Quote:
Millennium Park only gets a pass because it's reclaimed land on top of train tracks. Grant Park doesn't even really qualify as a park. It's more of an amusement plaza. And it seems that's the direction every park in the city is going. |
Quote:
leave the park land (all acreage) to the next generation(s). |
Quote:
This is coming from a person who spends time in those parks. They are not anything close to what you are making them out to be. The are unkempt, overgrown and unsafe. The only real hope for those parks to be what they were once intended to be is for the library to land on their grounds... because then those grounds would be manicured, cleaned up and made relatively safe. The real or perceived security/police presence that an Obama Library would bring would be the real salve. Last point, and I really hate to go here but unfortunately your writing prompted it and I cannot in good conscience fail to address it. I must say that I am getting the distinct impression that this may be about more than just the use park land with you ViaChicago. The metaphor that you referenced that dealt with a certain appendage is a strong tell that something else may be at play here. Even if you meant nothing by it you have to know that men of a certain race have been marginalized/lynched/murdered for centuries due to real or perceived inferiorities in regards to the appendage that you referenced. And on a much smaller level it is still happening today: http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative...o-2909508.html One of the most common ways for the KKK to mete out punishment was for them to cut off that appendage and then burn and/or hang the body. I can't get inside your head or your heart but you show yourself to be no friend of the park or any culturally aware person but engaging in that type in insensitive rhetoric. You don't have to write with great prose or magniloquence but you should at least write with a reasonable degree of sensitivity and awareness. . |
Quote:
Implying that situating the Library inside the park is the one and only thing that could possibly ever bring about positive change is misguided. Having it anywhere nearby in the neighborhood, especially given the available vacant land, would have just as much as a positive impact and funnel the same level of investment into the area, without sacrificing the public land that has already been set aside. Yes, I would rather not get the library than set that precedent because it opens the floodgates to all sorts of other thorny issues about what is and isnt permissible on public land and about who has the final say. I do not want private interests of any kind on public parkland, whether its a fast food chain or the archive of a United States president. These issues should be treated equally. Whats more sad is that we as city residents are taxpayers and already funding upkeep for the park...it shouldn't take a huge private outside interest to fix things up. There's no reason why tens of millions of dollars should get funneled to downtown parks and the neighborhoods are left with scraps. that is the real injustice here and where the justifiable outrage about conditions and safety should lie. (And i should note there are posters on this forum who freely advocate for heavy downtown investment and corporate handouts at the expense of neglected neighborhoods...which I dont) Quote:
Swinging Dick Definitions Slang noun a forceful, powerful individual. The term evokes a large virile male and is in use particularly among financial traders, first in wall street, and subsequently in the City of London. It was a stand-in noun for "rich guy". Yes i occasionally use slang to make a point. I think we're all adults here and can handle it. And as adults i think we can all also agree that disagreeing about a topic does not by default denote more sinister connotations especially when none is implied. I know you're new here but we jostle a lot in these threads. Everyone here is genuinely passionate about whatever side they adhere to but its never personal and there's no need to read into things beyond what is actually said. |
Quote:
i am not a resident of the area, but never, never have i encounter what u described above. you undermind your own enjoyment of playing golf in the park,etc. described earlier with these stereotypes. |
Quote:
And just use common sense for a moment. The parks in question are in some of the highest crime, gang infested areas of the city. Do you think that they just call a truce in the park? Of course not... those grounds represent much of what goes on in the neighborhoods surrounding it. And of course that type of activity occurs with less frequency on the quote "face of the park" areas (too many witnesses, etc.) but they definitely occur on park grounds nonetheless. They call no truces on park territory. As for golf, I still go when I have the time, still very enjoyable... but then again, I used to go into Robert Taylor and Cabrini Green to see my clients too before they tore them down. And now I regularly see clients that live in Englewood, Grand Crossing, etc. My lack of fear should never be a barometer for whether or not a place is safe because I am known to be pretty fearless. . |
Quote:
The term that you used may mean one thing to you, but to another group of people who have suffered the painful affects of that word it may mean something different. To use that word in this context lacked awareness. . |
|
Quote:
If Millennium Park wan't so expensive to expand the existing park over the tracks, you would eliminate the Pritzker Pavilion, the Crown fountain, Cloud Gate, etc. etc.? I think the mass majority of both visitors and residents of this city would vehemently disagree... |
As I understand Ch.G, Ch.G's argument, the many years when those parts of Grant Park were used for parking made them no longer parkland, so they could have been made available for a new post office, convention center, library, magnet school, or the McCormick Museum of Editorial Cartoons.
