Return to Harper Court RFP Ideas and Principles, Harper Court Sale homepage, cached sub pages, HPKCC and Harper Court. The June 2006 special issue of the Conference Reporter is entirely about Harper Court.
Guidelines and suggested draft toward Harper Court Request for Proposals May 2006, submitted to the Arts Council
Preceded by Letters to Hyde Park Herald setting forth the author's current proposal to separate out Harper Court itself from RFP for time to see if an expanded or new managing board can make it work well in accord with original purpose and further comment
(Note: the RFP draft guideline here was used in the Harper Court Arts Council's July 10 Guiding Principles, acknowledged at the July 10 TIF meeting, although the author believes some were in much weakened form. See Harper Court's version for the city in Ideas and Principles page.)
From Gary Ossewaarde
June 25, 2006 (as published in the July 5, 2006 in Hyde Park Herald)Time is approaching for a needed decision on Harper Court and the City Lot. The community is unclear as to whether a draft request for proposal will be presented at the July 10 TIF Advisory Council meeting and go forward, or whether that process will be pulled back, at least for a while. A halt for the Harper Court part could be used to consider other approaches while the arts council does homework it needs to do concerning its board and bylaws and the community takes another look at business district parking and retail needs while preparing to go forward with development of at least the City Lot part.
One alternate approach, an extension of the proposal of former tenants for a new board to revitalize Harper Court without a sale (Herald, June 14), could proceed as follows:
- The RFP process would be suspended for Harper Court itself while the Harper Court Arts Council board is reorganized and expanded and its purpose and bylaws rewritten with guidance from the Attorney General’s Office and community leadership.
- During this period, any existing studies of the feasibility of using the existing buildings (as are or as remodeled) would be reviewed and if necessary a new study commissioned.
- Decisions would be made as to whether, and by whom, Harper Court could be revitalized, with or without a sale. This period could not be prolonged because of adverse effects from uncertainty and because the Arts Council, as a charitable nonprofit, presumably cannot run a shopping center indefinitely. A key issue to be resolved would be reconciliation of conflicting purposes—the original purpose of Harper Court Foundation to encourage and grow local, especially small businesses, and that of the Arts Council to promote art and culture in our community and schools. One suspects there will somehow have to be two boards again, or at least a subsidiary. Difficult, but doable.
- A decision should be made to offer the City Lot for RFP separately for the present, although there may be some delay because ideally we need a new parking and access study and plan, and perhaps a new retail study or review for the 53rd St. business district. The RFP could solicit both proposals that are stand-alone and that could be a phase one, should it prove advisable after review to proceed with redevelopment in Harper Court also.
The most vexing issues with development of the lot are how much parking is needed, and what to do about parking during construction (also problems should both sites be redeveloped.) Nevertheless, redevelopment of the city lot would be good in itself, would “two-for” a right amount of parking, help fund the TIF, and continue desperately-needed revitalization of the central business district and its gateway.
In any case, the initial choice, whether to continue with the sale and RFP process for Harper Court itself, needs to be made soon. Three observations:
First, the original purpose of Harper Court and Foundation is needed and desirable. If you haven’t seen it, I commend Caitlin Devitt’s review of an exhibit by planners on ways to create and keep vital, socially-mixed neighborhoods by, inter alia, growing a sustainable business mix that includes starter and small home-grown businesses (Herald, June 14).
Second, the Arts Council is too small and inappropriate to either run the shopping center with its above public purpose, or to sell its newly acquired asset and use the proceeds for its own, very different arts purpose. I highly commend Harper Court Arts Council for several recent arts support projects. But six million new dollars seems too much money, period, or without at least a new managing vehicle and blueprint for arts grants. The arts needs and best vehicle have not been studied, in concert with the experienced art institutions and providers that increasingly work together in Hyde Park/Kenwood and elsewhere in the Mid-South Side.
Third and most important, there are good, business-experienced people in this community who have come forward to say they are willing to take over, revitalize and run Harper Court. They would put forth their money or just their time and experience, either way. They should be given a chance to make their case, and without being used as stalking horses by any party.
