Friday 4/12/2013
The Out Chicago Hotel - MY THOUGHTS
The OUT Chicago hotel is quickly becoming a strong possibility for the Boystown neighborhood. While I was not at the community meeting last night (Thursday 4/11) everything I read about it seemed fairly positive.
However there are the usual complaints so I will address them with my opinion below.
Is the Hotel a benefit to the community?
Yes! Just like Paul Cannella (owner of Taverna 750 and Scarlet) said, anytime someone wants to invest $30 million dollars into Boystown we should be happy! Such a hotel will bring a new type of visitor to boystown. This will be a visitor that spends their DAY in the community versus just a night. This means local shops, everything from those who serve coffee and sandwiches to those who sell clothing, will benefit. In addition they will be benefiting from those who do not live in the community meaning we will be pulling in business revenue and tax revenue from new sources.
Oh it is so expensive!
From some posts I have been reading online some are complaining about the nightly rates of $195 to $225. Are you kidding me? You think that is expensive? Have you checked out hotel rates in downtown Chicago recently? For those complaining about the hotel prices just don't stay there!
Would you rather the hotel charge only $60 a night? Not only would it not be economically feasible but who would you rather have spending money in your community? Someone who can only afford a $60 a night hotel room or someone who is spending much more? Who do you think will spend more money supporting local businesses?
The building doesn't fit in with the area!
What else is new. We hear this ever single time a new building is built. Whether it is downtown, in a suburb or in Lakeview. The fact that zoning must be amended will mean that the height will be kept to a minimum so we don't need to freak out about a "monster" building on Halsted.
What needs to be remembered though is that design and architecture are ever changing. They change to meet the needs and wants of a community. They don't sit idle to pacify the one or two people who may lose a view or lose light in their living room.
Traffic! It will bring more traffic!
Of course traffic is always a concern. When I lived in Lakeview I hated dealing with traffic from cubs games and I despised anyone with out of state plates. But I would always try to remind myself they are here to spend money in our neighborhood which is a good thing!
I don't believe traffic is going to increase much with this hotel. It is a hotel and therefore most people will likely not be driving to it. Even if they do drive to the hotel they will park their car and likely not drive it during their visit. If the hotel is at full occupancy, lets say that is 112 rooms, how many will actually drive? Lets say 50%, that is only 56 vehicles and I'm sure the number of drivers will be far less than 50%.
What needs to be addressed here is a curb cut. Taxis I believe will be the most prevalent for the hotel and we want to make sure that Halsted is not bogged down with cabs dropping people off in the middle of the street versus being able to pull up to the front of the hotel. I'm sure this has already factored into their proposed plans as it does with every hotel!
New businesses can be sustained
Lets do some very quick math here. Lets use some conservative numbers and say that The Out Chicago will have 65% occupancy at any given point in time. This is under the Chicago average so I'm sure it will be higher, but lets be conservative. Now lets say that each "hotel room" will contribute $80 a day to the neighborhood on top of what they spent on their room. Again this is a very conservative number. If two people are staying in the room this is only $40 a person. Think about what you spend in a night out in Boystown. This works out to $2,125,760 of revenue to the community. Some may argue "well those people were going to visit anyway." OK, so lets cut that figure in half. Either way both numbers can easily support a new restaurant, a new coffee shop, a new boutique. Again, these are ultra conservative numbers.
More Jobs
The hotel will bring 100+ jobs, but in addition the increase hotel generated revenue could easily mean more jobs at existing bars, restaurants, and shops as well as at new businesses that may open.
The OUT Chicago can be an "Anchor"
In Real Estate we call certain stores "Anchor" stores. For instance Oak Brook mall has Macy's, Neiman Marcus, etc. as "Anchor Stores." These anchors draw people to the location. Other stores open up and are able to feed off of the traffic from the anchors. The Out Chicago will act as an anchor that will increase traffic for current businesses but also allow new ones to sustain themselves.
I'm very excited for the new hotel and excited for what it can bring to Halsted street in 2015 and beyond. It will help turn Boystown into more of a "destination" than it already is and everyone whether a resident of Boystown or a visitor will benefit.
However there are the usual complaints so I will address them with my opinion below.
Is the Hotel a benefit to the community?
Yes! Just like Paul Cannella (owner of Taverna 750 and Scarlet) said, anytime someone wants to invest $30 million dollars into Boystown we should be happy! Such a hotel will bring a new type of visitor to boystown. This will be a visitor that spends their DAY in the community versus just a night. This means local shops, everything from those who serve coffee and sandwiches to those who sell clothing, will benefit. In addition they will be benefiting from those who do not live in the community meaning we will be pulling in business revenue and tax revenue from new sources.
