Aww, poor Carter. :(

new tribune poll of city residents:


approve of using parkland for obama library: 62%

opposed to using parkland for obama library: 29%

no opinion: 9%

^Link: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...ry.html#page=1

I wonder which park they will put the library on. Or is it going to be placed on both sites in the south side?

So Michelle Obama will apparently pick the location of the library and she is currently favoring the NYC/Columbia University location:

http://wgntv.com/2015/02/05/report-m...rary-location/

^ Well, then, that's that...

Oh well

^ No.

This is a case of absolute journalistic malpractice. I absolutely called it the other day when these reports we're first surfacing.

This is all based on Lynn Sweet's reporting that we all heard about a few weeks ago, with one recent source of Sneed's hinting at Mrs. Obama favoring Columbia (along with other sources of hers that did not support this).

This has resulted in the last few days of several instances of sound-bite reporting from several local media outlets that has made it seem like it's based on much more than it actually is and is almost finalized. My sense is that nothing could be further from the truth and that it is really, really amateurish journalism at work here.......

Quaxelrod is calling the race for Chicago:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...-obama-library

Op/Ed
 

..

De Blasio: Columbia a ‘natural choice’ for Obama library

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/sites/...aLibrary_0.png

=================================
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...-obama-library

^ Sneed is always obsessing about the Obamas having the library in New York.

To be honest, I don't really care where the Obama Library goes. I'm not even sure why every President needs to have a Presidential Library

Odd that he is the only one reporting this, over and over again. Seems like a red herring to me, that perfectly plays on the insecurities of the "second city".

What additional concessions does Valerie Jarrett want from the good people of Chicago?

Thats going to be one secure building with all of the secret service depending on which one they choose.

.

Wow this is basically a Chicago smear piece smh this is journalism?

Obama said yesterday that he hopes the museum is in Chicago.

You'd think the president's remarks were timed for a reason or something:

Obama's remarks were basically a direct threat to the City Council and probably Chuy. This next article should really be titled: "Hey guys, you are the front runners, don't fuck it up"...


Yes, "sour entanglements", like an unfinished reelection of his buddy Rahm. I hate when "sour entanglements" force me to openly state my position in an interview with the Tribune that will be published the day before the City Council passes the item I need for my Library to move ahead...

The Rahm agenda will not be stopped, the Tribune, Obama, the Chicago elite, they are all in on it. It's almost glaringly obvious how much the media is working in favor of Rahm right now. Hey, I ain't complainin' though.

Well this is good news for Chicago :)

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#sectio.../p2p-83355240/

Report: Obama could announce library site choice in May

http://chicago.suntimes.com/sneed/7/...-choice-in-may


Supposedly Obama is travelling to Chicago in May, rumor has it that he is announcing Chicago has been selected for his library.

I just heard on ABC7 that CHICAGO IS THE CHOICE:cheers::notacrook::multibow::rock:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...ary-in-chicago

April 30, 2015
Obama will put his library in Chicago

GREG HINZ ON POLITICS

So Obama managed to get a free donation of valuable park land in the park of his choice, he got a state law passed confirming his right to said parkland, and he got a prominent civic leader ousted for being critical.

If Rahm bends over backwards any further, he'll turn into a pretzel. This library will be good for the city, probably, but now the City of Chicago and its inhabitants are in a ridiculous position of weakness when it comes to the Obama Foundation.

Yes, President Obama did all that :koko:

Perhaps the people in those communities wanted the Library/Foundation in their neighborhood. Perhaps the alderman in those areas wanted the institution in their neighborhood. Maybe the mayor wanted this for his city and now it's been done.

^ Yeah really. I don't see the "slippery slope" people keep whining about. It's not as if Presidents and billionaires propose massive museums on Chicago parkland more than once in a century.

Chicago gets the Obama Presidential Library. Will the area it gets put in see any economic benefits after awhile?

I think we are all elated its coming to Chicago. I have myself eyed that parcel for yeras on MLK and Garfield imaging how ideally just such a library would fit there.

However we are shamelessly throwing away all provisions that centered on protecting Chicago parkland for generations. That Chicago has changed its own rules for the convenience and the whims of the foundation are really undeniable. And who heads the foundation? At the end of the day it is Michelle and Barack Obama. Would the "foundation" had asked NYC to put such a library in Central Park? Why do they ask it of their home town? What if the foundation would have requested the library to in Butler Field in Grant Park would the city have bent over backwards to contort the rules to see it happen? My guess given the eagerness and fear of the the city's political elites is yes.

That money and connected interest make the rules as they go is exemplified yet again. The same as Ricketts running roughshod over the land marking of their own ballpark and the city bending over as eagerly as they could just so the city and its leaders could claim victory.

