Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
City by the Lake.org, The Voice of Michigan City, Indiana _ City Talk _ Two-Way Traffic on Franklin
Posted by: Teach May 23 2008, 04:10 PM
Let's do this thing up right. You make the call. I will too after a few people vote.
Posted by: Ang May 24 2008, 07:28 AM
While I think Franklin should be a straight shot to the lake, I have a hard time with the two way thing. (Yes, I'll admit, I'm the fence straddler!)
For one, that street has never been a two way in my lifetime. I think it would create a lot of confusion for people and there will be many near-miss head-on collisions for people who don't realize it's become two way.
For two, there is already a parking issue uptown. There simply isn't enough parking. I suppose if the road was one lane in each direction, instead of two like the rest of Franklin, maybe the parking issue won't be so bad. But, if they're going to make it two way, then there should be some sort of centrally located parking structure. (more expense)
And three, what about crossing the street to get to businesses on the other side? Will there be pedestrian crossings, or pedestrian lights (you know the little button on the light pole you can push to get the light to change for you?) which is another expense I wonder if the City has considered. Or will it continue to be stop signs all the way down? Personally, if they are going to make it two way, then I think there will definitely need to be a light at 6th St. because of LHP traffic.
As for opening it all the way to Lake, who cares if you can't see the lake from 5th St.? It's the anticipation of knowing it's there and a straight shot. Like in New Buffalo. When you turn off 12 you can't see the beach, but you know it's there and you anticipate the pending view. It's exciting.
Posted by: lovethiscity May 24 2008, 07:36 AM
While I think Franklin should be a straight shot to the lake, I have a hard time with the two way thing. (Yes, I'll admit, I'm the fence straddler!)
For one, that street has never been a two way in my lifetime. I think it would create a lot of confusion for people and there will be many near-miss head-on collisions for people who don't realize it's become two way.
For two, there is already a parking issue uptown. There simply isn't enough parking. I suppose if the road was one lane in each direction, instead of two like the rest of Franklin, maybe the parking issue won't be so bad. But, if they're going to make it two way, then there should be some sort of centrally located parking structure. (more expense)
And three, what about crossing the street to get to businesses on the other side? Will there be pedestrian crossings, or pedestrian lights (you know the little button on the light pole you can push to get the light to change for you?) which is another expense I wonder if the City has considered. Or will it continue to be stop signs all the way down? Personally, if they are going to make it two way, then I think there will definitely need to be a light at 6th St. because of LHP traffic.
As for opening it all the way to Lake, who cares if you can't see the lake from 5th St.? It's the anticipation of knowing it's there and a straight shot. Like in New Buffalo. When you turn off 12 you can't see the beach, but you know it's there and you anticipate the pending view. It's exciting.
I have been told as you crest the hill at Ripley St by Elston you can see the lake, if the 4th street turn-around was removed
Posted by: Ang May 24 2008, 08:06 AM
I have been told as you crest the hill at Ripley St by Elston you can see the lake, if the 4th street turn-around was removed
I believe that might be true. Seems to me I recall that view before they moved the library to 4th St.
Tim, you're the geezer of the bunch, can you remember being able to see the Lake from Ripley St?
Posted by: southsider2k7 May 24 2008, 09:28 PM
If anyone else is familiar with other beach communities, they do everything they can to highlight the way to their beach. It is a source of community pride pretty much everywhere else. I don't know why we hide our beautiful beach.
Posted by: lovethiscity May 25 2008, 08:43 AM
If anyone else is familiar with other beach communities, they do everything they can to highlight the way to their beach. It is a source of community pride pretty much everywhere else. I don't know why we hide our beautiful beach.
Well, let's start with a Mayor that says "we can't pick apart a study and expect it to work" Then oders a study to make Franklin two way when the study calls for opening Franklin to the lake!
Posted by: CaddyRich May 25 2008, 09:46 AM
Step 1) Two way traffic is the way to go, IMO.
Step 2) Instead of opening it up all the way to the beach, how about just one more block...to City Hall?
Posted by: mcstumper May 26 2008, 08:10 PM
Obviously I believe that two way traffic combined with the "Stumper Plan" to change the traffic flows around the library (which would include a partial return to two way traffic on Pine and Washington) is the way to go. The logic flow of traffic for those heading to and from the beach wpuld change from Pine/Washington to Franklin which should improve the chances of development money coming back to the Square. We need to focus funds and manpower on Trail Creek corridor redevelopment before addressing whether or not there is a need to move both the library and the News-Dispatch buildings.
