U of C: Guardian Angel, Despot, or Sucker?

posted by Peter Rossi

In recent years, our favorite (and only) neighborhood university has gone on a buying binge. First, Doctor's Hospital and the Hyde Park Theatre and related buildings at 53rd and Harper. Then a multi-million dollar bail-out of the Co-Op. This was followed by the purchase of the radioactive Harper Court. Most recently, another transfer payment to take over the Chicago Theological Seminary.

All told, these various purchases and subsidies are close to topping the $75 million mark. We haven't seen this kind of activity since the old Urban Renewal days. It mirrors work that other universities are doing.

The Guardian Angel

There has always been a sense in which the U has been the buyer of last resort for HP, somewhat like the Federal Reserve. If things get bad, we can always count on the U to bail out the neighborhood. The Hyde Park Theater building is a case in point. Neighborhood theaters are a thing of the past (why settle for one screen when you can have your choice of 15 at AMC with parking too!). It was clear no one would buy this abandoned building. So along comes the U, patiently plunking down its millions and engaging a top notch developer to make something of the old Cinema Paradiso.

The same story was played out with Doctor's Hospital. Who is going to spend $50,000 a year to send the kiddies to the U and feel good about it when you can't even stay near the campus? The various units of the U spend millions each year to feed and house visiting faculty and speakers in downtown hotels. It seems very logical to build a hotel on the site of this eyesore. An auction was held and guess who suffered from winner's curse? This whole deal has gone sour as local NIMBYs hid behind preservation and labor issues to stop the U dead in its tracks.

Harper Court has suffered from NIMBY attention. The HP-KCC (in the person of its "preservation task force") rushed in to control this development under the assumption that there would be a long list of suitors willing to develop under the most intrusive conditions. No one was stepping up to the plate, so again our white knight reached into his wallet.

We have been over the Co-Op many times here in this blog. But the bottom line is that the University forgave past due rent and satisfied the Co-Op's creditors with bushels of cash. Again, one could argue that this was absolutely critical for the neighborhood and the U. Who would live in a neighborhood without a functioning supermarket, however great Peapod is?

The latest and largest (more than $40 million) investment is the take-over of the Chicago Theological Seminary at 58th and University. These buildings will house the new Milton Friedman Institute (there is even a chapel to worship the free market!). It is easy to make the argument that this is a great deal for the university. The CTS buildings are right in the middle of the campus and are also very striking. The Milton Friedman Institute is a smart move to attract donors who want to honor Milton and the economic principles that, as the Wall Street Journal put it, let the University of Chicago win the Cold War.

The Despot

This flurry of activity and huge investment is sure to stir up our local conspiracy theorists. The U is an evil empire that reveals an arrogance that makes Bill Clinton look bashful. The U will only pay lip service to community input. The U and its wealthy donors will build academic temples inlaid with gold and tony shops to satisfy the temporary residents (students) and fussy faculty.

The problem with this theory is that it presupposes that the incentives of the University are different from that of the community. This is clearly false. It is very much in the interest of the University to have a vibrant neighborhood. Those who think that the University only wants luxury condos and expensive shops are woefully ignorant of the U payroll. Thousands of staff members and graduate students pull down modest pay and want to live in our neighborhood.

Never Give a Sucker An Even Break

My biggest worry about this latest spending spree is that the U won't pull it off. The U has an spotty track record in managing and developing commercial real estate.

A review of a few recent episodes is in order. A prime example is the Hyde Park Theater mess. As the Herald reported this week (yes, friends, once is a blue moon reporting can be found there), the U has just fired the developer for this parcel. This is worth thinking about as this developer (Brinshore and Baum) has an excellent reputation. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the whole idea of developing the Theater site is flawed. 53rd street is not Damen Ave. It can barely support a collection of marginal shops (HPP and Freehling Pot and Pan, notwithstanding). Where are the customers going to come from to browse the cute boutiques this development was to feature? The immediate central Hyde Park neighborhood doesn't have enough customers, with enough income to support specialty shops. Either you have to attract customers from elsewhere (but you need to provide parking) or you have to increase the number of residents.

Perhaps, the U fired the HP Theater developer in order to coordinate with the development of nearby HC. However, this does not explain why they chose to start this process with Brinshore and Baum in the first place. Local NIMBYs have been effusive in their praise of the HP Theater development "process." The fact that it proved to be another dead end keeps up their dismal track record.

