Yes. your first post was meaningful and intelligent. the following tantric racism bullshit was not. how you could have drawn prejudice from the swing dick joke is far beyond me. It's 2015 and were crying racism in architecture forums.
|
Quote:
I already made an exception for Millenium Park, as it's mostly recliamed land. But to go point by point: The Bean could just as easily have been put in Daley Plaza. Ice Skating could have remained on State, along with fountains, attractions, etc in an urban plaza setting, instead of Block 37 which everyone seems to hate anyway. The Gardens are too formal and claustrophobic. And Grant Park already had the Petrillo, why did it need two bandshells? Certainly didn't need a massive structure and a whole bunch of fixed seats that most people in the city can't afford to ever sit in. The city did legal gymnastics to classify the bandshell as a "work of art" rather than a building to get around hight restrictions for buildings in Grant Park. And the acoustics are designed to simulate an indoor concert hall. An indoor hall in a building on private land, not in a park, is exactly what it should have been from the start. |
I'm sorry, but I guess I missed the actual criticism of Millenium Park?? (If that ^ was criticism, you figuratively stand alone...)
|
^I'm not following your argument, pilsenarch. Only the Harris Theater (and the de minimis Exelon Pavilions) are buildings that occupy what would otherwise be open space the public could enjoy. And I did severely criticize the Harris Theater, not only for violating the Montgomery Ward decision injunction (as it turns out, the city got property owner consents) but for the absurdity of spending a fortune to build a new theater for music and dance at the same time we were allowing the destruction of the acoustical masterpiece Medinah Temple.
What's becoming a disturbing pattern here is Mayor Emanuel using parks as a personal land bank: for the British School, for a new North Side (not named for Obama) College Prep High School, for the Lucas Museum, and now for the Obama Library. Chicago has plenty of vacant and underused land; hands off the parks! |
Quote:
To bring it back to Obama's library, the suburbs are masters at wasting land by surrounding buildings with wide manicured lawns. Frankly, building a library in a park in this day and age is something I'd expect of Schaumburg, not Chicago. At least the suburbs can get away with wasting land, being low density and surrounded by large wide open forest preserves. Chicago can't afford to do that. All it has left are the parks. And one day it won't even have those anymore. Just a string of amusements surrounded by lawns. |
Is it too glib to point out that Jackson Park was originally a series of amusements surrounded by lawns?
|
That's overly simplistic. It was originally sand flats, but nonetheless set aside as a park. Its temporary use for the World's Columbian Exposition offered an opportunity to get an Olmsted landscape that would be the main legacy of the fair. The attractions would be there less than 12 months.
But once you have one of the world's great Olmsted landscapes, it doesn't need a lot of further improvement. |
The meeting for Washington Park will be at noon Jan. 14 at the park field house, 5531 S. Martin Luther King Drive.
The park district will host a meeting about Jackson Park at 6 p.m. Jan. 13 at Hyde Park High School, 6220 S. Stony Island Ave. |
Mr. D., Just because a 'building' in the park doesn't violate the height restrictions in Grant Park, doesn't mean it's not a building... the whole dang park is a multi-level building.. design has made it appear otherwise
My point is, as far as I can tell, the criticism of Millennium Park essentially comes down to it's too successful, too many people. These are problems that I think the majority of south side neighbors would love to have... |
Quote:
As far as the success/failure of MP..this can be debated ad naseum and has been. Its one of a kind and should remain that way. I dont think it should serve as a future model for what a city park should be however. Beside MP's restrictive uses and quasai-private status, I maintain that people need escapes from throngs of people/noise/commercialization and the ability to get in touch with nature, such as it is. We as a city do not have the luxury of being settled in the midst of mountains or forests. We've obliterated any and all traces. Compared to any other major US city we are at a massive disadvantage here. The meager man made approximations are the best we've got. Also, its entirely possible for parks to be popular and still provide an escape from the city without overt commercialization or attractions. Central Park demonstrates this...the landscaping and seclusion is the attraction in itself. As cities continue to grow these escapes are going to become ever more valuable, and ever more targeted for outside interests. Which is why its imperative to not allow intrusions into them, today or in the future. |
Central Park has dozens of buildings and and at least two vast major institutions.... it is a perfect example of how a park can have both seclusion and a major tourist attraction...
|
and, I don't think the Obama Library will be a 10-story building...
|
I keep hoping to hear from BVic about what the actual residents of the Washington Park neighborhood feel regarding the use of parkland. I've talked to 4th ward aldermanic candidates who say the neighborhood is up in arms about it, but this morning's Tribune reports that Friends of the Parks "drew little support" when a representative spoke against using parkland.
I also recently heard it claimed that U of C is not considering all the land it already owns along Garfield. Apparently part of the problem is that the university is holding back the choice sites for its own future plans. |
I don't think that aldermanic candidates would be the most objective source on the opinions of local residents...
|
Quote:
Mr. D, it's a pretty mixed bag. I'll tell you that all the residents want the library, that's first and foremost. I will tell you that seemingly the majority of people would like to see the library in the Washington Park neighborhood. The big problem is that no one trusts the U of C. So many people think that they're seeking some sort of land grab. And I understand peoples distrust. Universities such as U of C and others have become so corporatized and business like that they've seemingly forgotten about the neighborhood and are all business. People are very divided about whether parkland should be used. Some people are okay and others are very concerned and feel that there's too much VACANT land around the park not to utilize instead. The U of C owns 11 acres of property at the NW corner of 55th and King Drive. It's been stated that 20 acres of land are needed and for an "urban" library that amount of land sounds ridiculous. Personally, as a resident of Woodlawn, I'd honestly don't want to see the structure in the park at all. It's not like there are surface parking lots and asphalt that would be replaced as in the Lucas Museum proposal. I'd like those 11 acres that the U of C own utilized and there are other large parcels of land that I think could also be used. The land between 55th and 53rd, the green line and Prairie is vacant land, partially a parking lot for park & ride. This acreage could be used for a parking structure for transit and museum purposes. This whole process has been 1/2 Assed. |
^Thanks for your perspective.
One thing that's been really striking here is the incredible clumsiness shown by the U of C, which I always thought of as having a pretty sophisticated community relations office and history, going all the way back to painful lessons they learned 40 years ago with The Woodlawn Organization. I have to wonder if somehow their hand was forced (by the committee leak implying Chicago's bids were weak) with some key piece of the plan missing, and now they're in the no-win situation of having to publicly defend a half-assed library/redevelopment plan that wasn't what they had in mind at all. It reminds me a bit of the fiasco 18 months ago when MPEA prematurely announced a huge hotel on the McHugh land they didn't yet control. |
I agree with the sentiment that UC totally mishandled this. Without a proposed specific design, or even a suggestion of one, the diagrams depicting the 21-22 acre 'land grab' would make it appear that those entire chunks of the park will disappear into the library, when in fact, I'm sure it would be just a few acres at most... most observers could not be blamed for not understanding this.
|
I follow Openlands because of the work I do with Forest Preserve restorations, and they've released a statement on the Presidential Library plan. It's generally supportive, but guarded, as we all are. Bolding is mine.
Quote:
And does anyone have a map of Jackson park showing where "the design indicated a structure could be built"? Is that the big lawn just north of Science and Industry? |
def thing it should be in west washington park. that hole neighborhood is trash, it needs something to fix it.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8647/...7b4600f6_h.jpg |
Quote:
http://www.olmsted.org/storage/image...son_Pk_pwp.jpg Olmsted Papers, credited to National Park Service. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.