|
One thing that isn't being discussed (at least not here) is the fact that the Obamas don't WANT to be in Chicago again. They want to be in NYC, Valerie Jarrett (in more than a couple news outlets) is not-so-secretly pushing for them to relocate permanently to NYC, the oldest daughter wants to go to school in NYC, Obama himself is prepping for a post-Presidential job at the UN, so all signs are pointing to NYC for his Presidential Library, considering he has publicly stated they want to live wherever their oldest goes to college, and which is also where they want their library to be.
One or both of the Chicago library bids could have been absolutely flawless, and they will still lose to Columbia/NYC and their bid because it's just where the Obamas want to be, it's (unfortunately) that simple. I wouldn't be surprised if all of the double-talk, obfuscation and general 'huh??' manufactured confusion about Chicago's two 'flawed' library bids were nothing more than political ruse to soften the blow of not having the library in 'Obama's hometown'. |
Quote:
I think frankly all this talk about a Chicago bid being on the ropes was a play to give the city and university maximum leverage in order to give the foundation all it could/would be asking for. As a way to say to the public "look, our city was at real risk of losing this library to NYC. If we aren't reasonable and give the foundation approximate carte blanche control then we lose this thing. So don't be an obstructionist and let us use eminent domain or do some land transfers if need be". Didn't the city also do something similar during the Olympic bid? It also gives the appearance of taking the other bids more seriously instead of this just being a shoe in for the UofC that it likely has been all along. What sources are these that are reporting that they will end up wherever the eldest girl will go to school? She is still a junior for crying out loud. I read that she was thinking about Stanford was just as high on her list as any school. They gonna move to San Fran if she chooses Stanford or Berkeley? Also I would be shocked if for the first few years at least President Obama doesn't rack up tens of millions on the speaking circuit. That is hard to do while having a prime role at the UN. Even if they did move to NYC I don't see it as being a death blow for a Chicago bid. In NYC his library would be a small fish in a big pond. In Chicago his library would be a bigger fish in a smaller pond. It certainly didn't dissuade the Clinton's from putting the library back in Arkansas. It would be a real break from Presidential tradition if the Obama's were to put the library in a place with such tepid links. A mere 3 year cup of coffee (2 years studying given he was a transfer) he had in NYC. He also would want to emphasize his organizing roots and his teaching of constitutional law at UofC I would think. Not to mention Michelle's impressive resume at the UofC. Also Obama has a known quantity in who he is dealing with as Chicago Mayor and the local political scene. He knows some of the alderman still and knows many who probably sit on the UofC's board. Not to mention his oldest and deepest pockets (the Pritzkers etc.) are here. Also the possibility of rejuvinating a community due to the library itself is much greater then if he were to plop it down in Harlem. A legacy he would no doubt love to have asked about him in 20 years if eastern Washington Park saw a rebirth. The changes and growth would be much notable given the dilapidated condition of the neighborhood while also the immediate neighborhood would be more orientated towards the library given the immediate area would largely be built anew. -------------------------------- Todays news....... Quote:
|
^ I don't know about this. I know the Obamas may live in NYC, but they can still build the library in the city of their roots. That's what most Presidents do. Look at the Clintons.
|
Just a thought here.....Does anyone know who the boulevard system comes under control of? Is that considered city property or park district property?