Posted by: southsider2k7 May 27 2008, 08:39 AM
We need to do this all in a big picture frame of mind. The Trail Creek corridor leads to the beach. If we highlight one are, we highlight the other area. We want things to be easy and obvious for people to find. Like I said before, the entrance to Washington Park should be the centerpiece of our beach front. We are trying to be a tourist town, we need to act like one, and make things as simple as possible for people to negotiate.
Posted by: Teach May 27 2008, 08:23 PM
So far, the board is leaning strongly toward supporting both of those initiatives -- opening Franlin straight to the beach and opening it up to two-way traffic -- with even more of a "just do it" attitude applied to the former. And since 6 people are in favor of removing the library and city hall without needing to see the plan, I guess that means I can fire up my bulldozer.
Even more telling, this poll has garnered twelve responses, which, although not quite statisitically significant, is getting there.
Then again, the polls here will never be statistically accurate with respect to the entire population of MC according to our Algebra book: it teaches us that this type of sampling, since it is voluntary, is therefore "biased." People who respond voluntarily to call-in shows and polls tend to be more negative and more inclined to want change. Of course, that's also how we elect our officials: using a voluntary poll; but with politics the biased voluntary polling we do is offset by the built-in financial and publicity advantage that incumbants have.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik May 28 2008, 08:32 AM
The key part of the above discussion is the part about the development of the Trail Creek corridor. If it is given up to private building, the potential to bring the lakefront park into the city will be squandered. Much "e-nk" has been spilled on this issue; please refer to the relevant threads.
Posted by: Dave May 29 2008, 02:15 AM
Heck, I want to do the demolition! We could do it as a fund raiser -- auction off turns on the bulldozer!
OK, that's a bit frivolous, but both the Andrews U. plan and the Lohan Anderson plan have Franklin running out to the lake with two way traffic. I could be looking at this wrong, but it seems to me that this is just a matter of fixing the clusterfxxk that was the "Franklin Square" project of the 70's which was what really killed the downtown.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik May 29 2008, 07:57 AM
You are ignoring the fact that the stores were old, crowded, and people at that time were all hyped up about shopping in a mall. That is what crippled that commercial district, and then Franklin Square (again, a study showed this was a good idea) killed it. Or rather, the absolute refusal of people to park and walk one block did. Two-way traffic is a canard.
Posted by: Dave May 29 2008, 01:15 PM
I've seen what malls do to towns when they first open. I spent a few months in Green Bay a year or two after they opened a mall in their downtown in the early 80's-- all the stores outside the mall died. The place looked like a ghost town, or a post-apocalypse episode of the Twilight Zone.
On the other hand, my home town, Holland, Michigan, still has a vibrant downtown in addition to having some huge malls a short drive away. Holland played with the pedestrian mall thing for a short time, realized it was a mistake, and changed back (mostly) in relatively short order. They never had huge vacancy rates in their downtown as a result of mall-ification.
Of course, they didn't drop a building in the middle of their main drag either (in Holland, that's Eighth Street, here it's Franklin), so the reversal was a matter of re-opening the street to traffic.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik May 29 2008, 02:14 PM
Consider this alternative to moving the Library (!): Put in a continuous, angled roadway from northbound Franklin onto Pine and from southbound Washington onto Franklin. That makes the drive much more direct-feeling than making two 90° turns with stops. Of course, this would involve demolishing some buidlings, but hey--can't make pecan pie without busting some nuts!
Posted by: lovethiscity May 29 2008, 09:38 PM
Consider this alternative to moving the Library (!): Put in a continuous, angled roadway from northbound Franklin onto Pine and from southbound Washington onto Franklin. That makes the drive much more direct-feeling than making two 90° turns with stops. Of course, this would involve demolishing some buidlings, but hey--can't make pecan pie without busting some nuts!
I say for once the city needs to listen to the experts, something this town simply refuses to do. The Library was never part of any plan. All the experts agree on one thing, that is move the city's biggest video store. Screw inventing the wheel again twisting and slanting digging the roads under the library, just move it.
