true, have a :cheers: on that one.

I was just being a bit flippant about the unrealistic idea that the Obama Library was going to be part of a series of 20-foot storefronts reviving Garfield Boulevard, like some 1920s movie theater with the entrance squeezed between a Payless Shoes and a chop suey joint. In general, I think people are wholly unrealistic about the spinoff economic effects of a presidential library. The biggest opportunity will be providing secure parking for school buses.

I suspect the real issue for U of C is that there are one or two property owner holdouts within this rectangle—the gas station, perhaps. This would certainly seem a proper use for redevelopment authority.

To say that's jaded outlook is an understatement - Considering such an opportunity doesn't come along all that often, not really sure why you have such a negative opinion of the potential for spillover development, unless you have the ability to peer into the future - and there's no point in comparing the Obama library with the Clinton or Bush (43) situations, considering it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Those store fronts could be on the south side of Garfield Blvd. in between the green line and King Drive with abundant residential on top. This would help to truly activate the station, but I get your point.

Also, it seems that we're going to have to wait over the next 6-9 months for a specific location.

I'd be cautiously optimistic about the potential for a library to spur development outside its gates. As we've seen over on 53rd, there's untapped latent demand for retail on the South Side, but it's been just below a critical mass -- and adding just a few visitors should be enough to take it over the top.

The east end of downtown Little Rock was already pretty far along the revitalization path, but the Clinton Library really did focus a lot of attention and money on the area.

Finney's only looking to goose up the value of his Woodlawn land (his CDC owns the housing across Stony), just like he thought he was doing when he got the 63rd Street 'L' torn down. Which also goes to show that he knows nothing about what "transit access" means.

Foundation vs. Presidential Center
 

Something that's unclear to me – Marty seemed to be repeatedly asserting that the Foundation would be headquartered here in addition to the library + museum (both of which we'd known about before). Will the Foundation be part of the Presidential Center, or headquartered separately? (Marty also mentioned that the Foundation wouldn't be partnered with UChicago as the library and museum will be.)

I'm wondering because it'd be interesting to consider where the Foundation might be headquartered. I'm guessing they won't need enough space for a standalone structure, but I'd personally love to see them on the vacant parcel next to Johnson Publishing on S. Michigan Ave.

Where exactly is this spillover coming from? Nothing is ever apples-to-apples, but presidential libraries have been shown time and again to overstate economic benefits and tend to be heavily under-utilized after the initial sheen wears off.

Honestly, I wish this whole silly notion of presidential libraries (read: egotistical monuments) would just go away. The national archives can quite readily handle the duty of preserving presidential papers and documents without the need for pseudo palaces to store them. I'd be more impressed with all that fundraising power going to a more worthy cause than construction contracts.

If anything I think the security requirements help the cause of putting the library on the west lots as opposed to the park. I don't see how if you put the actual library in the park how you would have the necessary security parameter.

Found this tidbit here: http://www.uchicago.edu/features/chi...ential_center/

"The Obama Foundation announced plans to open offices on the South Side by the end of the year."

As I said, 'NOT apples to apples', point being I was trying to imply that each library location has different physical and societal/cultural characteristics (among other things) that create different criteria for development - these structures don't exist in a vacuum, and I think it's incredibly stupid to assume that it will exist solely as a monument or an archive, and not attempt to engage the surrounding the community, given the fact that the legacy it's promoting has been one of community activism and engagement AND also the fact that the general location on the City's south side was specifically chosen in order to continually promote that same activism and engagement for the future.

Also, your argument is weird considering NARA will still be the overarching authority for this Presidential center (like it is for all other Presidential libraries). Would you prefer that all of the hundreds of thousands of documents, files, emails, letters, laws, proposals, photographs for each and ever President past be located in one giant building...oh wait, the Old Post Office building downtown!! :D kidding aside, not really sure what your beef is against such a structure, considering that most government buildings, regardless of usage are ego-palaces of excess...should they all just be located in DC, is that what you'd prefer?

Edit: paytonc's link about how the Clinton Library helped foster local redevelopment is pretty good, I suggest you read it. http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/ten...nt?oid=3541156

Because I've seen the lack of results on the ground in Marion, West Branch, Independence, Abilene, Boston, Austin, Atlanta, College Station, and Dallas.

But maybe the indoor waterpark and automatic weapons shooting range will make this presidential library different.

well, yes. it seems to work fine for the Smithsonian.

if you were doing research on presidents youre telling me youd rather fly to 10 different places just to scan documents?

I see these silly statements all the time about all sorts of things from major sporting events to museums to world's fairs, yet I've never actually seen any studies or reports that actually back up these statements. All I ever see is people saying "well the Greece Olympics was a failure" or "that old arena in Kansas City got torn down". Please point me in the direction of the study that shows how Presidential Libraries don't have positive economic benefits. There probably isn't one and any one that does exist is probably bunk simply because the sample size is far too small to draw any solid conclusions. The fact is that events like the Olympics and things like Presidential Libraries are all essentially unique and individual events/projects. No two are the same and certainly, even as a group, it is difficult to draw any conclusion on what the next project or event will be like because it is likely to radically different the the previous ones.

well, most of the criticism of those projects tends to revolve on the use of taxpayer funds to subsidize multi-billion dollar sports organizations, which i think its a legitimate criticism.

in the case of the Obama library, its being privately financed so any risk is obviously diminished. but i still guarantee you that it will exist far more as a point of civic pride than any sort of economic engine. which is totally fine.

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/ec...lly-pay-cities

Sorry, not really sure what you're trying to prove; If I'm doing research on multiple President (not really sure WHO would do that, but I'll play along with your childish game), then I might just go to NARA archive building in DC or YES, I would probably go to a few, 3, 4 or 5 of the presidential libraries/museums if my research merited such visits....or a library, or University library, online, interviewing other experts, etc. If I'm doing research on ONE president, I'll do the same and just go to their namesake library.

I don't know why you can't understand why a President would want to have their 'legacy house' in a location other than DC, unless you relish being a contrarian for no reason.

but thats partially my point. everything is accessible online today (or anything of value probably requires a FOIA request anyway). so why do we need legacy buildings?

It's one thing to have access to information online, but I feel it's another thing altogether to have a physical experience in person in such a location, just to use one example. Also, there is no guarantee that all of the information encompassing a particular presidency will ever be readily available online. Another equally important point, you're forgetting that these are not just archives but also museums detailing a variety of aspects during that particular tenure.

That's what I meant when I said it wouldn't fit west of King. The U of C does not control all of the land in your footprint, and they could not likely plan a usable building on the parcels they do own. Certainly I would support the use of eminent domain here, but it seems like the U of C has decided to sidestep this issue by going after the wide open parkland across the street.

In principle, I don't like the idea of putting another huge building in the park, but I think it might be stronger from an urban design standpoint. A building with such stringent security requirements should not be next to a transit station; that land is better suited for walkable mixed use development, possibly the offices of the Obama Foundation which is not Federal.

So out of curiosity, now that we know the Presidential Center will be in Chicago, which of the locations do you prefer? Jackson Park? Or Washington Park?

At Garfield & King, there's still the chance that the building would be on land not part of the historic park, with only a formal garden or forecourt of some kind intruding into the Olmsted landscape of Washington Park. There's also a greater need for a redevelopment catalyst, and plenty of vacant land where neighbors can set up cut-rate parking lots and T-shirt shops. The site is adjacent to an L station, so visitors can easily visualize the trip from downtown hotels.

At 61st & Cornell, all the land within sight is either already part of the University of Chicago campus or Jackson Park. The transit links to downtown are more difficult for visitors to understand.