I think one can still be happy about the library coming here and feel a little dirty and slightly disgusted by the process. There is no obligation to be a cheerleader who can't fathom that the President's ego has gotten out a bit in front in this scenario. It certainly wasn't someone below the President to stubbornly go over Michelle or his head and will not let the library in a park idea die. We can't be that naive to suggest that they alone aren't the main agitators behind such insistence for the library in the park. One would just have hoped that the Obama's would certainly be happy with the acres of land west of Washington Park. That they don't need parkland in a park starved city in order to make a high quality library. A little thoughtfulness about the park previous ordinance's and a little bit less ego would reflect better on the the President.

My hope is that after getting done with more important issues that a President must that there will be just a little bit of reflection and they will not build the main structure in the park itself. Hopefully they will just use the designated park space as a Presidential Garden or greenery of some kind. Not only do I think is that showing proper respect of the original park ordinance but also likely a better result from a schematic and design perspective. I just imagine a library holding the corner at MLK and Garfield Blvd being a part of new street wall as making a more impressive entryway then plopping it down at the edge of the park.

Don't get me wrong I am ecstatic its coming to Chicago and going in the general location it is. And I will still be very happy even if the build the main wing in the park. Anyone, liberal or conservative, who feels any affinity for this city should take off their partisan glasses and see how awesome and beneficial it is.

It's not about whether the library is good or bad.

The ends don't always justify the means, and this library has had some pretty messed-up means thus far.

Will you be so supportive if Obama decides to hire RAMSA to design his library? (They already did the Bush one, after all.) That's the problem - by sacrificing the civic debate over the location on public parkland, we're signalling to the Obama Foundation that they have carte blanche and they don't need to listen to the public. They don't need to pay attention to decent urban planning principles, because they're more important than the park's thousands of daily users. They don't need to pay attention to architectural critics, because they're more important than Olmsted or the city's architectural legacy.

Will you be so supportive if the library is built in Jackson Park, but the requirement to supply replacement parkland is ignored and forgotten? That stuff happens all the time.

The Washington Park site is far superior to the Jackson Park site, IMO. Jackson has far less 'passive' park space and the immediate surroundings don't offer the adjacent vacant land to build the auxiliary amenities to the library, plus the Green stopping pretty much on site. Such as, the library itself, will be on the actual park space, and the rest will fill that land west of MLK. Plus, I dig that the library will pair nicely with the DuSable across the park to make a foundational African American History Campus. A nice first gesture by the foundation would be the build a new Dyatt HS a few blocks west on 51st and return the current land back to original park space.

But, ya know, wishful thinking...

It hasn't gotten that far yet. Let's have the official announcement before we get onto design. I think you know by know where my standards are when it comes to design and seeing as this time it's actually my neighborhood, I'll have no problem being more vocal than usual. There was no debate over the parkland. It was either going there or Chicago wasn't going to get the chance to land the project. Case closed... I was quite vocal on that issue at both public meetings, but I'd rather have the library than not. I understand your passion as it's my passion too, but as I said, I'd rather have this than not.

I hope people do not expect much. I am thinking 100-200 support staff jobs. The library should attract a good amount of visitors annually, which means a few independent businesses (lunch spots, cafes, etc.) can open within close proximity. Then maybe people will consider moving to the neighborhood.

* off topic posts deleted *

i just want to drop a note to remind everyone that this thread is about the presidential library itself. everyone in the entire universe is aware of the fact that president obama is a very polarizing figure. this isn't the thread to get into his politics and presidency and legacy and all of that because we all know that will go nowhere fast.

if you love obama, that's super.

if you hate obama, that's just dandy too.

but now that chicago has been chosen as the host city, we will keep discussion in this thread focused on the library itself and issues surrounding its location, siting, design, construction, community impact, etc.

if you want to discuss obama as president, there are roughly 10 billion other websites on the internet that will be more than happy to indulge your political rantings and ravings.

carry on.

I hope that the Obama library committee picks a neo-Gothic design to befit the connection to UChicago.

UChicago's already had some activity in the neighborhood – the Arts Incubator & the Currency Exchange Cafe, both of which are being overseen by Theaster Gates in some way (he has a leadership role with the university for their UChicago Arts initiative).

I'll be interested to see if the university does anything with the Schulze Baking Company building.

I hope it ends up in Washington Park too. Ultimately, I think the fact that the Green AND Red lines go to or near there will play a major role in this. These things are a lot easier for tourists to figure out than the Metra and Bus, but even besides that - it runs more frequent (and later) than Metra/Bus. Also more pick up points than the Metra for sure.

I think if U of C has anything to do with it the design will be modern. Hopefully they don't enlist Jeanne Gang, maybe we will get something like HOK's proposal!

Anyone have thoughts on this?

http://www.fitzgeraldassociates.net/...ngton-park.htm

Speculative?