In any case (speaking as a person who spent much time preparing and submitting guidelines and draft RFP for the Harper/City Lot site), for the sake of Harper Court tenants and the business district, prompt decision to proceed with the sale or else to halt and separate out the Harper Court portion must be made. We’re all listening.Gary M. Ossewaarde
Secretary, Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference [used with consent of HPKCC president]
The Herald used the earlier version with paragraphs left out. That version is in Harper Court home.
1. Final revision as submitted
To the Editor:
I commend the Herald’s August 16 editorial and James Withrow’s August 23 letter, re: continuing need for Harper Court and its original mission and shortcomings of Harper Court Arts Council.
As the Herald asks, what kind of proposals are likely to be accepted if the Harper Court board makes its selection based on the “highest-price” principle it has pursued for three years? Developers that will want to clear the site and build what they want to the height they want? And that have no interest in modern business district planning that includes a small business and incubator base—the original purpose of Harper Court?
Retail slippage in Hyde Park is as clear today as it was in the 1960s. Demise of Harper Court could further damage the remaining thin business district, especially if clearance precedes development of empty nearby sites.
That’s why I have argued that the RFP offer process should be halted for now, at least for the shopping center. Harper Court’s board, as nonprofit stewards, did not have a right to unilaterally abandon the original purpose, no matter how wonderful another purpose may have seemed, and embark, without consulting the public at large, on a sale process.
The Arts Council appears to have learned no lesson except to disengage. This is plain from its reluctance to listen to advice from a wide variety of sources, and also from the tepid resurrection of the Original Purpose in its July 10 Guiding Principles. There, original purpose is the very last substantive point and is in weakest possible form. It’s then followed by a very weak bow to public process.
At the TIF meeting in which Guiding Principles was introduced, my submitted RFP draft was singled out as a major source for the Arts Council’s Guiding Principles for the city in development of the RFP. (The Harper spokesperson implied these guidelines may be buried there, and erroneously said the city has final word on RFP and developer.)
Actually, most of my guidelines were drawn from ideas presented by citizens at forums convened by the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference or from the University’s RFP for Harper Theater and the 2000 “Vision for the Hyde Park Retail District.”Carrying forward the original purpose of supporting small and startup businesses is the first order of business and duty of Harper Court, whether via the present shopping center buildings or not. The original purpose should be the first guideline, and without qualifiers.
The provision for community process also is inadequate. The developer (and the arts council periodically until a developer is chosen) should not only “present for public comment and community review” to the TIF but also to public meetings called by the Alderman and Harper Court Arts Council specifically for this purpose. The TIF Council is not neighborhood-wide, has its own large body of business, and has a legitimate interest in seeing large development to bring in added tax increment for worthy purposes.
Finally, I am disturbed and sorry that the arts council, judging from what its spokespersons say, continues to not believe it has any responsibility to the community despite Harper Court’s founding, well-understood continuing public purpose, and instead believes that the shopping center belongs to them (rather than their being its stewards and despite their not having invested or being a tenant- or membership-based organization.). It is time for new Harper Court leadership, led by a consortium of tenants or some other new structure.Gary M. Ossewaarde
2 Original version with text largely printed in the Herald but with gaps
To the Editor:
I commend the Herald’s August 16 editorial and James Withrow’s August 23 letter, re continuing need for Harper Court and its original mission and shortcomings of Harper Court Arts Council. Both articles ask the hard questions that should be answered before proceeding on a redevelopment process.
The Herald points out that we should not have illusions about the kind of proposals we are likely to see if the Harper Court board makes its selection based on the “highest-price” principle it has used for the past four years—developers that will want to clear the site and build what they want to the height they want. And they will have no interest in modern planning advice that a strong business district needs a small business and incubator base, modern advice that catches up with the “original purpose” Harper Court hit upon right here in Hyde Park over 40 years ago.The causes of retail slippage may have been different then, but the reality of slippage today is clear for anyone to see. And if Harper Court goes, along with its valuable businesses and incubator space, there may be irreparable damage to the remaining thin business district, especially if clearance precedes completion of other nearby development sites.