Posted by: Dave May 29 2008, 11:40 PM
Consider this alternative to moving the Library (!): Put in a continuous, angled roadway from northbound Franklin onto Pine and from southbound Washington onto Franklin. That makes the drive much more direct-feeling than making two 90° turns with stops. Of course, this would involve demolishing some buidlings, but hey--can't make pecan pie without busting some nuts!
Mmmmm, pie.
What?!?
Oh.
Roger, I don't think using imminent domain to purchase two city blocks to reroute Franklin Street traffic would be more cost-effective than taking a big wrench to the library, taking it apart, and moving it and City Hall to a new location, either the Memorial Hospital property or to the City Hall-nart.
Posted by: Ang May 30 2008, 07:56 AM
I like the idea of putting the library at the old Memorial Hospital site. Reason being it it's close to the (for lack of a better phrase and I mean no one any disrespect) poorer neighborhoods. The library is an excellent place for low income people to visit because you can get movies, music and books for free. You can do research or use the internet for free. For people with low to moderate income, the library is a terrifc outlet for boredom. Keeping it on the north end, centrally located, is a smart thing to do, but leaving sit in the middle of Franklin St is not.
Posted by: Dave May 30 2008, 11:30 AM
No offense taken. The north end currently is one of the poorer neighborhoods in MC. That's simply a fact. I (and many other people) have hopes that that will change as time goes by.
n any case, the library would be an addition to the north end, rich or poor. And putting it on the Memorial Hospital site (possibly with City Hall and the police station -- some kind of a municipal complex?)) would seem to be a possible solution to the Franklin Street problem.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik May 30 2008, 12:49 PM
Mmmmm, pie.
What?!?
Oh.
Roger, I don't think using imminent domain to purchase two city blocks to reroute Franklin Street traffic would be more cost-effective than taking a big wrench to the library, taking it apart, and moving it and City Hall to a new location, either the Memorial Hospital property or to the City Hall-nart.
Is your use of "imminent" domain intentional? If so, it is a clever way to describe the use of eminent domain to take private property for questionable purposes.
My biggest kvetch in all this discussion is the stubborn insistence on developing small parcels or blocks in such a way as to actually discourage development in nearby areas or over a wider part of the North End. As I said before, much 'enk' has been devoted to this in reated threads.
Franklin St. does not need to be two-way or open to the Bridge. This idea is a pure canard. Making Washington, Pine, and 6th Streets two-way and commercial will open more areas up than just the few blocks from 9th to 4th on Franklin. >yawn<
Putting a so-called teardrop at the south end of Franklin somewhere between 9th and 11th alleviates the problems of traffic flow into the Lakefront areas. This teardrop, by the way, is like what is at the top end by the police station and City Hall. This may not be a new idea, by the way. Can we review the old Oberlie plans from the early '70s?
Posted by: Dave May 30 2008, 01:09 PM
Is your use of "imminent" domain intentional? If so, it is a clever way to describe the use of eminent domain to take private property for questionable purposes.
No, I just shouldn't always trust the spell checker in Firefox. Which I have to use. A lot.
My biggest kvetch in all this discussion is the stubborn insistence on developing small parcels or blocks in such a way as to actually discourage development in nearby areas or over a wider part of the North End. As I said before, much 'enk' has been devoted to this in reated threads.
Franklin St. does not need to be two-way or open to the Bridge. This idea is a pure canard. Making Washington, Pine, and 6th Streets two-way and commercial will open more areas up than just the few blocks from 9th to 4th on Franklin. >yawn<
Putting a so-called teardrop at the south end of Franklin somewhere between 9th and 11th alleviates the problems of traffic flow into the Lakefront areas. This teardrop, by the way, is like what is at the top end by the police station and City Hall. This may not be a new idea, by the way. Can we review the old Oberlie plans from the early '70s?
If a "teardrop" isn't working north of the library, I have to wonder how well it would work south of the library.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik May 30 2008, 02:30 PM
It does seem that the teardrop is working fine on the north end of the area in question.
Posted by: Dave May 30 2008, 02:43 PM
It does seem that the teardrop is working fine on the north end of the area in question.