Oh it is so expensive!
From some posts I have been reading online some are complaining about the nightly rates of $195 to $225. Are you kidding me? You think that is expensive? Have you checked out hotel rates in downtown Chicago recently? For those complaining about the hotel prices just don't stay there!
Would you rather the hotel charge only $60 a night? Not only would it not be economically feasible but who would you rather have spending money in your community? Someone who can only afford a $60 a night hotel room or someone who is spending much more? Who do you think will spend more money supporting local businesses?
The building doesn't fit in with the area!
What else is new. We hear this ever single time a new building is built. Whether it is downtown, in a suburb or in Lakeview. The fact that zoning must be amended will mean that the height will be kept to a minimum so we don't need to freak out about a "monster" building on Halsted.
What needs to be remembered though is that design and architecture are ever changing. They change to meet the needs and wants of a community. They don't sit idle to pacify the one or two people who may lose a view or lose light in their living room.
Traffic! It will bring more traffic!
Of course traffic is always a concern. When I lived in Lakeview I hated dealing with traffic from cubs games and I despised anyone with out of state plates. But I would always try to remind myself they are here to spend money in our neighborhood which is a good thing!
I don't believe traffic is going to increase much with this hotel. It is a hotel and therefore most people will likely not be driving to it. Even if they do drive to the hotel they will park their car and likely not drive it during their visit. If the hotel is at full occupancy, lets say that is 112 rooms, how many will actually drive? Lets say 50%, that is only 56 vehicles and I'm sure the number of drivers will be far less than 50%.
What needs to be addressed here is a curb cut. Taxis I believe will be the most prevalent for the hotel and we want to make sure that Halsted is not bogged down with cabs dropping people off in the middle of the street versus being able to pull up to the front of the hotel. I'm sure this has already factored into their proposed plans as it does with every hotel!
New businesses can be sustained
Lets do some very quick math here. Lets use some conservative numbers and say that The Out Chicago will have 65% occupancy at any given point in time. This is under the Chicago average so I'm sure it will be higher, but lets be conservative. Now lets say that each "hotel room" will contribute $80 a day to the neighborhood on top of what they spent on their room. Again this is a very conservative number. If two people are staying in the room this is only $40 a person. Think about what you spend in a night out in Boystown. This works out to $2,125,760 of revenue to the community. Some may argue "well those people were going to visit anyway." OK, so lets cut that figure in half. Either way both numbers can easily support a new restaurant, a new coffee shop, a new boutique. Again, these are ultra conservative numbers.
More Jobs
The hotel will bring 100+ jobs, but in addition the increase hotel generated revenue could easily mean more jobs at existing bars, restaurants, and shops as well as at new businesses that may open.
The OUT Chicago can be an "Anchor"
In Real Estate we call certain stores "Anchor" stores. For instance Oak Brook mall has Macy's, Neiman Marcus, etc. as "Anchor Stores." These anchors draw people to the location. Other stores open up and are able to feed off of the traffic from the anchors. The Out Chicago will act as an anchor that will increase traffic for current businesses but also allow new ones to sustain themselves.
I'm very excited for the new hotel and excited for what it can bring to Halsted street in 2015 and beyond. It will help turn Boystown into more of a "destination" than it already is and everyone whether a resident of Boystown or a visitor will benefit.
-
CPBill
Total blog posts: 1
MyPride friends: 1
Well said Paul! Although the process is just beginning, I believe this will be a great opportunity for our marvelous community!
Wednesday 12/12/2012
BOOK OF MORMON!
There may be many of you who have seen "The Book of Mormon" plastered across buses and billboards across Chicago over the past several months. This evening (or given the time I should say last evening) I had the ability to experience this production on opening night.
I would like to preface that after The Book of Mormon I further enjoyed the experience of an open bar (sponsored by Absolute) at the JW Marriot so my grammar may not be the most accurate and I apologize if this piece is a long winded. Lastly I apologize for not writing in such a long time!
So here is my review on The Book of Mormon.
If you have a very religious mother in-law I would not recommend bringing her to see this play. However, chances are you would not want to see a play she would want to see either so you are in luck! The Book of Mormon had me craving more after every scene not just for the cute actors but for the amazing performances they provided. The humor was non stop throughout the production but the quality of acting and singing was also on par with what you would expect with a Broadway performance.