That’s why I have argued that the RFP offer process should be halted at least for the shopping center and for a short time, for reconsideration, redirection and a change in managing parties. Harper Court, as nonprofit stewards did not have a right to just unilaterally abandon the original purpose, no matter how wonderful another purpose may have seemed, and embark, without consulting on a sale process with the whole community rather than solely with a few stakeholders who were naturally expected to keep the secret.(I mean the possibility of sale and change of purpose, recognizing that one does not negotiate with or divulge specific buyers in public. The University knows the difference for its Theater sale, perhaps, one guesses, reinforced by its experience in negotiation with Harper Court.)
The Arts Council appears to have learned no lesson except to disengage. This is plain from its reluctance to consult or listen to advice from a wide variety of sources, and from the form of its resurrection of the Original Purpose in its July 10 Guiding Principles. There, consideration of original purpose is the very last substantive point and is in weakest possible form. It’s followed by a very weak bow to public process.
At that July 10 TIF meeting in which Guiding Principles was introduced, I was singled out as one person from whose suggested RFP draft Harper Court Arts Council drew Guiding Principles, to be submitted to Chicago Department of Planning to inform their creation of draft RFP. (The Harper spokesperson implied these guidelines may be buried there, and erroneously said the city has final word on RFP and developer.)
Actually, most of my items were drawn primarily from ideas presented by citizens at public forums convened by the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference and secondarily from the University’s exemplary RFP for Harper Theater and the 2000 “Vision for the Hyde Park Retail District.”
I reiterate that if this Guiding Principles document is even to be presented or considered any more, the reference to continuing the original purpose is so far down and so weak as to invite being overlooked or considered a minor or throw-away point. Carrying forward the original purpose of supporting small and startup businesses is the first order of business and duty of the responsible board and its successor, whether via the present shopping center buildings or not. Original purpose should be placed at the top of the list and without qualifiers such as “in some degree” or “considerations might be given” (carried over from some earlier community documents.)
The provision for community process also is inadequate to this situation. The developer (and the arts council periodically until a developer is chosen) should not only “present for public comment and community review to the TIF Advisory” (Council and its Planning and Development Committee) but also to public meetings called by the Alderman and Harper Court Arts Council specifically for this purpose.
Much as I respect the TIF Council, it covers only a part of the neighborhood, has its own large body of business to conduct, and has an inherent legitimate interest in seeing large development to bring in added tax increment for (to me) highly worthy purposes.
Finally, I am disturbed and sorry that the arts council, judging from what its spokespersons say, continues to not believe it has any responsibility to the community despite Harper Court’s founding public condition and purpose, and instead believes that the shopping center belongs to them (rather than their being its stewards and despite their not having invested or being a tenant- or membership-based organization.). It is time for new Harper Court leadership, led by a consortium of tenants or some other new structure.
Gary M. Ossewaarde
To the Editor:
Members of this community have over and over expressed great displeasure with the Harper Court Art Council’s manner of sale of Harper Court, its weak commitment to the original, business-nurturing purpose of the shopping center and to keeping the current tenants in business during a redevelopment, and with the process for deciding the future of Harper Court.
The art council’s Guiding Principles document does not close that gap and may mislead the city’s planning department. The result may be a request for proposals (RFP) that does not express what the community wants to see there, does not serve the best use of Harper Court or business district growth, and harms very valuable tenant businesses.
The city will be guided in its oversight and RFP draft by what Harper Court and our alderman tell them matters. This RFP appears now to be at least a complex process. We would not want the process (or its entanglement with the city lot) to distort the result. Have all paths to a best future for Harper Court been sufficiently explored?
For community process, the arts council’s Guiding Principles errs in not going beyond having the developer present to the TIF (Tax Increment Financing) council. (In reality the TIF’s planning committee would do much or most of the review.)
While I highly respect the TIF advisory council, it has much business and cannot devote sufficient meeting time to the Harper questions, and its committees are necessarily small bodies. Also, the interested neighborhood extends far beyond the TIF’s boundaries. And, impartial as its members may be, the council has its own responsibilities, including promotion of development so as to increase the tax increment for the TIF’s purposes.