Not speculative this was a project that was planned before Obama was president, it was cancelled.

What makes you think it'll stop with billionaires building libraries. Des Plaines just voted to hand park land over to a Mariano's for a driveway and parking lot. Precedent has been set, if parkland can be used for economic development it will be.

source: http://chicago.suntimes.com/lynn-swe...imes-exclusive

Looks like it will become a data center.
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...as-data-center

Exactly, oh no! Now every billionaire and president will want to dump hundreds of millions of dollars into Chicago!

See, that's the problem with slippery slope arguments, they are invalid. Chicago is not Des Plaines, Chicago is not giving parkland to Marianos. Chicago has not given park land to anyone except non profit foundations supporting the legacy of two of the most influential people of the past 40 years. There is no precedent being set here for commercial interests to take park land nor will there be unless we start giving parkland to commercial interests which has. not. happened.

The only precedent being set here is that Chicago will, as it always has, bend over backwards to get things done when it just makes sense. Both of these projects are no-brainer wins for the city. So the only message we are sending is that if you are rich, powerful, and influential and want to give Chicago a big fucking gift, then we'll take it. I don't exactly see a problem with sending that message.

The precedent of giving parkland to museums was already set over the past 100+ years by AIC, Field Museum, Shedd, Adler, Mexican Museum of Fine Art, etc, etc, etc. My question to everyone complaining about "precedent" is: How is this anything new? We've literally been doing it since our earliest days as a city.

This Rauner quote says it all: I am in support of getting huge handouts from anyone who is rich and influential and wants to improve Chicago and Illinois. Anyone who is against that is :koko:

^ You don't see the slipperiness though in this at all? Really??

Some billionaires may end up having a funny view of what constitutes improvement of Chicago and Illinois.......and if the mayor and/or governor, etc, share in that view of improvement, we could be setting the stage here for real problems down the road........Also, what about just a hundred millionaire.....or few dozen millionaire? That's still pretty wealthy, why can't they have a crack at some of this park action? They've got ideas for improvin' this town as well, you know.

And, you always trust that Chicago/Illinois' leadership will be so wise and all-knowing as to not give parkland to Mariano's (or substitute whatever MORE prestigious, upscale, all-powerful private interest)? That's some real faith, man.

And, did you just call George Lucas one of the most influential people over the last 40 years?? I mean, I liked the original trilogy as much as the next guy, and appreciate the advances in the art and entertainment/media form therein, but that's just silly, all things considered.......

Ugh, what a waste. That corner needs people there, not a datacenter.

It says from the article that the developer realized this problem and "He said he’s reached out to the University of Chicago and other possible commercial tenants that could keep the building full of employees, who could walk for lunch to the new Currency Exchange Café or visit the Washington Park Arts Incubator after work." They should have little trouble finding tenants if the library ends up in Washington Park.

No I don't see it because there is no slipperiness, it's a logical fallacy. Until the time at which someone tries to build ANYTHING ELSE in a park beyond a museum, there is not slippery slope. We are not talking about a law that gives elected leaders carte blanche to do whatever they want with our parks outside of proper legal processes. We are talking about a bill that eliminates legal loopholes that FotP was using to try to logjam the process. The only thing this bill does is say that parks do not count as "navigable waters" which is a mind numbingly stupid (from a practical, not legal persepctive) argument to begin with.

Let me repeat myself again so this sinks in. The only thing that has been proposed here is not for profit museums. How is this anything new? Please, tell me how this sets a precedent that hasn't already been set half a dozen times? Please tell me how Marshall Field is allowed to build a museum in the park and George Lucas is not? Please tell me how the Shedd, MSI, AIC, Adler, and Mexican art museums are different than LMNA and Obama Library in even the most immaterial way. A slippery slope argument is nonsense to begin with, but we aren't even talking about a new slope here much less a slippery one. We've been standing on this hillside for 100+ years and haven't slid an inch, how does LMNA or Obama Library change that?


Oh and I stand by my statement about Lucas being one of the most influential people of the past few decades. He singlehandedly changed American culture more than just about any other individual since 1980. Pop culture changes the way we think as a society far more than anything else except maybe technology. Lucas completely changed how we tell stories and basically created the modern field of special effects. The original Star Wars is not just another cult fad, it's had a profound impact on almost everything in Pop Culture that came after it. I know it's popular to belittle pop art as something less than art, but I'm not sure that someone who completely changed the way an entire industry and art communicates can be trashed as some fad.

A teeny, tiny, quibble LVDR - I don't think Lucas "single handedly changed American culture..." I think he and Steven Spielberg, separately and together, radically influenced American culture, and changed it in ways big and small.

Lucas is absolutely one of the most influential figures in the past 4+ decades.