Let's not forget that the Lucas Museum is not about Lucas but about his art collection.

Definitely. I work for Choose Chicago so I interact with tourists daily. They are so confused on why their Ventra cards don't work for the Metra system. There is a real genuine interest in visiting the neighborhoods, Hyde Park specifically because of MSI, UofC, and Obama. It kinda blows my mind how many ask about the Smart Museum, Robie House, Oriental Institute, etc. The Southside is an absolute gem, it's time we shine it up and return it to it's former glory.

This is great to hear, and yeah tourists are often confused by the Metra. They're even confused by the bus (but IMO bus systems are confusing in any city you don't know compared to trains). I'm actually surprised they are asking about the Oriental Institute. That place is a gem, but I feel like enough people don't know about it. I write for a European travel company for their Chicago section and wrote about that place. When I tell people who live HERE about it, they're clueless that it even exists for the most part. In any case, Hyde Park has some great cultural institutions. It's about time something else comes there - and this time it's something that will have pretty much instant national recognition.

Whether it's in Jackson Park or Washington Park - it's a great thing. However, I think it'll go to WP and there's some positive buzz going on in WP lately between the Currency Exchange Cafe, Arts Incubator, and what Theaster Gates is going to do. Now it looks like that building will become a data center. And while it could be better, it's still something positive IMO.

With some stuff going on in Bronzeville, the area getting new construction homes again, some new business, getting safer, etc I think the continuity of what's happening on the South Side would only be natural for the Obama Library to be placed in Washington Park. Putting it there gets me a LOT more excited than putting it in Jackson Park to be honest. I think it would be positive for Hyde Park's development too.


By the way, are there any volunteer opportunities with Choose Chicago? I'd love to do some stuff with you guys.

Marshall Field wasn't allowed to build a museum. The South Park Commission was. Field had been dead for five years when new parkland was created for a building owned and controlled by the Commission—not by a private entity.

The new law isn't about the current navigability of land in Burnham Park. It's about whether the Park District is allowed to give parkland to a private entity.

As for slippery slopes, we need only look at what we've already traded parkland for: a monster convention center, a dozen different public schools (nothing remains of Hanson Park), a private school, and a private school sports field.

The Field Museum was built 1' outside of Grant Park in Burnham Park. Yes, McCormick Place is built in the park, but it wasn't built on a 'parking lot', which is where the Lucas Museum would go. Land, that 20 years ago was still parking and squished in between northbound and southbound lanes.

http://forgottenchicago.com/pics/LSD/mcaerial.jpg

This private entity would be used for public benefit. The Field Museum may be owned and controlled by the Commission, but it was built with private monies. There's nothing that says the same deal couldn't be made with the Lucas Museum.

^ BVictor, you are making arguments that are too sensible, cut it out please!

We need to stick to the "parkland is being given to a private entity" mantra so that we can keep up the outrage

There's a signed Memorandum of Understanding. You can't now just imagine a totally different arrangement and wish it into existence, the way you like to imagine a better building than the one the developer actually got approval to build.

And yet being vocal and repetitive about better buildings and design at public meetings is paying off. Aldermen are encouraging lesser and lesser parking in towers downtown. Developers are being encouraged to shield parking with active space like what'll be happening with the new tower in Streeterville. We are getting more and better ground floor retail that's engaging and inviting

It's not about 'wishing into existence' my friend, it's about being vocal and active and the ability to change opinions through fact and argument. Of course we're not always going to get what we want.

Memorandum or not, there's now signed legislation...

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-83435306/

No wishing, just plain fact :tup:

i moved all of the off-topic general tourism discussion to the chicago general discussion thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=208431&page=6

...

So does anyone here on board with Leon Finney in thinking that Jackson Park makes the better choice? If so I would like hear it. My view......

Not to say that Jackson Park isn't also a good site and doesn't have its own advantages. The views of the park and the lake would be excellent in particular. And it would make a nice museum campus sitting across from the MS&I. However I am really not seeing his thinking that somehow the library will somehow piggyback off visits from the museum campus much further north. The MSI and Roosevelt Rd. Museum Campus are more then 6 miles away from one another. The Washington Park would be approximately the same distance. Plus I kind of doubt that spill over would reach Washington Park if the Library were placed in Jackson Park. Whereas I think the having library in Washington Park could consolidate and spur development like a vice between Wash Park and the South Loop and ideally drive development due west to almost the Dan Ryan. This may the best last chance for the dilapidated areas west of Hyde Park to the Dan Ryan. Jackson Park and South Shore has the Lake which should eventually help the neighborhood get back on its feet eventually anyhow plus the ME embankment serves a a bit of a barrier to any positive development that would want to flow its way west from the library.