With or without an RFP process, the arts council, alderman, and TIF should call a series of public meetings devoted to Harper Court topics, starting with input meetings now and on through concepts by a selected developer. (An expectation of such public meetings for the chosen developer should be stated in the Principles and RFP.)
Regardless of what process goes forth for the property, it is clear that many of the problems stem from the attitude and the makeup of the arts council/foundation. Its small, self-selected board answers to no one. They are not investors, but inherited a public stewardship from a public purpose project that used public and community funds. I recommend that Harper Court follow this scenario:
Devolve or sell the center back to Harper Court foundation (or a new one) having its own board, largely made up of tenants.
Change the arts council organization to a membership-based one, hold annual meetings that elect the board, and sell broadly based memberships in the arts council. Many residents have asked how they can buy a membership in HCAC or join the Board. If HCAC is determined to secure millions for public projects, then it should become broadly based—and there are many of us willing to add to the pot or serve.Gary M. Ossewaarde
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Guidelines and suggested draft toward Harper Court Request for Proposals May 2006
By Gary Ossewaarde
Preparer’s Overview
The enclosed RFP for Harper Court and City Lot #44 is intended to inform development of an RFP by Harper Court Arts Council, the City of Chicago Department of Planning and selected consultants. It represents the views of its author and not necessarily any other party. Its specific recommended guidelines are substantially as in a previously submitted comment paper, “Harper Court RFP Guidelines—Principles contributed by Gary Ossewaarde. Version 2 May 8”.
This document is heavily
informed by a complementary process of public meetings hosted by Hyde Park-Kenwood
Community Conference in spring, 2006 to solicit community views and principles
for redevelopment, as well as by other ideas from Harper Court Arts Council,
the community and previous studies and other RFPs as noted in the Resources
section.
Especially noted are three documents that the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference
submitted to Harper Court Arts Council in May 2006:
· Its official document, a May 2006 special issue of the Conference Reporter that sets forth the Conference Board’s voted position, a short set of principles overwhelmingly expressed at its public meetings, a record of the public meetings and their results, and excepts from two relevant public documents, the March 2000 Vision for the Hyde Park Retail District and the 2006 University of Chicago Request for Proposals for the 53rd and Harper Properties,
· A contribution from HPKCC board members George W. Davis and M.L. Rantala, “Principles to Guide the Future of Harper Court 8 May 2006 Draft,” and
· Contribution by board member Gary Ossewaarde, an earlier version of this document.
Both those preparing an RFP and respondents must be aware of limiting factors:
· There is lack or weakness in current and reliable information (see Resources on what is available and prospects for new studies), particularly in the areas of:
o Market area and retail needs studies and Neighborhood Quality of Life planning,
o Parking needs, based on modern principles and considering how parking would be affected by loss of parking during construction,
o State of current structures and infrastructure and the feasibility or best locations for rehabilitation or new construction.
· Harper Court has a history and historic purpose deeply felt by community residents.
· An optimal development may require unusual partnerships with neighboring property owners, especially Hollywood Video and on Harper and 53rd.______________________________________________________________
Contents of remainder of this study document
I Invitation
II Summary of Offering, Development Framework, Purpose and Envisioned Outcomes
III Historic Purpose and Condition of Harper Court
IV General Objectives and Vision, Limiting Conditions
V Amplified Guidelines; Community Process
VI Necessary Provisions of an RFP, Resources
The Harper Court Arts Council and the City of Chicago (hereto referred to as “Owner”) requests the submission of proposals from qualified developers to purchase and redevelop the properties in Chicago Planned Unit Development ___. The owners have designated the Chicago Department of Planning and Development and its designated agent _____________ to administer and manage this RFP on their behalf.
The Owners desire to sell this prime property in Hyde Park to a qualified developer to redevelop the property as a mixed-use project, as specified herein, with potential retail, entertainment, residential and/or related neighborhood uses that would enhance the unique nature and character of Hyde Park and serve as an amenity and gateway for the neighborhood and the mid-south communities.
