of Harper Court resulting from University purchase of the Court,
o perceived changed University view and program for development and for its own expansion throughout the neighborhood, some sites affected being Harper/Herald building and IC Hospital;
• A sense that we are going backwards in the quest for more retail and positive retail options, and that there is incrementally less rather than more— and affordable— retail space for pressured businesses including those in spaces slated for redevelopment, evidenced lately by
o Harper Theater/Herald pull back reinforcing a trend towards brown-paper vacancies and emptying out of tenants or tear-down not timed to actual development,
o lease of the OSCO space to an additional bank.

Suggestions relating to University role and keeping spaces full had a broad consensus:
• Tell the University we do not accept a solution for the Theater/Herald buildings that goes back on the general redevelopment strategy of its community-influenced RFP: at least the facade should not be torn down or the site combined with Harper Court. If redevelopment is deferred, spaces should be fixed for re-lease to businesses under pressure/threatened by redevelopment elsewhere, particularly in Harper Court. In general, don’t empty places until you have a plan.
• 53rd Street and adjacent belongs most to the community, which must decide its future. To the extent UC acts away from its core, it should act responsibly, openly, truthfully. How will your plan work as previous haven’t?
• The University needs to fill its vacant spaces. Retail must be increasing: spaces, including ones vacant or not imminently to be developed, need to be full—with businesses needed by this community, able to draw and survive, not with what looks good on a brochure.
Jack Spicer offered several outcomes that we should insist upon from and in redevelopment in Hyde Park. He suggested we pick a limited number, then stick to them as a suite that we propose the community stand up for. (He and several others felt that the time for conversation and adjustment with the University is over and the University is not now in a mode to listen.)

One outcome, proposing for height and density a sliding distance scale, not just that it be “context-based,” was thought by many to need careful thought or should be applied ad-hoc in response to specific proposals. Another, “preservation,” some thought better enveloped in a broader statement like “diversity and mix of structures scaled to Hyde Park needs.”

Those widely thought to reflect community principles and consensus, and for which we could insist Hyde Park development provide a model of excellence and creativity were:
• Affordability—to be applied also to businesses and to generalize the Harper Court “original mission” concerns,
• Accessibility—to and in, via all modes and also for the disabled (suggested was asking for a handicapped street parking space on each block and for enforcement of laws).
• Public open space—not only quality space for public gathering, markets, chess etc. but that such spaces—and developments overall be open to the public—no walling off of high school students, for example.

Conclusion and assignments:

Consensus was to speak immediately to the University and space-use concern, particularly no empty storefronts—plan first, and that businesses need help. (Gary will prepare a draft to be shared as decision is made whom to send to, and whether to raise the matter at the July 14 TIF meeting—suggestions encouraged.)

We will explore laying down a set of what we expect in development and the extent to which/how this should be set forth before there are “plans” to react to.
Persons with expertise in one of these “outcomes”— the latter set of bullets or any other principles brought up or not— were encouraged to send to Gary at hpkcc@aol.com a paragraph or two defining them or stating what expectations they involve. Others are also encouraged to comment.

The meeting was adjourned about 7:45 pm. Next meeting will be convened as appropriate.


subsequent HPKCC Letter to President Zimmer and Alderman Preckwinkle, June 30, 2008

Alderman Toni Preckwinkle
4659 South Cottage Grove, Ste 203
Chicago, IL 60653

President Robert J. Zimmer
5801 South University
Chicago, IL 60637

Dear Alderman Preckwinkle and President Zimmer:

In recent years, the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference and its community-based Development Committee have been actively involved discovering and representing community interests in development proposals concerning the Harper Theater and Herald buildings, Harper Court Area, and 53rd Street in general.

Our purpose has been to encourage transparency and accountability in discussions and negotiations impacting these areas of development focus. The Conference had been encouraged and supportive of recent positive accomplishments including (1) the model RFP process for the Theater buildings; (2) the series of community meetings and forums related to disclosing the nature and ramifications of negotiations to sell and redevelop Harper Court and subsequently create a model community-input RFP process for Harper Court Area, and (3) the 53rd Street Visioning Process and community surveys related to the future of 53rd Street.

However, the recent announcements that the University has now agreed to purchase Harper Court and simultaneously that it has terminated the developer for the Harper Theater and Herald buildings have raised concerns that all of these community activities may have been for naught.

The Conference and the Development Committee are concerned that these matters may be decided through separate, undisclosed planning and negotiation while the public continues to believe their interests are being ascertained and addressed in widely supported public processes. The Conference, and the community that it represents, hopes these concerns are unfounded and feel we are obligated to bring these concerns to the University’s and the Alderman’s attention.

We do strongly support speedy development and good planning based on the conclusions reached to date from the meetings, surveys, and studies: People want an increase in retail and an increase in choices that will serve real needs of a very diverse market, revive the life and gateway character of the business district, and are likely to stay. We believe that if what is brought in serves the broadest interests and reflects the character and needs of both neighborhood and University, success for everyone will be assured.
Yet, we are concerned that progress is being set back and a negative image created by owners or developers emptying buildings and creating “brown-papered” vacancies or clearing land long before planning is carried out and work can begin. A very visible example is the 53rd Harper property whose imminent development is now further delayed. The vacancies increase the uncertainty of businesses—some very valuable to the neighborhood, including businesses in Harper Court, at a time when the University has significantly increased its commercial presence on 53rd and high rents remain an obstacle to business location and retention.

We suggest new thinking on how to create more permanent and temporary options for such businesses including in buildings that do become vacant or that are underutilized. We suggest not tearing down first and developing later, which carries no guarantee of faster development and precludes adaptive reuse of buildings that may be assets and serve the character of the district.

<