To me at least the Washington Park site just makes a good deal more sense logistically, economically, socially, and symbolically. Both would have good to excellent accessibility both for cars and train but from a transit perspective the Washington Park wins rather hands down. It could the catalyst of a true TOD that has direct climate controlled walkways into the library if so chosen. Catching the Green Line down would be easier for more visitors and residents alike then the ME. It would also provide plenty more space for a revenue making parking garage. Washington Park is in arguably more dire straits and has all that more room to rejuvenate. It has more empty lots around the site and fronting the park which could will be prime retail/residential once the library is settled. 55th has the potential to be a beautiful humming commercial corridor with MLK Drive having enough lots to welcome some new residential infill. The library would have a beautiful view itself looking over Washington Park and sitting aside a spruced up boulevard. There would be the great symbolism of sitting on MLK Drive overlooking Washington Park sitting right across the park from the Dusable Museum of African American history. If anything maybe the Dusable Museum could attract some foot traffic from the Library. And the location is still close enough to the MSI that many visitors would choose to do both in a day. Then there is the obvious advantage is that one wouldn't need to necessarily have the 100% of the footprint in the park unlike Jackson Park.
And most important Washington Park provides a good deal more acres to do all the things you would want the library to do from a design and aesthetic POV.

Jackson Park is probably only in the hat as an option to begin with to placate South Side community leaders, like Leon Finnley, who are concerned about U of C breaking the confines of Hyde Park and improving "their" neighborhood. The Jackson Park location makes virtually zero sense compared to the Washington Park location. Washington Park itself is far more under utilized than Jackson Park and has huge lawns that serve virtually no purpose, this is also true for the privately held lands around both parks. Jackson is also nowhere near the L which is a huge advantage to the WP site.

And of course, the WP site will lead to far more economic benefits for the surrounding area than the already stable area surrounding Jackson Park.

Doesn't hurt that the Washington Park site will increase the property values in the neighborhood where he'll most likely sell his house here...

The irony is, if not for those same community leaders, the L would stretch right to the edge of Jackson Park.

Yep. This Finnley guy is full of shit. Easier for tourists to visit? The Green Line goes right there from downtown and has a handful of stops in the Loop. The Metra has what, one stop in the Loop, and is more confusing for tourists to use. Most tourists have no idea why their Ventra cards can't work on the Metra.

This guy is most certainly doing this for a personal gain - otherwise he's a completely clueless sack of shit. The Washington Park site is far better.

A shortsighted & boneheaded move, to tear down that last mile of the Green Line.

Regardless of site, it's gonna have an architect...any guesses? My money is on David Adjaye. Obama has already seen (literally out of the White House windows lol) what he could do, a la National African American History Museum on the Mall in DC. Perhaps with Jeanne Gang on landscape?

Adjaye is exactly who I was thinking myself. Any progressive, high profile, African American architects out there? Race really isn't something you think of much in architecture. I'm sure there are quite a few unknowns doing fantastic work and the foundation may very well come up with a total surprise, but it seems like a big risk to give a high profile project like this to anyone who has not completed something on this scale before.

http://forgottenchicago.com/pics/LSD/mcaerial.jpg

Sorry, I had to repost this image - Good God what a joke this was, back then - so glad this was fixed to make the entire museum campus into an actual, cohesive an uninterrupted campus.

^^Absolutely one of the best things the city did. In the past it was RIDICULOUS going from the Field to the Shedd and Adler - creepy, dirty, smelly, tiny little tunnel under LSD. Grotty, unpleasant, cars whizzing past at the edges of the "plazas" fronting Field and Shedd

What is the exact number of acres of park that were added? 17 acres? Fabulous - nicely landscaped, heavily used by visitors and residents alike.

I cant wait for the next museum and the added greenscape it will bring.

Nobody really comes to mind. There are some commercially successful black architects, but nobody who I'd really consider a world-class designer. Eg Moody Nolan is a larger firm designing the new Malcolm X College on Damen, they are black-owned. I'm not sure whether the design for the college came from them or Cannon, though.

Adjaye is one of the few renowned black architects out there, but he's of course British and has no ties to the experience of black Americans, which makes it strange for him to be designing the African-American History Museum.

I don't think it is essential that the architect for Obama library be black. I'm sure some will demand this, but ultimately it's up to the Obama Foundation and the president himself. Far more important for the project to create employment opportunities within the neighborhood.

Four acres total. Costing 90 million in 1995 dollars. They could have just taken the money in bundles of dollar bills and used it as landfill.