[Conditions of furnishing copies. Schedule and Dates of Opening and Closing. Pre-proposal meetings and site tours. Statement of confidentiality. Table of Contents and Maps and Drawings. Appendices.]
[possible: Statement of reasons for sale and redevelopment of Shopping Center
and City Lot.]
General Objectives
1. Contract with a qualified, responsible and high quality developer who has
a demonstrated track record in urban, retail/residential redevelopment and adaptive
reuse
2. Redevelop the property as a mixed-use project in a manner consistent with
the quality and character of Hyde Park
3. Obtain a purchase price consistent with the Owners’ financial objectives
4. Adhere to local standards for affordable housing and MWBE involvement
5. Provide for community consultation on a regular basis during the RFP process
6. Complete the redevelopment in an expeditious fashion
Obligations and Expectations, Terms and Conditions [For convenience of this study, these follow the Development Framework and would essentially be modifications of the University of Chicago Harper Theater-53rd Properties RFP.]
Development Framework
The purpose of this offering is to encourage but guide all and any responsible proposals. The preference nonetheless is for a balanced development that:
· Carries forward
in some degree the original purpose of Harper Court to encourage small, local,
artisan, or marginal businesses and services and takes care of needs of current
stakeholding tenants,
· Revitalizes the heart and gateway of the Hyde Park Central Business
District and increases the customer base, in contextual sympathy with the character
of the neighborhood and pedestrian-designated Main Street (53rd St.) Needed
is reconnection with 53rd and with Lake Park. To that end there should be a
mixed-use development that includes entertainment and restaurant as well as
commercial and or office. Residential is invited but is not a major purpose.
The site is well served by transit. New development is planned to the west and
east, the latter providing a substantial increase in adjacent residents who
will be served by both the adjacent transit and the new Harper development—if
the development is such as to entice them to shop there and nearby.
o This development is of a size and configuration that offers opportunities to model sustainable, green and new urban development and urban streets design.
o A major plus would be imaginative gateway treatment for 53rd and Lake Park. Such could range from a special plaza to low specialty stores to a signature structure.
o Necessary is redevelopment and enhancement of the current courtyard at Harper Court with enhanced access way to 53rd Street, in a way that solves the challenges of that sector.
· Considers phased
and segmental redevelopment (including for the current standing buildings),
with new development at least initially on the City Lot, carefully mixing any
structures of height with low-scale structures. Developers are challenged to
see what they can do using mostly low-rise (to 4 stories) structures, especially
along streets.
· Provides with full adequacy parking, (well-signed) auto and pedestrian
access, and both green and actively usable open space. Especially important
are enhancement of pedestrian flow from 53rd and from Lake Park, which will
require cooperation from the City and nearby property owners.
o Parking must not only replace that lost in the city lot and Harper Court and provide for increased demand from new development but must contribute significantly to the first purpose of the 53rd Street TIF District (in which the development is sited)—provide adequate parking and do this in conjunction with a modern Parking Strategy for the Central Business District.
o Public open space should be a key element and provide inviting corridors of access and breathing space, and accommodate gatherings from Farmers Market and concerts to chess. Such space, whether in Harper Court or as far as 53rd and Lake Park should be considered to make the new Harper Court a catalyst for community activity and a draw for businesses.
Harper Court and its builder
Harper Court Foundation were established by community leaders and residents
at a time when many perceived large numbers of businesses and services, including
many that were locally-owned and arts-based and that could not survive with
high rents, being displaced, with little low-rent commercial space being built.
The wholesale removal of night spots and art shops and galleries especially
was thought to portend both cultural sterility and a loss of cultural diversity—including
of arts and entertainment provided by and appealing to African Americans.
As a result, the Harper Court Foundation was established in 1963, held many
community meetings about what the community wanted, and started selling $100
bonds even before its object became to buy a parcel and put up shops with an
upper level of sustainable businesses supporting a lower level of replacement
space for displaced artisans and art shops.
