Hyde Park Urbanist

Harper Court, the Near Future

The Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference's committee on development has been discussing the future of Harper Court.  (I say "they" because I missed the first set of meetings on this.)  Tonight at the Neighborhood Club, some folks got together to look over plans a local architect put together on what a new Harper Court might look like if none of the existing buildings were saved.  The plans ignored the city parcel to the east, the current parking lot.  I wish I'd been involved in the the process from the beginning because I think we've got the wrong focus.

In my earlier article tonight, I laid out some of the reasons why the community should have a say in what the Harper Court Foundation/Arts Council, a private not-for-profit, does with its property.  Nonetheless, we need to start from the understanding that the Foundation has a legal (and I would argue a moral) responsibility to maximize it profits when it deals with its parcel, as long as it keeps to its mission.  Oh, you could argue that the community could make some ideas politically untenable, thus affecting the development in a very practical manner.  However, my read is that Ald. Preckwinkle is unlikely to be convinced to put up roadblocks as long as the Foundation proposes something fairly reasonable.  As veterinarian Tom Wake warned us tonight, a long fight will not be good for the businesses the neighborhood wants to save.

Besides, whatever claim the community has on the Harper Court portion of this redevelopment, that claim pales in comparison to the claim the community has, both theoretically and practically, on the parking lot owned by the city.  Seriously, that parcel isn't owned by a private institution, but rather the citizens of Chicago.  It's far easier to argue that the city-owned lot should be developed with the community in mind.  Maximizing the profits on the parking lot should be balanced by other community considerations.

Besides, the city parcel appears to me to be the better retail location, by far.  The only retail amenity that the Harper Court location has, as far as I can see, is proximity to 53rd Street.  The city parcel has that, plus it's on a far busier street (Lake Park), with better automobile access.  The public transportation, such as it is, is closer to the city parcel-- the #28 bus right there, Metra across the street and the #6 bus a couple blocks away.  I honestly have no idea why the founders of Harper Court preferred to tuck it away rather than building it on the more visible city parcel.  Generally, I'm leery of messing with historical decisions regarding geography & commerce, but Harper Court was sited out of urban renewal considerations and those folks' track record was less than inspiring.  The gateway to retail on 53rd Street is not the present Harper Court site; it's that ugly city parking lot.

So, my recommendation would be to concentrate on developing the northwest corner of 53rd and Lake Park as an inviting space, really concentrating efforts there.  Once a plan for the city parcel coalesces, then a profit-maximizing plan for the present Harper Court site would probably come together on its own.  The community should insist that the new development have a significant public element, but there's no reason we should insist that the public space stay where it is.

I'd also argue that the public space could be indoors.  We have a plethora of public outdoor spaces, already, with all the parks and Promontory Point.  What similar public gathering spaces do we have indoors?  Chicago has some ugly weather from November to April.  During the summer, when folks would be most likely to sit outdoors in the evenings, Hyde Park loses a big slice of its population.  So, really, we're looking at parts of April, May, September and October-- maybe four months tops-- when HP is at full population and the weather is cooperative.

Harper Court, a Little History

With "The Impact of Urban Renewal on Small Business: The Hyde Park-Kenwood Case" as my source, I want to lay out a couple basic ideas about how Harper Court came to be. 

"The actual proposal which led to Harper Court was made by the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference in May, 1962."  (p. 63) Concern for artists displaced by urban renewal east of the Metra tracks on 57th Street inspired the proposal and many prominent professionals contributed their talents free of cost to get it up and running.  Mrs. George Beadle, wife of the University's president, and Bruce Sagan, publisher of the Hyde Park Herald, led the committee.

The project was financed by $93K in bonds bought by some 430 neighborhood residents and another $27K from the University.  The bonds paid below market rates, so "community enthusiasm was converted into a subsidy".  A not-for-profit foundation then applied to the Federal Government's Small Business Administration for 80% of the project's cost, another $480K also loaned at below-market rates.  This $600K in bonds would be paid back over the next couple decades, with many or the residents choosing to donate their repayments to an Arts Council that the Foundation set up.