The Co-Op fiasco is a lesson in commercial real estate management as well. In 1999, the Hyde Park Shopping Center (owned by U of C) was renovated and Co-Op signed to a long-term lease. The plans for renovation were singularly lacking in ambition and mass. There just aren't enough stores in the center to attract customers. The Co-Op footprint is way too small to attract the interest of major chains. Finally, we all know how Whole Foods was shown the door!

There are other examples. There have been all sorts of failures in attracting restaurants to the "golden rectangle." Any one can see the reason (even Hans Moresbach gets it) -- the precinct is dry. This needs changing before you start subsidizing restaurants.

There is also a real concern that the U is not very savvy in negotiating real estate deals. Harper Court and the Shoreland are cases in point. The U paid 6.6 million for HC and sold the Shoreland for a song. The 6.6 million is more than other developers have offered for HC. And these other offers were made in heady times of inflated real estate values. A search of Cook County records tells the tale of the Shoreland. The U sold the property to a developer in 12/04 for $3,750,000 (based on tax stamps). The developer flipped the Shoreland for $10,000,000 in 9/06.

In the end, the success of the U in bringing about a change in our neighborhood is critical for us all. I hope President Zimmer is thinking long and hard about bringing more expertise in commercial real estate to bear on these critical developments. But this is not all, there has to be a concerted effort to increase the density and population of Hyde Park. This means supporting large scale residential development in East Hyde Park and elsewhere.

We can't afford to develop the reputation as the only prime area in Chicago that actively discourages development. We all need to do a better job of selling our local officials on change and making the case that the 50 cranks who show up at "community meetings" don't speak for us all. The U needs to step up and be counted on this one.

Harper Court Survey: Women Under 40 Say 'Yes' to Everything

posted by chicago pop

Preferred Performance Activity at the New Harper Court
(Ashley Dupré Spring Break 2005)

Who would have thought that the stodgy HPKCC would produce a survey that conformed to every frat boy's fantasy? Or the legal script being used by defense lawyers for Girls Gone Wild producer Joe Francis?

Truth can be stranger than fiction, gentle reader. The results of the "Community Priorities for Harper Court Redevelopment" survey are in and the biggest news is this: almost twice as many survey respondents were female as male. Most of them were between 19 and 39. And they said "yes" to virtually everything.

While this may certainly be fantasy material for the geezer types who write letters to the Herald, it also has the less arousing effect of draining the survey results of much useful meaning. Especially when we know that in our frigid little corner of lakefront reality, let alone in any healthy relationship, the headline statement on this post rarely holds.

No one says "yes" to everything, as much as we might like them to. So something must be up.

For survey results to be meaningful, they have to indicate relative preferences, and be designed to do what survey-makers call "force discrimination." This has nothing to do with national guardsmen or Brown vs. the Board of Education. It's about making people think about trade-offs, and forcing them to establish hierarchies among what may be competing or conflicting desires. You do it by giving them a choice between two or more options.

Lake Park between 52nd and 53rd, ca. 1956
(before the HPKCC helped tear it down)
Archival Photofiles [apf2-04028], Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Basically, the way the survey was set up, people were not asked to choose between one package of goods, and a second package of goods that may not "fit" with the first. Say, for example, making Harper Court a space port for luxury moon shots, or a floating casino. Can't be both at once, even if people might want both when asked about either option separately.

Take the first 4 questions of the survey. Survey respondents were given 4 possible goals for Harper Court and asked to rank them from 5-1, very important to not important. Respondents ranked 3 out of 4 of the goals as very important, with the majority chosing "important" for the fourth goal.

The same thing happens with urban design. Everyone wants to "make the landscaping welcoming, with trees, seating, and flowers." Everyone also wants to "strengthen the pedestrian character of 53rd Street." Everyone even more wants to "provide well-lit ambiance at night."

It keeps going. Everyone and their mother wants a "multilevel parking garage to serve Harper Court and the Hyde Park business district." Everyone and their activist granola neighbor with the 6-foot vermiculture tower wants HC to be "accessible day and night, with improved transit and handicapped access." People only started to get a little apathetic when asked about "planned and separated access for service vehicles and delivery," and I don't blame them.

The most telling product of this flaw emerges in the most interesting data: "Development Components," or, what kinds of stuff do people want to see in a new Harper Court? The big categories are, by a long shot, restaurants (61% very important), public space (51% very important), a movie theater (39% very important), followed by retail amenities. All of this fits with the overwhelming preference for making Harper Court a "destination," which it currently is not.