The Purpose of Harper Court and Harper Court Foundation as stated in Articles
of Incorporation and Bylaws, was to promote:
“the civic purposes of furthering the trade and economic development
of the Hyde Park-Kenwood area in the City of Chicago and its environs, and promoting
and assisting the growth and development of business concerns, including small-business
concerns in said area" with special emphasis for "the continuation
in the community of artisans, craftsmen, and educational, recreational and other
services offered on a commercial basis, but of special cultural or community
significance." (paragraph 5, Harper Court Foundation Articles of Incorporation,
April 17, 1963).
Despite the fact that few artists and artisans were able or willing to take
advantage of the new shopping center, a large number of people in the community
continued and still continue to believe the original purpose of subsidizing
small, needed businesses and services was sound and needed and that the Foundation
and successors are morally obligated to carry it forward.
The Foundation was able to obtain part of a Planned Development parcel at Lake
Park and 53rd St. that was to have housed fire and police stations and that
was not in demand. The PUD covered what is now Harper Court, the City Parking
Lot #44, and current McDonald’s. 80% of the cost was paid with 26 Small
Business Administration loans and the rest with $100 bonds. Making it all happen
was a difficult task, but the shopping center opened in 1965.
The center was built well and has not settled despite being built on cleared
land, but was beset by several challenges.
· The lower level is below sewer mains, with resultant problems that have not been completely solved.
· Central air was not provided, although there are louvers to provide air movement for the upper levels; small units do the rest. Windows are not thermopane.
· Plumbing and electrical runs are encased in load-bearing concrete making remodeling difficult, although by no means insurmountable as witnessed by recent new development in the SCAN northerly building (not part of the RFP).
· Bringing the facility to ADA code would be expensive according to professional estimates, and at least some of the lower spaces would be inaccessible if ramps were used.
· The center remains partially hidden and uninviting from 53rd and Lake Park and the sunken courtyard is in poor repair, creates traffic flow problems and has seen controversies over uses, not much abated by removal of popular chess benches.
(Note: The City Lot has not been systematically considered in conjunction with
Harper Court and carries its own drawbacks. Its replacement has been considered
priority for a long time.)
A. Care must be taken for
current tenants, including by temporary or permanent relocations and a carefully
developed set aside provision in the new Harper Court, particularly for those
businesses that make the arts or our cultural and civic life flourish or provide
needed services that without subsidy could not exist in the neighborhood. Doing
this carries on the original mission of the Foundation --publicly established
by this neighborhood--, to encourage and support small businesses and cultural
diversity, expresses in action our community’s values and character, and
meets tenants vested interest and needs.
B. Harper Court must be made an attractive and attracting magnet at the gateway
center, a destination for local and distant shoppers as elaborated below. It
must bring in customers while contributing to and revitalizing the overall 53rd
Street business district.
C. The easiest way to do this would be to revitalize the existing structures
at least for present, treating the current structures separately, and do new
development (with or separate from a garage) in the current city lot. However,
the best and most responsible way to realize a vision for what Harper Court
can be and do may require substantial redevelopment of the whole site. In that
case, preference is to keep a low scale, density, and height through at least
the major portion of site coverage. (Note: The city’s pedestrian street
recommendation is a maximum of four stories and a 15-foot setback where there
are more stories.)
D. Harper Court must be a truly varied, mixed development that does not disrupt
the scale, character and infrastructure capacity of the shopping district and
neighborhood. Harper Court should include:
a. Small, some of them subsidized, shops, services, arts-type businesses, and essential services including some that otherwise could not exist here. Configuration should allow for a varied and changing mix of shops, generally small, but that could include mid-sized that provide goods and needs not found locally now or where a competitor might be sustainable. A major purpose of developing Harper Court is to increase the variety and depth of goods and services available locally, in a way that attracts more customers and first serves the neighborhood well. One to a few regional draw stores are also desirable; keeping them from crowding local-market stores to undesirable locations or increasing parking need is a challenge to be creatively overcome.
b. The preferred model is a continuous or sectioned arcade, pedestrian-friendly and pedestrian-accessible, and visible rather than tucked away. Internal scale is to be small and low, overall scale more low-rise than mid.