Growing up in a Catholic environment and going to Catholic school until college; I took great enjoyment out of the script and the comedy which kept me laughing even at this late hour. I received messages from several people saying "Let me know how it is...should I go to see it?" The answer is YES!
Critics will compare it to many different performances and I'm sure you will all read them in the papers and on-line. However, my opinion, as a casual visitor of such performances is that The Book of Mormon will become the new "Wicked" that once controlled the "Chicago broadway" scene.
I had the pleasure of meeting with several of the Book of Mormon cast after the show at an after party. It was amazing to see how each and every single actor/actress was THRILLED to embrace the new fame bestowed upon them. They could not wait to take pictures with all the fans and they did not even hesitate to answer questions or speak with you for extended periods of time.
It is not only productions like this that make Chicago great but it is the incredible attitude of their performers and the fans alike that make Chicago the next best thing in Live Theater.
Monday 4/16/2012
DADT IS NOT A LGBT ISSUE!
This is a completely random thought I recently had but one that I firmly believe in. Don't Ask Don't Tell is NOT an issue for the LGBT community but why do we act like it is?
The premise of Don't Ask Don't Tell covers those in the military who are gay and are not able to disclose their sexual orientation...but again why is this an issue for the LGBT community.
I will say it again. The premise of Don't Ask Don't Tell affects those who are currently risking their lives for our country and cannot disclose their sexual orientation...again this is not an issue for the LGBT community.
Have you caught on yet?
You see, I believe we've been looking at this issue completely wrong and with the presidential election coming up we should put on the proper glasses and look at this issue in the proper way.
DADT should not be about the rights of LGBT community! Instead it should be about the rights of those serving in the Armed Forces. Those who make the decision to put their lives on the line, spend time away from their families and risk paying the ultimate sacrifice for our nation; DADT is an issue for these citizens. It is an issue for these brave individuals because ANYONE who is brave enough to risk their lives and fight for the freedoms we enjoy should have the RIGHT to disclose whatever they want to their fellow marines; whether it is their religious beliefs, their greatest fears, or their greatest loves (hence sexual orientation).
At the end of the day the repeal of DADT will not change my life and it will not change the lives of many of you. However, the lives it will change will be those who are serving our country and that is why the continued repeal of such a repugnant policy should be supported by all parties. This is an issue that doesn't hit the core or the heart of the LGBT community but instead hits the heart of the United States Armed Forces. A policy such as DADT is beyond grotesque in that it tells a member of our army that you can die for our nation yet you cannot reveal who you truly are. My disgust for such a policy is beyond words. It is beyond words NOT because I am gay but because I am an American citizen.
Again, I must say that the repeal of DADT is not a victory for the average gay man. It is not a victory for the gay man such as myself who puts on a shirt and tie to go to the office. Nor is it a victory for the twink who puts on skinny jeans and a tight t-shirt and heads over to Roscoe's. Instead, the repeal of DADT is a victory for EVERYONE who gears up and heads into battle on a daily basis because for these brave individuals it says that the government and its people are behind you 100% whether you are gay, straight, bisexual or transgendered.
Monday 3/5/2012
Free Speech?
Kirk Cameron....while checking Facebook between appointments today the only names I saw popping up were Kirk Cameron and Piers Morgan. News headlines ran across my phone stating "Piers Morgan defends Kirk Cameron's Anti-Gay Comments." GLAAD spoke out and denounced Kirk Cameron's comments. None of this seemed surprising. Kirk Cameron is a born again Christian and has made his views quite clear. What did surprise me was the immense criticism of Piers Morgan.
"How can Piers Morgan defend such comments. Doesn't surprise me anyway, I never liked that ****"
"What can you expect from a big corporation like CNN anyway..."
"Go to hell Piers"
Ridiculous statements like this were continuously posted by those on Facebook reading the various articles regarding Kirk and Piers. What surprised me most was the negativity directed at Piers Morgan. Why Piers? Because he defended Kirk Cameron's right to free speech?
Some shouted "Why would Piers have him on the show and ask him that question? He knows what kind of answer he will give!" So are we then only supposed to ask people questions when we are happy with the answers? Surely that is not the responsibility of a reporter.
Of course I do not agree with what Kirk Cameron said! However, I completely support his right to free speech and his right to express his beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this. Furthermore, I support the right Piers Morgan has to have whomever he wants on his show and ask whatever questions he wants to ask.
