How would all of you feel about a bunch of fairly large wind turbines on the hypothetical eco-bridge if it were built? I can't seem to grasp how that would look aesthetically, but I love the idea of creating all that green space with non-polluting energy sources. Would it be artful enough to put out in the lake like that?

I would think they would design them to be quite aesthetic. Im sure they could be incorporated into a unobtrusive "pod" of sorts that that was inspired more by the shapes of nature, then the standard design created through the laws of science as we are used to. I doubt the turbine we saw on their page would be the same type on the Eco-Bridge. By the time it even gets built, if it gets built, we are likely to see advances in wind turbine technology that allow for significantly smaller turbines which could be maniuplated into a more decorative form as well. Just a thought

I really like the ecobridge and the tower and this does not violate the "forever free, open, and clear" precedent. It creats tons of added green space and parkland, doesn't rmove any and if this tower out in the Lake violated free,open, & clear than a lighthouse out in the Lake and the Coast Guard facilities would as well. This tower by providing an OD will offer something to the public, not just be spectacular to look at.

My only concern with the wind turbines is that they make them bird safe so they don't slaughter sea gulls and other birds that pass through the lake.

Absoluetely. No towers on the lake...not to mention its a rather retarded spot for an observation deck.

Permenantly for what, the next 20 years? An obs deck should also be a telecom tower. Who wants to observe the city from a spot where you can't see half the buildings and you have to walk 2 miles to get there? Not to mention , it blocks the effing view of the lake.

and what could possibly compare to the statue of liberty? Such an icon would be rather impossible to build, especially in a place where no one will see it.

Your record isn't exactly spotless on the whole "lets make the park a circus" issue. No tower. Torch? Sculpture? could work. Tower? HELL NO. Green space would be nice. That, however, does not warrant a bastardization of the lakefront. I'd rather see the money used to put Columbus and LSD underground ala Chicago Prize 2007.

You're comparing a fountain to a an 800 ft observation tower? Thats so effing laughable it doesn't even warrant a response.

Wow Alliance you really go all out with these things.

I'm not arguing that it should be changed to include an OD, I'm just saying that, if it is indeed an OD, you shouldn't just freak out right away because you heard the words "Observation Deck".

What's this about "My record" on the parks and open space? I didn't know I had a record? I really don't know what the hell you are talking about, are you trying to ad hominen your way to some sort of point? Are you trying to slander me for telling you that Millenium Park was a good idea or something because that's the only thing I can remember talking about that has to do with the park...

Of course there are better uses for this money, however, I'm not talking about what the best way for the city to spend money is, I'm talking about whether or not a project like this makes sense by its own merits, not how the city should best allocate funds. Stop dragging all sorts of other topics into this...

Its not laughable at all, the tower in the ecobridge is clearly the centerpiece of the project, Buckingham fountain is clearly the centerpiece of GP. Why not compare them and their respective roles?

You are very close minded sometimes Alliance, settle down, jeez...

Alliance, your sounding a bit like a NIMBY with your fear that this tower would block views of the Lake. This is rather ironic coinsdering your dispute about NIMBY tendencies related to the merits of the Sear addition with honte and others in the Boom run down thread. This tower would hardly block any view of the Lake, it would be tall and thin and about a mile away from the shore. That wouldn't block anyone's view. It wouldn't violate "open, free, and clear" because it would add green space not remove any and is way out in the Lake not on land that currently exists and is part of the Chicago landmass and park system. It is no different in this respect than a lighthouse or other structures built out on the Lake (which there already are). And I disagree that this would not be a good location for an OD. We already have Sears and JHC for "in city" views. This would offer a unique vantage point to view the entire skyline with park land and lake in front. Currently this type of view can only really be had in a boat of in a low flying plane over the Lake. I know I would go to it.

Alliance, I also think you're being a little harsh on this project.

I think this would be a great tourist asset for the city, it's barely going to block lake views, and can be a great recreational path/water area for the city, and is a great step for the future in terms of tourism and eco-friendly placement for Chicago.

Just to be clear, are you just anti-OD, or anti the whole project, or anti the tall structure no matter what it is?

I agree 200%. Get the freeways out of Grant Park first before building islands in the lake.
But I'd rather get rid of the CTA slowzones before that.

As for the wind turbines on that eco-bridge, they're far too numerous and too close together. Fewer large turbines would generate as much power, and the slower rotation speed of the larger turbines would reduce the risk to birds.

The big ones south of I-80 out in Bureau county turn so slowly that a bird would avoid the blades as easily as they avoid tree branches.

Grant Park isn't Central Park. It is an interactive park. That's why it has wide streets to use for street fests(Columbus), and open spaces in front of bandshells (Petrillo and Pritzker), and sculptures (Bean), fountains (Buckingham and MP), and a whole lot of (gasp) museums that (gasp) dare to charge admission. Grant Park isn't a naturalistic retreat from the bustle of the city; our neighborhood parks (Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, etc serve that role moreso). Rather Grant Park is part of a bustling city. I see nothing wrong with adding stuff to Grant Park, as long as it is done right and with proper consideration and design. I just don't buy into this righteous indignation about forever free, open, clear, whatever. So you oppose the Art Institute expansion as well?