c. The development could use all, some, or none of existing structures. (The “Scan” building is not in the RFP.) Models strongly suggested for comparison include arcades such as The Torpedo Factory in Virginia. To be encouraged in addition to shops are entertainment, nightlife or community use space, including a small arts movie theater and black box live theater if not provided in the adjacent Harper Theater project. An emphasis on arts suppliers or providers would fit goals, needs, and values in the community and fit with the current mission of the Arts Council.
d. Preference is to avoid or minimize a residential component so as to not dilute the purposes of the RFP and Harper Court mission or increase density in an adverse way. However, 1) It cannot be overlooked, although it may not be inevitable, that a residential component may be needed to reduce and cover costs of the garage and subsidized space and 2) Desire has been expressed by some in the community for a mid rise residential structure, a gateway anchor that could include reduced cost living space for the arts or other subsidized spaces, including affordable set aside, for persons being financially pressured out of the neighborhood. Such options, including some live-in space as subsidy for shop owners, should also be considered.
E. Provision must be made
for parking, preferably in a garage (exact location open) that will not only
provide, in accord with modern parking planning principles, as well as city
standards, for the needs generated by Harper Court but also provide the right
amount of public parking, not less than existing, and provide optimized access.
F. Open space is to be included that will be convenient, visible, accessible,
and that will reflect and strengthen the gateway location. Such open space should
accommodate both active programming and uses like farmers’ market and
arts programs and gatherings but passive uses, for example chess. Such space
would be one venue in which the Harper Court Arts Council could carry out its
mission.
A. Primary interest is
in a primarily commercial development or mixed-use development perhaps with
professional and or residential—not a residential development, although
a residential component is not excluded. The primary purpose is to enrich the
commercial district and its variety and offerings (including interesting and
needed shops and services that may need subsidy) so as to attract customers
from inside and beyond the neighborhood and serve residents. A component of
recreational, cultural, dining/nightlife venues is also highly desirable. Any
residential component must not be of a kind, size, configuration or location
as to diminish or limit types of commercial or all-hours venues.
B. The proposal must be financially responsible, and the developer must be fully
capable of financing and completing the project and shall guarantee to finish
the job. City and neighborhood standards including for MWB enterprises shall
be followed.
C. The development must adhere to commercial district and neighborhood character
and be designed to globally enhance the commercial district without substantially
altering character. It should consider applicable the “pedestrian street”
guidelines for 53rd Street.
D. Materials used must be of high quality and the configuration and looks shall
make any retained or new structures substantial, utile and attractive. Any new
structures and their configuration must contribute to the attracting ability
of the commercial district and enhance, make special the gateway location, and
fit in with adjacent structures such as the Harper Theater development, other
structures in the 5200 Harper block, and adjacent 53rd Street. The developer
is urged to coordinate plans and stage work with nearby developments. Structures
shall conform to city streetscape and storefront standards.
E. The development must be such that infrastructure, including but not limited
to streets, can bear the impact and traffic of the project. Consider having
character and features that will make the development and site environmentally
and socially sustainable.
F. The encouragement of new, small or fragile businesses in a varied and diverse
complex is as important as or more so than bringing in large or upscale businesses.
G. Access to the commercial buildings shall to the extent possible be better
than at present, well-signed, with lines of visibility to the commercial buildings,
encouraging pedestrian traffic, giving a sense that the spaces are safe, and
have recognizable convenience to those who drive and park to shop. Access options
could include, but not be limited to opening Harper Avenue to traffic; but care
must be taken to preserve at least a usable part of the Court.
H. Consider setting aside a section that can practically subsidize current or
new tenants or services and cultural amenities needed in the neighborhood but
that cannot pay market rent. Encouraged are creative ways to make this work,
balancing financial responsibility and community values, and perhaps including
a housing provision for shop owners. See also guideline section on transition
that follows.
I. Provide a Transition period of x years in which the developer or owner will
not demolish the west building nor reduce its access. Consider using the west
building and other nearby structures for displaced tenants during construction
or work with owners and institutions to provide viable alternative spaces nearby.