Really? When I walk down Franklin and see all the failed businesses and such, and when I get stopped by drivers and have to give directions to people heading north on Pine Street and on Franklin street how to get to Washington Park, I get the impression it isn't working too well.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Posted by: Ang May 30 2008, 02:48 PM
I'm with ya on that one Dave. It can be very confusing to out-of-towners and if MC is going the tourist way, it should be stranger-friendly.
Posted by: mcstumper May 30 2008, 08:38 PM
The teardrop is the right idea. I still am sticking with the Stumper Plan of course. Rog, in case you missed it during your hiatus...
Traffic moving north on Franklin would make a right onto newly one-way 4th St. heading east and a right onto Pine heading North without stopping (but hopefully while slowing down). There is the logical route to the beach. Simple. Cheap. Effective.
Southbound from the lake is directed onto Fourth St. heading east and then south on Franklin.
Posted by: lovethiscity May 31 2008, 01:58 PM
The teardrop is the right idea. I still am sticking with the Stumper Plan of course. Rog, in case you missed it during your hiatus...Traffic moving north on Franklin would make a right onto newly one-way 4th St. heading east and a right onto Pine heading North without stopping (but hopefully while slowing down). There is the logical route to the beach. Simple. Cheap. Effective.
Southbound from the lake is directed onto Fourth St. heading east and then south on Franklin.
This is a pedestrian friendly plan too. That is if you don't mind walking down alleys, through parking lots or in circles for a few extra blocks.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik May 31 2008, 03:36 PM
The South Tear Drop makes the entire area more traffic-to-the-beach-friendly, and it has the additional advantage of bringing traffic to Pine and Washington more easily.
Posted by: Ang May 31 2008, 03:46 PM
Upon further review of the Stumper plan, I guess it's not so bad afterall. But, I too am concerned about pedestrian traffic. And there is still the issue of municipal parking.
While I think Franklin would be best opened up all the way to the beach, if that's not feasable, or the library doesn't want to move, then I think the Stumper plan should be the contingency
Posted by: Dave May 31 2008, 06:00 PM
Agreed. The Stumper plan is certainly better than things are now, and would appear to be a low-cost change. Until the library gets moved, which I still think is the best thing to do, Stumpie's plan is the way to go.
Posted by: mcstumper May 31 2008, 08:52 PM
But, I too am concerned about pedestrian traffic.
I agree with you there. But to say the least, getting anywhere in Michigan City by foot is a dangerous adventure.
In Downer's Grove, IL, their downtown has clearly marked crosswalks mid-block that have multiple signs (I believe with yellow flashing lights) that state that all vehicles must yield to pedestrians. People there seem to get it.
Posted by: Ang Jun 1 2008, 08:07 AM
In WY it's a state law that pedestrians in a cross walk have the right of way. It's on the driver's license test as well. Some crosswalks are mid-block and have road signs that say, "Stop when occupied." At first I didn't know what that meant. Didn't make any sense to me. Then someone told me about it. People actually do stop and most people will just stop to let people cross whether they are in a crosswalk or not.
Posted by: Dave Jun 1 2008, 03:43 PM
In WY it's a state law that pedestrians in a cross walk have the right of way. It's on the driver's license test as well. Some crosswalks are mid-block and have road signs that say, "Stop when occupied." At first I didn't know what that meant. Didn't make any sense to me. Then someone told me about it. People actually do stop and most people will just stop to let people cross whether they are in a crosswalk or not.
I've been under the impression that pretty much everywhere pedestrians have the right of way at "zebra crossings," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_crossing) the crosswalks with lots of lines in them. Some places (apparently Wyoming) give pedestrians the right of way in all marked pedestrian crossings, but could you imagine trying to drive crosstown in Chicago if pedestrians always had the right of way? It would take all day to get about 4 blocks! Too many people in Chicago seem to have being a hood ornament as one of their goals in life.
Posted by: RexKickass Jun 2 2008, 09:33 AM
Am I the only one here that loves the design of the library visually? As impractical as it is?
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jun 2 2008, 09:37 AM
No. It is silly to think it is necessary to move it.
Posted by: Ang Jun 2 2008, 10:20 AM
I've been under the impression that pretty much everywhere pedestrians have the right of way at "zebra crossings," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_crossing) the crosswalks with lots of lines in them. Some places (apparently Wyoming) give pedestrians the right of way in all marked pedestrian crossings, but could you imagine trying to drive crosstown in Chicago if pedestrians always had the right of way? It would take all day to get about 4 blocks! Too many people in Chicago seem to have being a hood ornament as one of their goals in life.
if the intersection has a traffic signal, then the pedestrian has to wait until they get a walk signal, but all of the traffic signals have those little buttons a pedestrian can push to get the light to change in their favor. Even the big intersections have them.