|
Quote:
again, you seem to undermine your argument in favor of taking park land. |
Quote:
I don't believe the Lucas museum or this actually changes any precedents, because we already have tons of museums in parks and on the lakefront, and I do think every effort should be made to force the U of C to build it on the vacant land to the West, but I really don't think it would be even remotely worth it to lose this asset over it. The stakes are simply too high for this city, we are being handed multiple new billion+ dollar institutions, do you know how rare that is? The Lucas museum is going to start out with an endowment of up to $400 million. That's about the same size as the Art Institute's endowment. That's 10% larger than the endowment of DePaul University. That's not even including the value of his existing collection and what will undoubtedly be one of the largest construction projects (in terms of cost) in Chicago over the next decade. These kinds of institutions are the things that make cities great, we can't afford to turn opportunities like this down because we don't like that it is eating up some open land in the far corner of a massive park. As was said above: let one billionaire build a museum and before you know it there are presidents and billionaires lining up at the door trying to get their own slice of park. What a terrible problem to have! Quote:
|
You are presenting a false dichotomy with the notion that it HAS to be in the park. No one has said it has to be. I would love for Chicago to win the bid...anywhere other than inside a park. Why is this always the one and only option? I dont recall Obama saying "put this inside a park or Chicago dosen't get it". We are both blessed and cursed as a city with a VAST amount of undeveloped and underutilized land just about damn near everywhere, but especially on the south side. Why can we not be passionate about beautifying and developing those parcels, as opposed to taking away something that has already been given over to the public good.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The massive parking lot at Montrose Harbor? Yeah, sure, put a high school there. CPS is actually building some stunners these days. The Lucas Museum and Obama Library are two very different sets of circumstances. Lucas has made a big deal about how he wants spectacular natural beauty. There's no inland site in Chicago that can offer this, it has to be on the lakefront. He's putting up the dough, he calls the shots. Obama Library, on the other hand, makes a big deal about how they want to be engaged with disadvantaged communities. How is that goal served by removing scarce parkland from the South Side? Just build the damn thing across the street. The idea of stealing parkland came entirely from U of C, who would love to expand into the park but can't find a reason to justify it. |
Quote:
The others are tricky questions - you can bet your ass that I would object to a colossal suburban-style tilt-up fieldhouse being built in a Chicago park. The Ping Tom Park fieldhouse is dangerously close but at least it is modestly-scaled. This kind of building embarrasses and cheapens our city, and belongs in industrial parks only. A green roof is a nice idea but there are serious questions about the long-term sustainability of these. |
Quote:
A field house is a building and belongs on an urban city block, not in a park. Climbing walls should be run by private businesses and also be inside buildings so they can be used everyday. You think anyone will be climbing on a week like this with -30 windchill? Millienium Park already has a skating rink, right up against Michigan Ave where a busy urbanized plaza is at least appropriate. Why does a park need two? Big cities need big wide open free form spaces. When those spaces are developed, structured, compartamentalized, there's no going back. People need to have real respect for open space. |
how come indonesia is not in the running?
i didnt read the thread i'm probably way late on that joke… :runaway: |
Quote:
Grant Park is both a park for the entire city AND a neighborhood park. And, to be absolutely clear, I've yet to hear any direct criticism of Millenium Park for all its buildings and attractions. Maybe your ideological objections to "BUILDINGS IN OUR PARKS!!!" can not stand up to the success of that particular park? |
Quote:
. . . |
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. |
Fascinating map, thanks Mr. D.... If I didn't know better, I'd think you were making a case for placing the BHOL in Jackson Park...
|
I also think the projected economic impact is way overblown, outside of the construction windfall. Look at any other presidential library...is it on the shortlist of things you just have to see when visiting a city?
|
Happy King Holiday!
I read this elsewhere and thought it was good information... posted by "Pack" over on Curbed: The detractors fail to point out that a considerable part of the space needed for the park is now covered with concrete and is adjacent to the Green Line of the CTA. Any reasonable person who visits the site would quickly conclude that at least that area is hardly park-like by any stretch of the imagination. Washington Park totals more than 366 acres. The museum would use 20 of those acres leaving more than 346 acres. The museum would enhance the park and the broader community. As far as the opponents of the Lucas Museum, the proposed area is currently an asphalt parking lot. Below is a link to more good news as well... further evidence that minimal park space will need to be used: http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150...-obama-library This is going to happen guys:notacrook: The only way that it won't is if the Obama's select a different city. |
Quote:
If you're visiting Springfield, IL, the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library & Museum is probably on your shortlist of things to do there. If you're visiting Atlanta, GA, the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library & Museum is probably not on your shortlist of things to do there. In the case of Chicago and Obama, I think an Obama presidential library & museum here has the potential to be a somewhat big deal considering the historic nature of his presidency by virtue of his skin color. would it be a top 5 tourist attraction in the city? no, probably not. but maybe a top 10 or top 15 tourist attraction, perhaps. |
Quote:
http://i.imgur.com/DPQMOcO.jpg local.live.com |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Why don't they just build the Obama Library over those ugly railroad tracks at the Southwest corner of Grant Park? Then no "parkland" would be used and it kills 2 birds with one stone.
|
^No host institution chose to propose that site, which would be fairly expensive and do very little to revitalize the South or West Sides.
|
Quote:
I happen to to totally agree with this entire post. One cannot vist Springfield without at least once visiting the Lincoln library as I did on several occasions taking my kids there too. I imagin lots of many new visitors checking out the Obama libary with their kids too ESP black families due to the significance of it all But not just blacks but everyone from the left that voted for him twice like I did This will be a boon to the city no doubt I would figure my family though local will visit it many times. And I hope these other said families will also visit the museum of science and industry too in addition to the normal museums like the shed and the alder This is more important than the billion dollar gift from Lucas but hopefully we get both |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.