I understand what you said about wide streets needed for festivels. On the other hand Grant Park is not an inviting park. It is islands bisected by as many as eight lanes of traffic in places. Just to cross the from one part of the park is a pain. Can't cross on this side, must cross a street here to go cross the street I initially wanted. Its not a nice park.

There's no reason for wide streets in Grant Park. You could just as easily build a parade ground type space that could serve the same function during the Taste, etc, but also actually add something to the park for the rest of the year.

Better yet, replace the roads with woods.

Central Park has a museum on its edge as well, and that's fine. It's got an ice skating rink. It's got a playground for kids. It's got a large fountain area, miniature castle, zoo and 2 restaurants. But the experience is better overall for one main reason - the general absence of automobile traffic except for the weekday rush hour. And since the roads that automobile traffic are permitted on are either sunken and out of sight, or one-way, curving roads, they don't destroy the aesthetics of the park or inhibit pedestrian movement.

And here's a big point: Why do there need to be roads through Grant Park, aside from small paths for service vehicles?

It's not as big as Central Park, for one. And second, who actually needs to drive through the park? In New York, the roads that cross Central Park are an absolute necessity, unless you want to have to drive all the way north or south to 110th street or 59th street to get between the Upper West and Upper East sides. But there's nothing to the east of Grant Park except water. Vehicular access to Soldier Field and the Museum Campus is to the south of the park, and Navy Pier is to the north of the park. The route wouldn't be any less direct if drivers going to and from LSD used Roosevelt Rd or Randolph St. Likewise, it wouldn't be a huge bother for anyone who currently takes Columbus through the park to drive a block east or a block west to the Drive or Michigan, respectively.

Grant Park is, of course, a different animal than Central Park. It's planned as a formal French garden, not an English country park. But this doesn't mean it needs cars and trucks streaming through.

What I would propose: retain one vehicular traverse through the park at Congress (eastbound traffic curves around Buckingham fountain to the south, westbound traffic north of the fountain). Make Columbus about 3/4 as wide as it is now, and replace the asphalt with the same pink gravel that's around Buckingham Fountain. Add a line of trees down the center. This remains the staging area for the Taste of Chicago. The other east-west streets through the park become gravel as well, with benches and fountains, so that they're pedestrianized but still provide open space for fairs.

There's really no reason not to do any of this except for the fact that it would cost money, but that's never a reason not to do something worthwhile.

"You're comparing a fountain to a an 800 ft observation tower"
Its hardly ironic. What tremendous development potential is an Obs Tower going to bring a mile from everything else? (none) Is it going to enhance the aquatic neighborhood? Enhance the aestetic appeal of cluttered waterfront? Bring economic advancement to grassy plains? What will it destroy? (a lot) Including the principle of an open lakefront and not a POS waterfront for sale.

Thats great logic! Why not just build skyscrapers over the railroad tracks with little green strips in between and call it increasing park space! Please.

Except lighthouses aren't 800 ft tall and are issues of public saftey. Another smashing comparison.

I'm not anti the project, I'm against the tower or major constructions as it is. Asking us to stomach a windfield alone is too much for me (is it actually going to provide THAT much power? No. Its a posterchild and not an actual solution.) Adding a big-ass tower is simply insulting. There is much more in this city thats needs money and the attention of architects.

Part of a city, not a city within itself. Anything built in the park should have a clear cultural and public significance. The park is becomming too cluttered as it is and I dislike the slow slide to development.

And yes, I disagree with the expansion of the tute, but most of all with the never-ending hampster-tunnel of bridges that seem to be going aorund the park. Why even call it a park. We should call it Capitalist Playground: Where every interest in the history of Chicago can attempt to chew up public land for prime location.

Everyone sits here now and gripes about how Daley Bicentennial Plaza is such a horrible developement that needs to be redone, when this is exactly the type of overdevelopment you would have been promoting 30 years ago. The park needs to remain free of buildings and obstructions. These two observation towers (the other one on the lakefront) violate a fundamental principle of Chicago's history that you all so ccasually throw to the sharks. This is an issue about public space that is USUABLE but NOT CONTINUOUSLY USED. Grant Park isn't a business, its a public asset and should be treated as such.

That obs tower is a modern abomination, no mater what the design. Move it elsewhere.

:cool:

It would be great, though, if they made at least part of Grant Park a bit like Central Park.

The southern end of the park would be a natural spot for a "naturalistic retreat", since they can move all those softball fields to some other part of Chicago that's little more suitable.

Grant Park shouldn't be central park, but it should actually try to BE a Beax Arts park (no roads, increased gardens, etc.)

I'm not crazy about the wind farm or the observation deck either.