Posted by: Dave Jun 2 2008, 10:58 AM
No. It is silly to think it is necessary to move it.
We may have to agree to disagree here, Roger.
But allow me to posit these questions: While moving the library may not be necessary, do you think that, were it to be moved (via earthquake, flood, or simply relocation) and Franklin Street returned to its previous location, redevelopment of the north end would be easier, faster, or more likely? Or is the presence of the library in its current location simply, in your opinion, irrelevant to north end redevelopment?
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jun 2 2008, 11:47 AM
I usually let pedestrians cross without insisting on my right of way. Of course, this isn't Fla. I don't think there is a problem crossing any street in MC. There are signals all over, corner cuts, painted crossings, etc.
Speaking of pedestrian matters, what dunderheads allowed all that development on South Franklin without pedestrian access and bike paths?
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jun 2 2008, 12:28 PM
If the library were moved and Franklin Street opened again through its site, it would at best help the half-block on each side of Franklin attract some businesses. This has the effect of keeping development tied to a narrow strip of Michigan City. We can refer to this as the Potemkin model. The only way it becomes a necessity to move the Library is if you or the Gentle Reader cannot conceive of the Downtown developing up and down Pine, Washington, Franklin, and Wabash; and back and forth on 6th. I am hoping for greater development than a narrow strip on Franklin or along the Creek, so in my world, the Library's removal is not relevant.
Posted by: Dave Jun 2 2008, 02:41 PM
I see what you're saying Roger.
For the gentle reader, a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village is essentially a facade with little or nothing behind it.
Roger, I agree that the ultimate goal is to have a thriving downtown area, but to have that, I really think (re)moving the library is key. I don't think development would limit itself to just Franklin Street (and the Taril Creek corridor), I think it would start there and spread. Drive the property values and rents along Franklin Street up, and businesses will start setting up shop on Washington and Wabash (the east side of Pine Street is zoned residential from 11th north to 6th, and my own durn house is there, so I'm not going to advocate commercialization of Pine).
Of course, you may be right, and the result could be something like Whittaker Street in New Buffalo, where the downtown is basically 1/2 a block on either side (other than US 12). But, like New Buffalo, our main draw for traffic on the north end really is the lake, and having a roadblock in the way to the lake doesn't seem to be helping any. And even if we ended up with a New Buffalo-esque "Potemkin Plan", I suggest that would be a step up from we have here right now.
And to torture a metaphor, maybe I'm willing to settle for half a loaf, but when you've been hungry for a long time, half a loaf looks a lot better than none.
Posted by: lovethiscity Jun 2 2008, 10:00 PM
Am I the only one here that loves the design of the library visually? As impractical as it is?
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jun 3 2008, 08:32 AM
And to torture a metaphor, maybe I'm willing to settle for half a loaf, but when you've been hungry for a long time, half a loaf looks a lot better than none.
I really just wanted to quote your last sentence, but the whole thing got in...I guess that is why I am not an administrator!
At any rate, regarding the half-loaf, I am concerned about the progeny of this generation not getting a chance at a loaf because of having to correct fundamental errors made by the Oberlie crew for the last 40 years.
Posted by: Dave Jun 3 2008, 11:42 AM
At any rate, regarding the half-loaf, I am concerned about the progeny of this generation not getting a chance at a loaf because of having to correct fundamental errors made by the Oberlie crew for the last 40 years.
It's almost enough to make one vote Republican!
Oh, wait, there was no Republican running for Mayor last time around. I'm really kind of surprised no one ran as a Republican for mayor just so there was an option for protest votes.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jun 5 2008, 11:28 AM
Let's wait for the primaries again. I guess.
Posted by: Michelle Jun 7 2008, 08:57 AM
From what I understand the builind can be taken apart like an erector set and moved re-assembled with little effort
I've heard an estimate for the cost of moving the library, and it's significant. I don't want to get into it too much (since I'm commenting here on a personal basis), but despite the unique aspects of the building's shell, it would be akin to most major building projects in money and effort.