I wonder if the Obama's would want to have full control of the section of the boulevard that runs down Garfield Blvd. into the park. Because with a "campus like setting" probably spanning both sides of Garfield boulevard they may very well want to have control over the landscaping of and utilization of the boulevard itself. Or maybe they want to have some guarantee of ownership and control of the outer western edge of Washington Park and Garfield Blvd. so that in the future if the park district ever were to let the park fall into a state of neglect or disrepair the library wouldn't be affected. I just can't imagine them wanting to fight to build a major piece on the park itself. |
Quote:
The entire family can move to NYC after 2016....but that fact in itself really doesn't mean anything as far as where a presidential library is located. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
For the record, I feel pretty confident in asserting that Malia will go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or Stanford. They are the most prestigious schools in the country and all of them will court her heavily. (They also have the resources needed to accommodate such a high profile student.) I'd be shocked if she ended up at Columbia. Also, my best friend works for the UN in a capacity that gives her access to its higher-ups. If there were any truth to his rumored interest in a position there, she would have caught wind of it. Based on the tenor of the meetings she's attended featuring him or his surrogates, I'm under the impression that he doesn't view it too favorably. Which makes sense. Though noble in aim, the UN epitomizes bureaucracy at its worst. There's a wanton disregard for financial accountability, and the internal political machinations make House of Cards look about as dramatic as student council at an elementary school. More importantly, I don't think there's anything about the history of presidential libraries to suggest that the Obamas' post White House digs will determine or even influence its location. Personally, I think nomarandlee is right to read between the lines. It all smacks of political strategizing to me. |
U of C Obama library to take chunks of either Washington or Jackson Park. I'd prefer the Washington Park option, but it's amazing with all south river development availability, that no proposal utilized this area.
|
Quote:
|
The University of Chicago is proposing that the Obama presidential library be built on about 20 acres of South Side parkland, either in Washington or Jackson parks, according to the university.Chicago Tribune story Unbelievable. Apparently "park" is a Chicago term meaning "landscaped area where we haven't yet thought of anything to build." http://i.imgur.com/8SWwhhg.jpg |
Welp, so much for the Chicago bids not being desperate. This is weird.
|
Quote:
Since when does the UOFC get to give away public parkland for whatever cause they see fit? |
UChicago has finally released a few renderings of their proposal and the site map.
All images from Chicago Curbed: http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...29.47%20AM.png http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...29.28%20AM.png http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...29.37%20AM.png http://cdn.cstatic.net/images/gridfs...30.26%20AM.png |
Any design renderings are meaningless as the design will be dictated by the Obama camp. Its basically just showing.....protected bike lanes and a magical infusion of pedestrians
|
Quote:
So I guess now we know why the bid wasn't made public. Actually, I kind of agree with your characterization. But, it's not as if it's really a surprise that parkland in Chicago is mostly just a placeholder until the city wants something 'better' built on it. As a matter of principle, this way that Chicago 'works' doesn't sit terribly well with me either. Although, one of those park sites could make for a fantastic setting, and siting, for the library and be something of a catalyst. Why though were park sites the best - or only - options that UofC could come up with? Is this truly the best it could do?? |
Quote:
I'm not sure where you are getting your info, but 55th does not connect to Lake Shore Drive so there are no ramps to improve there. Also, 55th street was just road-dieted in 2012 from Lake Park to Cottage Grove, switching it from 4 lanes to 3 with protected/buffered bike lanes. CDOT is currently going through a master planning process for streetscape improvements along 55th street from Cottage Grove to Lake Shore Drive, but they have no plans to widen the roadway as part of that. |
This really smacks of a deep arrogance by the Obama camps and Obama's themselves. This isn't some partisan observation given that I generally like the guy and first family and think most such accusations about him have been over the top.
But this is a rather clear case of Presidential or personal hubris. Obviously the foundation wants part of the parks as an option on which to build or else they would have told the UofC to withdraw any such considerations. Obviously the leaked "concern" is not so much a concern with building on actual park land (that could be quickly rectified by claiming they have no desire to build in the park) but the fact that it the runway is laid down for them to do if those sites are chosen. Obviously they want the mayor and city to take the PR hit and to get the fight done so that the Obama's will not have to after the fact. This is something the foundation wants even if they making the UofC and city go to bat for it. Chicago arguably doesn't have enough public park space as it is. And given that these proposals take LARGE chunks one out of one of Chicago's few major primary parks is just unacceptable. I would hate for Chicago to lose this library but there has to be limits and real principles stood up for. The city made a mockery of landmark desiginations in regard to Wrigley Field but this is a much more important preservation fight. Granted the landscaping of Washington Park isn't all that and if the Obama's simply want to restructure the park and pour money into the landscaping or even a monument of some kind then I could get on board with that. However if it the park itself is expected to hold inhabitable structures or even part of the whole library itself then I hope we say "well move along Mr. and Mrs. Obama". There is a HUGE and great space right west of Washington Park across the darn street in which to build your library. A space that would rival any where a Presidential Library sits in the country right now. Take it or leave it Mr. President. |
the parks are nice, but when across the street is a god damn ghetto, any development is good.