I'm not sure wind turbines would even work in that spot. Wind studies need to be done to start, right? Winds tend to come from the West. Wouldn't all the buildings block much of the wind? A wind far three miles out and farther North would likely be more practical.

The arch could lend the city some more charm, but I doubt there would be much economic return for that project as others have mentioned. It does conjure up Dubai in my mind too. Some people love the Dubai developments, but it really disturbs me. I'm not confident how well those mass developments will do over time. That and the whole place has a plastic feel to me.

One bit I feel like wouldn't be that controversial would be add the pier on the North side of Grant Park that is shown in the drawing. Of course that could steal some of Navy Piers thunder.

Yeah, creating the pier at the north side of Monroe Harbor would be amazing. It wouldn't steal Navy Pier's thunder at all. Navy Pier is a tourist attraction first and foremost. The new pier would simply be parkland, perhaps with a memorial in the center of the circle out at the end.

[QUOTE=Alliance;3114422]"


Thats great logic! Why not just build skyscrapers over the railroad tracks with little green strips in between and call it increasing park space! Please.

You are comparing apples to oranges, I clearly said this is creating new land. This land is not currently a part of Gant Park, the railroad tracks are within the boundaries of Grant Park and are covered by the Ward ruleing not some hypothetical extension of land out in the Lake. This would be a new park seperate from the main landmass of Chicago thus the Ward ruling would not apply hear and I hardly feal this tower a mile out would take away anyone's ability to view the Lake. This concept is so similar to Burnham's orginal vision for the downtown Lakefront area I am surprised you could have such a problem with it.

I'm not anti the project, I'm against the tower or major constructions as it is. Asking us to stomach a windfield alone is too much for me (is it actually going to provide THAT much power? No. Its a posterchild and not an actual solution.) Adding a big-ass tower is simply insulting. There is much more in this city thats needs money and the attention of architects.

By this logic nothing would ever be done in the world except that which is most pressing or needed...that is not how the world works. People a free to dream and make proposals and build things in this world even if there is some greater need elsewhere.

Part of a city, not a city within itself. Anything built in the park should have a clear cultural and public significance. The park is becomming too cluttered as it is and I dislike the slow slide to development.
And yes, I disagree with the expansion of the tute, but most of all with the never-ending hampster-tunnel of bridges that seem to be going aorund the park. Why even call it a park. We should call it Capitalist Playground: Where every interest in the history of Chicago can attempt to chew up public land for prime location.

But this is a new park with new parkland. If you don't want Grant Park cluttered then fine (I think your opinions about Milinium Park and the AI expansion are in the vast minority, but I can understand your concern). This is a completly different Park that only adds green space, and public enhancements. I think the OD tower would be a public enhancement for Chicago even if a profit is made off it and the energy production from the wind turbines. Parks are rented out for events, bikes and boat rented, and food sold within the parks and by the park district. Nothing is wrong with the park district or others generationg revinue from the parks. The public still benifits from them and probablly even moreso because of this and the aminities and maintaince revinue this brings.

I don't buy this lame "oh its a new park so we can develop it excuse. The "forever, open, free, blah blah blah" applies as much to the lakes as the park. I really hate this attitude of "develop now, think later" Its completely myopic. How would you feel if a wall a skyscrapers ended up blocking the lake in some sort of elite-Dubai-exapanse-of-an-overgrown-gated-community? This is a step in that direction. Damage the lakefront of some other city.

City <> Park <> Lake. This is an uninterrupted axis of principle and legacy. This park has been given to us, immortalized for over a century in a great triumph of urban planning. It should not remain static, but it sohuld always adhere to the original principles on which it was made. The lakefront, the most profitable lots in the city, were chosen to be OPEN to everyone in Chicago and our guests. Its the idea that every citizen has the right to partake in the best of what the city has to offer without developers absconding with profitable land for their private use, even in the guise of public interest.

Lake Point Tower, Millennium Park, The Art Institute, and the Lakeside Center are all marks against these principles. You could call me an idiot if I claimed that the city hasn't benefited from these developments, but I know well what each of them brings. I feel MP alone pushed the boom and Chicago architecture to new heights. But these developments are wrong. There will always be new developments that will bring benefits to the city, but even if only A+ developments are allowe to be built (Lakeside center?) eventually the park will be full and nothing more than an endless maze of museums and bandshells, empty convention centers and souless tennis courts. No park. No respect for our fathers. Nothing left for our children.

Now, to me, there is a balance here, because some of this stuff is smaller and out of the way, and can be developed at least to appease me (MP, though its still a love hate relationship). However, this is something beyond that. This is a tower. A building (maybe). Something beyond anyhting that has been built there (in my lifetime anyway). It should be met with a resounding. "Never!" Put it in the South Loop where tourism and good architecture are needed, especialyl if its ony 800' or so.

Well, no, actually - at least not insofar as the 1839 charter - public ground only - though I agree with you in spirit. The RRs actually had trestles out in the lake at one time, parallel to Michigan Ave, as a way of circumventing the charter.

Public ground. Forever to remain vacant of buildings.