Posted by: Michelle Jun 7 2008, 09:03 AM
Am I the only one here that loves the design of the library visually? As impractical as it is?
Not just you; I do too. It was designed by Helmut Jahn in the early years of his career, and won a number of architectural awards when it was built.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jun 12 2008, 11:33 AM
Personally, I dig it: The bldg and its location.
Posted by: JHeath Jul 2 2008, 10:20 AM
http://heraldargus.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=121247&TM=44317.21
Changing lanes?
Tour opens eyes, brings back memories
By Jason Miller
For The Herald-Argus
MICHIGAN CITY - Lynne Kaser grew up in Michigan City and recalls when walking down Franklin Street was the popular thing to do. When she finally got a look at how the street would be altered if its traffic patterns are changed to alternate directions, she hearkened back to those days.
"If you're going to do it, then you need to do it right," the Michigan City Redevelopment Commission member said Tuesday as she stood at the corner of Ninth and Franklin streets. "I can remember when walking down Franklin Street was fun. I think if we do this, it will be a good start to bringing that back."
Members of the Redevelopment Commission toured the intersection Tuesday in the hope of better grasping the restructuring that would need to take place to make a smooth transition to two-way traffic.
At the intersection, traffic moves from four two-way lanes to two lanes of one way. Northbound traffic is funneled into one way by a large, protruding curb and planter that extend into Franklin Street.
If the city agrees to the third of five options recommended in a study by Haas & Associates of Michigan City, the curb would be removed, opening up the intersection so southbound traffic and northbound traffic could safely navigate the area.
Northbound lanes would feed vehicles into the 800 block northbound, and parallel parking would be added on both sides of the street.
City planner John Pugh said Tuesday the trip to the intersection seemed helpful to commission members who needed to see for themselves how the street would be affected.
"It's great because we can walk it and visualize, and see that it's a lot different than looking at a picture or an aerial photo," he said. "This block requires more reworking than any of the others, so this was something everyone needed to see for themselves."
The tour changed the mind of Kaser, who said she wasn't sure until Tuesday which option she preferred.
Each option is differentiated by the parking it would introduce and the curb cut in option three, which would create 28 parking spots between Eighth and Ninth streets, up from the 20 that currently exist.
Pugh said he expects Haas & Associates to bring cost estimates on each of the options to the commission's next meeting on July 14, at Michigan City City Hall.
He said the city's development plans are helping push the Franklin Street project along.
"I think we've got some momentum and we need to capitalize on it," Pugh said.
The Franklin Street project would be paid through funds drawn from the existing Northside TIF District.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jul 2 2008, 01:19 PM
Pugh is a demonstrable idiot. We should either ignore him or do the opposite of anything he says.
Posted by: mcstumper Jul 2 2008, 03:29 PM
Huh?????? Can someone explain what this means.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jul 3 2008, 10:20 AM
They would proceed north of 9th, which is the 800 block. They needed cereal filler, it seems like.
Posted by: southsider2k7 Jul 10 2008, 11:04 AM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=50&SubSectionID=75&ArticleID=15656&TM=47181.46
Regarding Franklin Street, it is very seldom that I agree with anything Mr. Roger Willoughby has to comment on - in fact I sort of think he is kind of windy, maybe just wanting an audience.
But his letter Sunday is right on ["Franklin Street plan wastes cash"]. Stop wasting tax money on the ridiculous plan to turn Franklin Street back into a two-way street.
I, too, have lived in Michigan City most of my life and I remember how it used to be. Franklin Street in the 50s and 60s was never that pretty.
On the North End there were several taverns, several pool halls, a bowling alley, a few grocery stores, even a house of prostitution. Business is never going to return to Franklin Square, so stop worrying yourselves about investing a lot of money into the square. Instead make it more attractive to the snow birds that only come to Michigan City in the summer to enjoy the lake. Tourism is where it's at, folks. Put in shops on the square that attract tourists and their immediate needs.
I don't know what the powers that be were drinking the day that they changed the traffic flow on Pine and Washington streets, but I personally think it was a dumb move. Turn them into two-way streets. Look at Wabash Street and see how beautiful it is on the North End.
Ken Schrimsher
La Porte
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jul 10 2008, 03:40 PM
It looks like Mr. Schrimsher has been reading the MB!