The Constitution of the United States gives free speech to individuals as well as to the press in the First Amendment. It is this same document that we in the LGBT community use to defend our position of why we should have equal rights, specifically the right of marriage. We cannot pick and choose the constitution. We cannot use it to justify our position and then simply over look the part that gives someone with opposite beliefs the right to free speech.
There are many who believe homosexuality is wrong. Some believe this due to religious convictions while there are some who believe homosexuality is wrong because it conflicts with their "traditional family values" belief they learned when they were raised. Some of these people may hate us, in the LGBT community, but the majority do not. Just because this group, which is made up of all wealth classes, ethnic groups and political parties, disagrees with us, does not give us the right to take away their right to free speech. After all how can we expect them to listen to our side of the story if we will not even listen to them?
We are at a critical point in the LGBT movement. We've moved mountains, but there are still some more to move. The question is, how will we advance? Will we have irrational outbursts every time someone disagrees with us? Or will we stay steadfast and move forward with dignity? Will we argue our rights based on emotion and fear or will we argue them based on legality and a constitution which has already given us the rights we deserve?
Our future is in our hands and not the hands of our oppressors. Let us handle it with care and dignity to reflect who we really are.
"How can Piers Morgan defend such comments. Doesn't surprise me anyway, I never liked that ****"
"What can you expect from a big corporation like CNN anyway..."
"Go to hell Piers"
Ridiculous statements like this were continuously posted by those on Facebook reading the various articles regarding Kirk and Piers. What surprised me most was the negativity directed at Piers Morgan. Why Piers? Because he defended Kirk Cameron's right to free speech?
Some shouted "Why would Piers have him on the show and ask him that question? He knows what kind of answer he will give!" So are we then only supposed to ask people questions when we are happy with the answers? Surely that is not the responsibility of a reporter.
Of course I do not agree with what Kirk Cameron said! However, I completely support his right to free speech and his right to express his beliefs. There is nothing wrong with this. Furthermore, I support the right Piers Morgan has to have whomever he wants on his show and ask whatever questions he wants to ask.
The Constitution of the United States gives free speech to individuals as well as to the press in the First Amendment. It is this same document that we in the LGBT community use to defend our position of why we should have equal rights, specifically the right of marriage. We cannot pick and choose the constitution. We cannot use it to justify our position and then simply over look the part that gives someone with opposite beliefs the right to free speech.
There are many who believe homosexuality is wrong. Some believe this due to religious convictions while there are some who believe homosexuality is wrong because it conflicts with their "traditional family values" belief they learned when they were raised. Some of these people may hate us, in the LGBT community, but the majority do not. Just because this group, which is made up of all wealth classes, ethnic groups and political parties, disagrees with us, does not give us the right to take away their right to free speech. After all how can we expect them to listen to our side of the story if we will not even listen to them?
We are at a critical point in the LGBT movement. We've moved mountains, but there are still some more to move. The question is, how will we advance? Will we have irrational outbursts every time someone disagrees with us? Or will we stay steadfast and move forward with dignity? Will we argue our rights based on emotion and fear or will we argue them based on legality and a constitution which has already given us the rights we deserve?
Our future is in our hands and not the hands of our oppressors. Let us handle it with care and dignity to reflect who we really are.
Thursday 2/16/2012
Quinn UNSURE?
When Governor Quinn of Illinois was asked if he would support Same-Sex Marriage in the state of Illinois he said he was still evaluating the issues surrounding Same-Sex Marriage. The Governor then states that he is "Looking to the Illinois legislator to see what happens next." He continues to dodge the question. Here are my thoughts; slightly long winded so pour yourself some coffee or a cocktail.
When someone is running for political office they should have a Utopia in mind. In this Utopia are a set of values and it is up to this politician to put forth a framework in order to achieve such perfection in society. While we all know we will never live in a Utopia; it is the pursuit of perfection which allows us to achieve the next best thing; Greatness.
On the civil rights front, my Utopia would be inclusive of everyone. Gay and Straight; Black and White; Believers and Non-Believers. Everyone would have the same rights and would be treated equally. They would have the same benefits and in the eyes of the law be treated exactly the same. Because of this belief I would happily sign a bill allowing same-sex marriage because I believe it would get us one step closer to my Utopia.
Social-Conservatives may believe in all the same civil rights as I do, with the exception of marriage. In their Utopia they may believe in what is now referred to as "traditional family values" where a man and a woman are meant to marry without any exceptions. This in their minds would take precedent over any civil rights. You know what? This is fine with me that they have these beliefs. I don't judge these politicians. I don't throw glitter in their face or lose respect for them. I feel it is unfortunate what they believe in, but they have a right to hold such a belief just as they have a right to run for public office and express this belief as part of their Utopia.