J. Consider in a residential component affordable units (rental and or owned)
with reduced cost for residents in danger of being priced out of the neighborhood.
15% of units must be affordable under terms as if the proposed ordinance were
in place.
K. Development along 53rd Street and Lake Park Avenue shall not exceed 4 stories
up to x feet in from the sidewalk. Encouraged is keeping Lake Park sight lines
to the Hyde Park Bank Building. Any increase in height or density above that
provided in the PUD will require city legislation and will be considered but
not encouraged, and must show fiscal necessity and superior contribution to
the commercial district gateway, and not violate the other guidelines. Proposals
for the western side shall not exceed the height of the accepted proposal for
the Harper Theater building and for the eastern side the Hyde Park Bank.
L. Musts include not less public parking spaces than now provided plus provision
for any increased parking load from the development, and provision of quality,
easily accessible, program-capable public space.
M. Construction and repairs must conform to city and neighborhood standards
for utilization of MWB enterprises and workers.
Community Involvement
Some developers should be prepared to give partial presentations or supply a view or schematic at public meeting(s) including at the 53rd Street Advisory Council and its Planning and Development Committee before final selection at the discretion of the Owners.
The chosen developer must be prepared to make presentations with visuals along with the Owners at a series of public meetings that will be open to questions and suggestions for revision, and also to make such presentations to the TIF Planning and Development Committee, and other stakeholders (at discretion of the Owners).
It is also understood that should the proposal exceed height and density limits of the Planned Development, public hearings and a city process leading to passage of a city ordinance must be held.
[Provisions in the University of Chicago Theater RFP could be easily adapted for this RFP. See its Table of Contents. They cover such matters as Summary of Offering, Description of Property, Proposals as Property, Transaction Timing and Structure, Due Diligence, Review and Final Decision, Terms and Conditions, Development Framework, Proposal Requirements, Developer Responsibilities, Selection Process.]
Resources
Some resources exist (to be assembled) relevant for development of proposals for the new Harper Court:
· Relevant sections
of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of Harper Court Foundation (1963)
and Harper Court Arts Council (1990).
· Hyde Park Herald back issues from at least 1963-1965 and Special
Anniversary Issue 2004 which gives history of Harper Court.
· HPKCC community website www.hydepark.org Harper Court History
page
· A Vision for the Hyde Park Retail District, March 2000, with
relevant findings from the Planning Now Market Study and Barton-Aschman Parking
Study Memo,1999.
Note: Comments by residents, businesspersons, and planning committee members
indicate that the retail study may be incomplete and not fully reflect current
desires and conditions and that the Barton-Aschman parking study may not reflect
current expert assumptions. The TIF Parking Committee (Chair Ilene Jo Reizner,
consultant Irene Sherr) is considering draft recommendation incorporating conclusions
of the Urban Land Institute and Institute of Transportation Engineers, recommendations
that include call for a new study and plan of parking, mobility and access for
the 53rd Street business district: the committee should be consulted, as should
the Planning and the Streetscape committees.
· 53rd Street TIF Designation assessment and report 2001.
· Chicago Department of Planning and Development and Chicago Consultant
Studios, which have extensive experience that includes Hyde Park development
and business district issues.
· Quad Cities Development
Corporation/LISC, which is completing business area and retail studies and inventories
of the mid-South Side including 53rd Street.
· Open releases and statements 2006 by Harper Court Arts Council, Hyde
Park-Kenwood Community Conference (including reports on forums, workgroups,
and principles for Harper Court RFP), and Neighbors United to Save Harper Court.
· HPKCC website www.hydepark.org coverage of the sale of Harper
Court, viewpoints and start of an RFP process. Pages include Harper Court Sale,
Harper Court Ideas and Principles and HPKCC and Harper Court.
· “Request for Proposals 53rd and Harper Properties,” University
of Chicago, 2006.
· Comments submitted to Harper Court Arts Council and Chicago Department
of Planning toward Request for Proposals for Harper Court.