Posted by: southsider2k7 Jul 15 2008, 12:16 PM
http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=15870
After initial love-fest for concept, cost stops idea of changing traffic flow in its tracks, for now, anyway.
Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch
MICHIGAN CITY - The idea of opening up Franklin Square to two-way traffic was tabled by the Michigan City Redevelopment Commission on Monday after estimated costs of $619,000 were presented.
Tim Haas, of Haas & Associates of Michigan City, said the estimate was based on fixing curbs and repaving the downtown section of Franklin Street from Ninth Street north to the Michigan City Library on Fourth Street.
The project would require moving a protruding curb and planter that funnel traffic into one-way at Eighth Street.
The Michigan City Redevelopment Commission hired Haas & Associates in February to design various options for converting traffic flow to two-way on Franklin in the downtown area. At the time, the two-way traffic project was discussed as a done deal, not so much a matter of whether but how to do it.
Michigan City Plan Director John Pugh recommended Monday the project be put on hold until economic conditions change. He said the cost estimate surprised him.
"In the very beginning, I talked with the city engineer about doing it at the least possible expense," Pugh said. "We talked about $200,000 to $250,000."
Haas said after the meeting he understood the decision to halt further action on facilitating two-way traffic.
"A lot of municipalities are tightening their belts because they're not sure of revenue streams," he said. "I think it will come up again in the future. There is a desire out there. I sure hear about it."
Downtown business owner Bob Lake, who owns property in the 500 and 600 blocks of Franklin Street, said he has seen a lot of redevelopment happening in the downtown corridor even without two-way traffic. He told commissioners he would rather see funds used to award grants to developers who are rehabilitating downtown buildings to attract new tenants.
When two-way traffic was first announced, Dan O'Brien, owner of the Warren Building in the 700 block, said he would work to restore the vacant seven-story structure for reuse. Mayor Chuck Oberlie had endorsed the idea of a return to two-way traffic as a spur to downtown development.
Commission member Lynne Kaser said that, even though she supports the move to two-way traffic, she can't support the current price tag for accomplishing it.
"I hope we don't forget this," Kaser said. "We have some momentum going."
Contact Laurie Wink at lwink@thenewsdispatch.com.
Posted by: Dave Jul 15 2008, 12:26 PM
Well Roger, it looks like you have your wish...
Oh, I see Southsider beat me to posting that article.
Downtown business owner Bob Lake, who owns property in the 500 and 600 blocks of Franklin Street, said he has seen a lot of redevelopment happening in the downtown corridor even without two-way traffic. He told commissioners he would rather see funds used to award grants to developers who are rehabilitating downtown buildings to attract new tenants.
Yeah, right. Let's give business owners grants to rehab their buildings. I'd be in favor of that too, if I owned one of the buildings in question.
"I hope we don't forget this," Kaser said. "We have some momentum going."
I'm certainly not going to forget it. As for momentum, it appears to me the Redevelopment Commission is doing it's best to kill what momentum there is (see my related thread, http://www.citybythelake.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1465.
As for Mr. Schrimsher's letter,
Business is never going to return to Franklin Square, so stop worrying yourselves about investing a lot of money into the square. Instead make it more attractive to the snow birds that only come to Michigan City in the summer to enjoy the lake. Tourism is where it's at, folks. Put in shops on the square that attract tourists and their immediate needs.
The "business is never going to return" part is right, if by "business" he means industrial. However, the "shops on the square that attract tourists" are businesses as much as anything else. I agree that tourism is the way to go, because MC has three assets: location, location, location. We're on Lake Michigan, so we get tourists, and the money they spend. We're also located well for transportation related stuff such as Intermodals (not in MC proper, but in LaPorte county) due to our being at the south end of the lake.
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jul 15 2008, 12:32 PM
There has been so much enk on this topic, and yes, I am glad to see it tabled so that good plans can be considered instead of the 2-way canard.
Posted by: CaddyRich Jul 15 2008, 09:10 PM
There has been so much enk on this topic, and yes, I am glad to see it tabled so that good plans can be considered instead of the 2-way canard.
"good plans"? Pray type, Squire Kaputnik...I'm all eyes to see these "good plans".
Posted by: Roger Kaputnik Jul 16 2008, 10:48 AM
Please read the referenced enk.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)