Why was Harper Court built in its current space?  It just so happened that the city owned a parking lot on Harper and the Dep't of Urban Renewal owned a parcel on Lake Park that was zoned for a gas station.  On the west side of Harper, if I'm reading the book correctly, the city had cleared some land for a fire station and a police station.  The stations were relocated and the city swapped its parking lot for the parcel on Lake Park.  The current Harper Court site was then put out to bid.  "The City Council authorized sale of the land to a bidder which proposed to build a 'not-for-profit' center for artisans.  Harper Court Foundation, as the sole bidder, acquired the land for $135,672."

I mention all this to explain why the public has some claim to the Harper Court site.  It simply could not have been built without local and federal governmental support.  Plus, neighborhood residents and the University put their own money at risk, at below-market rates, and contributed a great deal of expertise to the project.  It took a village to raise Harper Court.

Trains vs. Buses

A friend asks me why people like trains.  Well, some people don't.  So, the important question is: "Which populations prefer buses and which prefer trains?  Explain."  The following is an answer completely dependent on my own prejudices and impressions, with practically no formal research involved.

In New York City and sorta/kinda in Chicago, a few buses travel pretty much the same route as a train.  Some people still take the buses even though the trains are faster.  They tend to be, I think, people with special needs.  Subway terminals are only now becoming routinely accessible for wheelchairs, but they can feel like dangerous places for the blind, for mothers ferrying children and for the elderly.  If even a 5-block wall is difficult, you might choose a bus that picks you up and drops you off closer to your destination.  In some neighborhoods, that might also be a safety consideration.  Placing bus stops further apart runs the risk of burdening these populations, by the way. 

Before we talk about the populations preferring trains, we need to divide trains in two groups.  The older subway/el route trains tend to be loud and rough around the edges.  Light rail and commuter rail trains are quieter and more comfortable.

Because the old-style trains are confined to large cities, they're considered part of the urban lifestyle.  The young & hip will put up with the unsavory aspects of el trains because comfort is far less important than speed.  Over the last 20 years, young people have been moving into the city and these rapid transit routes are part of the draw.

The more comfortable commuter and light-rail trains tend to compete with cars as transportation choices.  Folks drawn to these modes want to be surrounded by people with middle-class sensibilities.  Comfort and a general perception of competence (punctuality and well-dressed conductors) make these trains attractive.

Both types of trains are more likely to be on-time, which is a significant draw.  But there's another advantage of rail trouble I've never heard folks talk about much, yet may be as important as anything: herd instinct.  When you wait for a bus on the street, you're waiting with a small group of people standing around outside while drivers comfortably ensconced in cars go whizzing by.  Even if you feel environmentally virtuous for taking transit, there's still that nagging feeling that these people in cars are getting places faster.  You're vulnerable to the elements and you're falling behind.

Most train platforms are removed from auto traffic.  Everyone you see on the platform is waiting for the same thing you're waiting for.  You don't feel like you're falling behind.  There may even be a warming station or shelter to wait inside of.  You feel like you're part of the herd.

Rockwell El Station Art

When I was seventeen, my dad got me a job moving railway ties.  The ties were out in a field, soaked with creosote and heavier than the Co-op's debts from 47th Street.  Texas.  Summer.  Paid minimum wage, but I earned some respect from my Dad-- and vice versa-- because he was doing the same work.  Thankfully, that job only lasted two weeks, which coincided with the maximum respect either of us could afford to pay the other.

The CTA has chosen to immortalize these special two weeks of my life with this lovely art display at the Rockwell El Station.  We can all rest easy, knowing that this art is secure from theft.  Almost makes you wish for graffiti.

And I don't want to hear how this isn't about me because I know it is.  Really.