|
That HOK Bronzeville design study is looking more attractive by the day.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If they were committed to NOT building a structure in the park they would express that or at the very least they wouldn't have the University and going to bat for it. This is being driven by the foundation. You think the city or university would push the park issue if the foundation didn't want it at least open to them? The foundation expresses what it wants (or at least have the option of) and wants other players to go out and fight and get it so as not have the office of the Presidency and his reputation besmearched by such fights (predictably but understandably). |
I'll say the NW corner of Washington Park (plus adjacent land across MLK) site is probably the right choice, given the options. Rahm at least had the sense to jettison another lakefront site from consideration. Would complement the DuSable Museum that is also in the park.
|
^ That's a dumb argument. The DuSable Museum was an existing building dating back to the park's original construction, the perfect size to host a modest community museum.
In contrast, both of the U of C proposals are rapaciously gobbling up scarce parkland for a gigantic inflated facility, in a neighborhood with plenty of open land already under U of C's control. You know that half of that Washington Park plot will become parking lots. |
Quote:
I think the city was somewhat blindsided by the information that the land needed to be entirely under city control now to secure the library so they are into desperate measures. Otherwise they would have been buying up/EDing all the requisite land. This thing is coming though and if park land is inevitably going to be sacrificed then this is the lesser evil. Keep it out of Jackson. |
Perhaps they need control of the park land for a structure that ties across the roadway allowing easy access through the museum from the train stations directly to the parks? I could support a structure like that, it is clear that they intend to use the university owned land on the other side of the street as well as the portion of park land highlighted. Could this be a case of the West portion of the site not being large enough to stand on it's own so a larger, road spanning, plan is necessary. I don't think this building should be any higher than maybe 4 stories and large floor plates are probably a must for any kind of exhibition space.
I can support ceding parkland to them, but only if we are shown specifically what the plan is. Some sort of sculpture in the park with a grand lawn or promenade leading up to a grand parkside entrance that draws guests directly into the museum and over the road would be excellent. I can't, however, support them just dumping the entire thing in Jackson Park. Also, this "cultural ribbon" thing appears almost as if it could include significant structural elements, perhaps viaducts or bridges over busy roads? Any idea what that actually is? Or is it just bullshit conceptual crap that won't actually be anything? |
^ No, it's "bullshit conceptual". Obama Foundation will not begin to consider site planning until they choose one of the competing sites.
That's why it's important to raise objections now... if/when U of C wins the competition, the fix would already be in for the loss of parkland. |
Quote:
One with Star Wars artifacts is mostly OK with posters. The other with Presidential papers is mostly not OK. Think about why that could be. |
I sure hope whoever wins gets in touch with Sorkin to design it. Nothing beats the circle design he came up with.
|
I think UofC made a mistake by identifying the large blocks of parkland for potential sites. If you read their text, they expect the actual physical museum to only occupy a very small fraction of the identified 'chunks'. And they intend to replace parkland 1:1...
|
I support the Lucus Museum's location because it's currently a parking lot but to take a huge chunk of land out of one of two of Chicago's most significant parks is ridiculous. If the actual library is only going to occupy a small portion of the site then put it on the northwest corner of Garfield and MLK. Also there is no real way for U of C to overcome the problem of land ownership, will the park district sale them the land, can they?