The problem I have is when people are unclear. When politicians are just that; politicians instead of leaders. If your Utopia is civil rights for all and you believe that there is nothing wrong with a man and man (or woman and woman) being together then you should sign a bill for gay marriage. If you believe in only a man and a woman being together then you should oppose the bill. This is a decision that should be made before you even decide to run for office as this is an issue in the forefront of not only politics but society. You SHOULD NOT say you need to "evaluate the issues surrounding same sex marriage" and you should not say "I'm evolving on same-sex marriage."
Same Sex marriage is not a new issue that just landed on our laps. It is an issue that has been around for some time. When our nation is attacked by terrorists then you can say "I need to evaluate how I'm going to handle this." If you find out one of your cabinet members or your chief of staff is breaking the law and selling a senate seat then you can say "I need to evaluate this situation." These are all situations which just came out of nowhere. But same-sex marriage hasn't fallen from the sky. Gay bars didn't pop up over night. We have been here for a while and I am disgusted by any elected official who does not take a stance on this issue because they are afraid of how they will look in the polls. These men and women are not leaders but only politicians.
I hold nothing against a social conservative who is against same-sex marriage, civil unions, etc. That is their belief. As long as they are up front about it; fine by me. I may not agree, but oh well. But for those who claim to be champions of civil rights and then when put in the hot seat backpedal...I have zero respect for. Furthermore, I am ashamed that the LGBT community is not OUTRAGED by the stance, or should I say lack thereof, from Governor Quinn.
Governor, I shook your hand at Equality Illinois and thanked you for your support. I am now sorry I did that.
When someone is running for political office they should have a Utopia in mind. In this Utopia are a set of values and it is up to this politician to put forth a framework in order to achieve such perfection in society. While we all know we will never live in a Utopia; it is the pursuit of perfection which allows us to achieve the next best thing; Greatness.
On the civil rights front, my Utopia would be inclusive of everyone. Gay and Straight; Black and White; Believers and Non-Believers. Everyone would have the same rights and would be treated equally. They would have the same benefits and in the eyes of the law be treated exactly the same. Because of this belief I would happily sign a bill allowing same-sex marriage because I believe it would get us one step closer to my Utopia.
Social-Conservatives may believe in all the same civil rights as I do, with the exception of marriage. In their Utopia they may believe in what is now referred to as "traditional family values" where a man and a woman are meant to marry without any exceptions. This in their minds would take precedent over any civil rights. You know what? This is fine with me that they have these beliefs. I don't judge these politicians. I don't throw glitter in their face or lose respect for them. I feel it is unfortunate what they believe in, but they have a right to hold such a belief just as they have a right to run for public office and express this belief as part of their Utopia.
The problem I have is when people are unclear. When politicians are just that; politicians instead of leaders. If your Utopia is civil rights for all and you believe that there is nothing wrong with a man and man (or woman and woman) being together then you should sign a bill for gay marriage. If you believe in only a man and a woman being together then you should oppose the bill. This is a decision that should be made before you even decide to run for office as this is an issue in the forefront of not only politics but society. You SHOULD NOT say you need to "evaluate the issues surrounding same sex marriage" and you should not say "I'm evolving on same-sex marriage."
Same Sex marriage is not a new issue that just landed on our laps. It is an issue that has been around for some time. When our nation is attacked by terrorists then you can say "I need to evaluate how I'm going to handle this." If you find out one of your cabinet members or your chief of staff is breaking the law and selling a senate seat then you can say "I need to evaluate this situation." These are all situations which just came out of nowhere. But same-sex marriage hasn't fallen from the sky. Gay bars didn't pop up over night. We have been here for a while and I am disgusted by any elected official who does not take a stance on this issue because they are afraid of how they will look in the polls. These men and women are not leaders but only politicians.
I hold nothing against a social conservative who is against same-sex marriage, civil unions, etc. That is their belief. As long as they are up front about it; fine by me. I may not agree, but oh well. But for those who claim to be champions of civil rights and then when put in the hot seat backpedal...I have zero respect for. Furthermore, I am ashamed that the LGBT community is not OUTRAGED by the stance, or should I say lack thereof, from Governor Quinn.
Governor, I shook your hand at Equality Illinois and thanked you for your support. I am now sorry I did that.
Older blog posts
1 comment