Here's the rub. No one expressed preference for any of the other things you need to make a successful urban development with restaurants, retail, and a movie theater. Those other things are what give you density, and density, as the sponsors of the December 2007 53rd Street worskhop and Aaron Cook are both aware, is absolutely fundamental to any successful commercial redevelopment of Harper Court.

The things that would get you density -- a hotel, office space, new housing, were all ranked by a majority as "not important."

That's a problem. Because you can't get the good stuff without all the boring gray stuff like condos and offices. It won't wash, no one will build it. If anything, preferences like these might suggest to a builder that this community doesn't really want change after all; they want to keep their public space, a handful of restaurants, and a few languishing curio shops.

That's clearly not the case, but this survey didn't manage to bring it out. Its primary failing, by not forcing discrimination, was to fail to hold the issue of density front and center and make people connect the dots between what they want, and what they need to get it.

In that respect, the survey was a failure, and certainly did less to make the connection between the realities or urban economics, and the unconstrained wanderings of consumer desire.

Ashley Dupré Does Pro-Bono Gig For HPKCC Board Meeting

George Rumsey: Closet NIMBY

posted by Peter Rossi

George Rumsey and his Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference (known here as HP-KFC) pride themselves on their objectivity and fair-mindedness. They will tell anyone who will listen that they simply want to promote debate about the issues. At least that is the standard party line.

That was all well and good when they could simply roll out of bed and monopolize the pages of the Herald. But now that there are other voices out there, control of the community discussion is slipping out of their grasp.

The future of Harper Court has brought Mr. Rumsey out of the closet. Rumsey has been quoted extensively in the Herald as asserting the rights of the HP-KFC to drive the discussion over future development of HC. There is a clear deep suspicion that Alderman Preckwinkle will snatch the limelight away from the HP-KFC and its "development and preservation" committee.

You are being unfair. Erecting a silly strawman. Read on!

Mr. Rumsey's public self shows up in comments on this blog. We were called in by the Alderman, he says. The "visioning" done by our Valois-based handful of NIMBYs is just a point of departure.

Rumsey goes further to claim -- "the real objective is to make progress on Harper Court redevelopment."

Not so fast, Mr. Rumsey has his own views about development. Below, I reproduce an email from Mr. Rumsey which gives our readers a glimpse into his true NIMBY soul.

Mr. Rumsey thinks there is a movement afoot to promote development at "all costs" and "local business be damned." What he means is that there are folks who really want to see change in Hyde Park and wouldn't mind a Panera, a GAP, or even an Old Navy. These stores are well-run, well-financed and exist to serve the needs of consumers. This does not preclude local businesses and, in fact, might actually help them by bringing in traffic.

Take a walk through Wicker Park some day if you want to see a beautiful mix of local boutiques, national retailers, and (horror of horrors) fast food. Witness the experience of Toys Et Cetera when they moved out of dying HC for the greater foot traffic at Hyde Park Shopping Center.

You mean, you're not in favor of 'supporting local businesses'? Shame on you! Go now, fill-out the survey. The Big Boxes are Coming!

Mr. Rumsey's email:

Subject: Harper Court Survey

Please do the following:
1. Go to this link: www.hydepark.org/survey
2. Take the survey.
3. Send this link to ANY and EVERY one who might have an opinion about Harper Court.

I was bemused by Bob Borja's "comment" about my statement in last week's Herald. I said that because I think there is a movement afoot in Hyde Park to get development at any cost, and local businesses be damned. I wanted to be controversial and make people wake up.

Secondly, he was absolutely right in that anyone concerned about Harper Court should be attending our meeting. Why hasn't anyone from there be at any of our meetings? Harper Court Arts Council (Lesley Morgan and Mary Anton) have been representing the Arts Council. Who's been representing the businesses? Certainly not the TIF. So get with it, folks. Tell Borja I said so.

Next meeting 2/26 (Tuesday) with the city about the RFP. Then on 3/3 about developemnt. Then 3/10 with the TIF. Be there (or be out in the cold).But first take the survey and tell your friends, colleagues, kids, spouses, and any one else to take it (and don't skip the questions about supporting current businesses or continuing the HC mission, which had to fight like hell to keep the alderman's office from deleting).
g

George W. Rumsey