|
Quote:
One of the main functions of parkland in a big city is to give people a place to get away from the bustle and noise of the city. In Chicago even the lakefront doesn't serve that function very well with LSD and the number of people using the bike paths. There is a real need to have large contiguous 20 acre blocks of park, so there is a real sense of peace and seclusion in the middle of that. Taking 20 acres and replacing it with 20 1 acre parks isn't the same thing. Not even close. |
Quote:
Appropriating functioning public land would be a slap in the face to the local community and a direct contradiction of Obama's origin story (i.e., empowering the disenfranchised, urban proletariat-- for whom the whole park system, it should be noted, was devised)-- especially when empty/non-functioning space abounds around it in the form of vacant, blighted lots. The Obamas are placing a great deal of emphasis on the possible transformative effects of the library. As such, the library should embrace the city as part of its mission and its form. It should operate more like an inviting storefront, less like a castle in a garden. Does that require bolder thinking? Yes, because the archetype for these institutions is suburban or even bucolic in nature. But if there were ever a project for bold thinking, this would be it. Which is why I have the exact same response as Sam: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And its reasons like this why, despite the blowback they tend to get here, organizations like Friends of The Parks matter.
|
Quote:
|
Finally, someone else agrees that UIC should win the library. If UIC wins, their their plan will help benefit the entire West Side rather than the portion of the South Side surrounding Hyde Park. Heck, UIC would be building instead of destroying new parkland if they win. Sure, some of the new parks would be over an expressway, but it would certainly remove some of the expressways ungodly sights and we would also have a new "Bllomingdale Trail" where the former Sears Line was. In addition, we would have a new CTA station, a new BRT Line that connects OPL to Museum Campus, Circle Interchange being less horrid, new opportunities for Southwest Loop, renewed interests in North Lawndale, which will all lead to more developments on the West Side and even people starting to move back into the city. This is pretty much seen as a win, win, win, win for everybody in the city.
P.S. Seriously, you would finally be able to walk around the Circle Interchange! |
Long time reader, first time poster.
Attorney and lifelong South-sider. I am not trained in Architecture although it was truly my first love. In college it became apparent that my ability with complex math was suspect at best but that I was given an ability to think quick on my feet and lead and inspire with rhetoric - so I chose law. As for writing, it comes and goes depending upon what time of day it is :D I have played golf at Jackson Park many times over the years - drove the green for the first time in my life at Jackson Park - believe it was the 8th or 9th hole. I have also played softball in Washington Park and have also gone to a number of cookouts on the park grounds. As someone who has been intimately associated with the park, this issue of the Obama Presidential library location and its proposed attendant use of park grounds matters a great deal to me. THIS ISSUE... the Obama Library issue... was enough to get me off the sidelines and take a few moments out of my day to give my 2 cents. The question I have is WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? Who are those people who stand to gain the most by having this library in Washington/Jackson Park? Is it the people who care most about history and preservation? Those same people who rarely if ever have even bothered to set foot in either one of the parks in question? And if they did bother to come on the south-side and set foot in the park was it in passing or did they stay and continue to use the park on a consistent basis? Do those people live in the neighborhood surrounding the park? Do they even live on the south-side? See, it is easy to sit back and dictate what others should do while sitting in an ivory tower far removed from the day to day life that others live. The U of C proposal says that they will replace the park space that will be utilized for the library. As someone who has seen that neighborhood, I believe them. And I am sure friends of the park and neighborhood groups will ensure that they make good on their word - and it will, of course, all be in writing at the appropriate time. There are plenty of blank lots in that area and other lots with dilapidated homes on them where you will likely find the homeowner amenable to sell for the right price. I believe the new park space can be contiguous. Will a road run through that newly contiguous space? Probably but there are roads that run through parts of the park right now. As long as the ball fields are saved, areas to golf are saved, as long as areas to cookout and gather together are saved, and as long as the wide expanse of land is saved for parkland... helping to maintain the general character, essence and feel of the park, I think this can be a win/win for all involved. I would submit to you that the real stakeholders are the people who stand to benefit most from seeing the areas in question being reinvigorated, revitalized and gentrified. The real