SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Development (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=208617)

sentinel Jan 7, 2015 4:13 PM

Welp, so much for the Chicago bids not being desperate. This is weird.

Via Chicago Jan 7, 2015 5:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6866114)
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

Give it to NY. This is unacceptable.

Since when does the UOFC get to give away public parkland for whatever cause they see fit?

Randomguy34 Jan 7, 2015 5:18 PM

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

Via Chicago Jan 7, 2015 6:16 PM

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

SamInTheLoop Jan 7, 2015 6:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6866114)


Unbelievable. Apparently "park" is a Chicago term meaning "landscaped area where we haven't yet thought of anything to build."



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??

msu2001la Jan 7, 2015 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 (Post 6866055)
I've heard rumblings of that as well, specifically of it being built along 55th street. The city is planning a street-widening project along with ramp improvements at 55th and LSD..


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.

nomarandlee Jan 7, 2015 8:51 PM

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.

Ryanrule Jan 7, 2015 9:36 PM

the parks are nice, but when across the street is a god damn ghetto, any development is good.

r18tdi Jan 7, 2015 9:41 PM

That HOK Bronzeville design study is looking more attractive by the day.

rlw777 Jan 7, 2015 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomarandlee (Post 6866646)
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.

I think you're getting the cart before the horse here so to speak. The only thing that's obvious here is that the folks making the decision about the presidential library don't want to deal with the bad press or lawsuits that would most definitely happen over the proposed land if it wasn't approved beforehand. In my opinion that's just good business practice. I wouldn't take a bid that I wasn't sure could deliver what it proposes. It's quite a stretch then to say they aren't open to other options. Infact the land in question was picked by UofC so if there is finger pointing to be done I think it should be at the people putting the proposal together.

nomarandlee Jan 7, 2015 9:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlw777 (Post 6866718)
I think you're getting the cart before the horse here so to speak. The only thing that's obvious here is that the folks making the decision about the presidential library don't want to deal with the bad press or lawsuits that would most definitely happen over the proposed land if it wasn't approved beforehand. In my opinion that's just good business practice. I wouldn't take a bid that I wasn't sure could deliver what it proposes. It's quite a stretch then to say they aren't open to other options. Infact the land in question was picked by UofC so if there is finger pointing to be done I think it should be at the people putting the proposal together.

You don't need to have very specific ideas about what you want from the foundations perspective in order to say that you have no interest in building a structure in the park.

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).

k1052 Jan 7, 2015 10:17 PM

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.

ardecila Jan 7, 2015 11:35 PM

^ 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.

k1052 Jan 7, 2015 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 6866826)
^ 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.

I'm not using DuSable as a chip in the building in the park debate.

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.

LouisVanDerWright Jan 8, 2015 12:09 AM

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?

ardecila Jan 8, 2015 12:31 AM

^ 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.

Pilton Jan 8, 2015 7:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown (Post 6866114)
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

Or a parking lot. The parallels between the Lucas Museum and this Presidential Library are obvious. Both will use currently underutilized park land.

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.

Rail>Auto Jan 8, 2015 11:39 AM

I sure hope whoever wins gets in touch with Sorkin to design it. Nothing beats the circle design he came up with.

pilsenarch Jan 8, 2015 2:13 PM

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...

UPChicago Jan 8, 2015 2:43 PM

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?


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:17 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.