I've lived here 20 years and I don't understand why Ventra cards don't work on Metra yet.

Although trains only run to the existing terminus once every 20 minutes. Better than even Metra Electric, but not as convenient as the ever 10-minute headways at 51st.

British nationals of African descent potentially share some history with African-Americans and their experience in Britain isn't entirely dissimilar to that of African-Americans here.

That said, obviously it's not one-for-one.

I obviously don't think it is essential either, but it would be great if they were to pick a younger, talented, African American architect to design it. I'm sure there are plenty of talented people that fit that bill, but I'm not familiar with them. I would be really great if they could find a talented young black Chicagoan and expose someone new. I don't think it should be a requirement, but it sure would be nice.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...mn.html#page=1

Guess our David Adjaye guess isn't such a wild speculation after all...

Why not a freaking competition, the way the rest of the world selects architects for culturally important buildings? If we did it for Harold Washington's library, we can do it for Obama's.

I'd much rather have this contest be about ideas than the skin color of the architect.

From a pure logical perspective, it doesn't make sense. They should work together. However, I can guess it has to do with politics or two organizations/companies taking forever to agree on something simple and dumb.

As Metra explains, they do in fact accept Ventra, as state law requires. All you have to do is clip a $20 bill to your Ventra card, and give both to the ticket agent at the train station. She'll return your Ventra card and a dated piece of paper proving you've paid for transportation.

(As some of you know, Metra's official explanation is just that absurd: that because Ventra cards can also be activated as debit cards, and because debit cards can be used to buy Metra tickets, Metra therefore is in compliance with the state law.) You can't make this shit up.

Yea, this is reverse racism. We should move beyond skin color. Besides everyone is an African-American. Everyone is descended from Africans.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-83514312/

Obama library announcement set for 5 a.m. Tuesday

Dahleen Glanton, Chicago Tribune
3:22 pm, May 11, 2015

^ From the above link:

Ugh. This is why the U of C is so eager to gobble up parkland; they need a 100' moat of useless greenspace and parking lots around the building, because terrorism.

The neighborhood and the residents were eager to get this, so your accusation of the U of C being eager to gobble up parkland is a non sequitur. Seeing as the presidential center has yet to be designed, comment on intent should probably be withheld. There are certainly ways to be urban friendly and secure at the same time.

^ not unless they can get out of their 100' moat requirement. That moat would amount to at least 2 city blocks' worth of completely wasted space, or more depending on the footprint of the library building itself. How do you make that urban friendly? More importantly, how does such a building inspire neighborhood regeneration?

The only way to secure this thing and meet requirements is to bury it at least 100' into the park and close any service drives or other streets nearby. A location on the west side of King is not possible.

Again, until we see a design, there's only speculation. A certain amout of acreage has been transferred, which would include any buffer needed.

Here'S the video by the Barack Obama Foundation stating Chicago winning the library center.

• Video Link

P.S. Can any mods official move this thread to the Chicago Thread so that people may be able to find it?

Seems to also squash the argument that the foundation will be in Harlem

A bit removed from folks waiting at the bus stops, but still quite possible:

http://i.imgur.com/D9IlGaI.jpg

Civic and university buildings often have ceremonial or garden setbacks that deep without feeling anti-urban.

I'll be honest, this was always the site I wanted the library center to be located. Not only that, but the parcel of land just to the west of the green line from the tracks to Prairie and from Garfield to 53rd is also empty land besides a park and ride lot. A garage could be built on this site and shared by both the museum and CTA. What do you mean when you say it's "a bit removed from folks waiting at the bus stops"?

Yeah, and I doubt they have any 100' exclusion requirement from CTA tracks, so potentially even more room on the West side of the site if you did it that way. I would really prefer that it be out of the park and integrated with the city. I was really hoping there would be potential to have the Green Line empty directly into the library and then potentially have a skywalk over MLK into the park.

These parcels are still included in the plan so perhaps there will be some non-library auxiliary buildings on these sites with the main library in the park. I could see Obama Foundation office buildings located to the West with the main archives, exhibits, and other library functions in the park.

I just really hope they don't go for Jackson Park, absolutely the stupidest idea I've heard besides "build it in the circle interchange".

Excellent visual, thank you for doing this - This site was always in my mind's eye as the perfect choice for the project - If they choose something within Washington Park, I'm ok with that to a degree, but I really think this is the best possible location; on MLK Blvd, near the Green line, near the highway, across the park from U of C, AND in a perfect gateway location to hopefully attract other, private developments nearby.

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