stakeholders are the people who actually use the park and live in neighborhoods around the park. And for the those people, most (not all, but most) would surely welcome the tremendous boost that this Library would bring to their long forgotten, long dilapidated, crime infested neighborhoods. And most (not all, but most) of those people would gladly give up a small portion of either of the parks in question if it served the greater good and improved the quality of life of the people in that neighborhood and of the people that actually use the parks in question. And finally, EVERY Chicagoan should have an interest in seeing the South-side come to life. As long as the south-side is viewed worldwide as a forgotten crime infested wasteland to be avoided and Chicago is viewed as a city of two cities - one for the haves and the other for the have-nots - one to be lived in the other to be avoided - as long as it is viewed like that, Chicago will never reach its truest potential and be as great as it can be. It wasn't until New York gentrified Harlem, the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. and lowered crime did it reach the favorable world view/peak in popularity that it now enjoys. Chicago must do the same. If Chicago hopes to continue to thrive well into this century and the next, it must eliminate the negative stigma of the south-side because whether you like it or not it is a driver -- that perception drives the news media, drives the news coverage that Chicago gets, drives perception, drives away some potential businesses and drives away potential new residents. I submit to you that the South-side is our Bronx, Harlem, etc. And I see nothing on the horizon quite like the Obama Presidential Library proposal that has the potential of a 5/10 or even 15 year complete turnaround for that area. And if that area is turned around, it could spur a complete turnaround of Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and eventually Grand Crossing, etc. This is the gift horse. This is the potential catalyst. We would be fools to turn it away. . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
@ ViaChicago^ ... I think you will see them eventually build on those lots... just not the primary structure. The primary structure has to be in park space for it to have the "wow" factor they are looking for in order to win the bid. If you situate the library into an old blank lot it would not have the same appeal aesthetically.
|
Quote:
Thanks:tup: |
Quote:
Looks like you're not the only local resident in favor of this http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...a-library-plan In a joint letter, the four—Aldermen Pat Dowell, 3rd; Will Burns, 4th; Leslie Hairston, 5th; and Willie Cochran, 20th—said they are "committed to doing all that is necessary" to bring the library to the South Side, where Obama lived during much of his professional career. "As elected officials with responsibility to represent the interests of our constituents, we are determined to make appropriate locations available in a timely manner," as the foundation planning the library has requested, the letter states. "The bid enjoys enormous support from civic leaders, community organizations and residents." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am very confident that the powers that be will see the big picture here and get this thing done. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Would there be this much objection to a new pool facility or other recreational building built in the park which might have an even larger foot print? What if the roof of the library was landscaped and integrated into the park? As far as slippery slopes... yeah, before you know it, every president from Chicago will want to gobble up park land (1:1 though :) ) with their own presidential library... |
^^^ As if that weren't enough, if this and Lucas go through, we'll have people clamoring at the door trying to make $2 billion investments in all of our parks! Oh the horror!
As much as I'm a proponent of principals when it comes to planning and design in Chicago, when you cut through it all, the fact is that these museums are going to take up such a tiny portion of our total park land and create such a disproportionately large benefit, I can't see how anyone can be against them in the end. I suppose similar economic arguments have been used for evil as is the case with Prentice, but the fact is that no one is claiming these are the only spots we can build these museums, but rather that these are the best spots to build them. Regardless of how it all shakes out, I am excited that we have such an opportunity two add to world class institutions to our city virtually overnight. It almost makes up for the loss of the Olympics. Maybe we will still go for the Olympics down the road and have that much more to show off when we finally land that event. |
Quote:
Parkland was not established for any swinging dick with billions of dollars to do whatever they want with the land. The land is owned by the public as a reprieve from city life, and it dosent have a price tag on it for a reason. We dont have mountains in Chicago. We dont have endless ocean. We dont have pristine forests. This is it, this is what we as residents have as a salve to the insanity of living in a giant concrete jungle. Is nothing sacred to you as long as a dollar sign is attached? Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev