CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[i_am_kyry]

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...

[BVictor1]

Originally Posted by ardecila

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.

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.

[Justin_Chicago]

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.

[Steely Dan]

* 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.

[vandelay]

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

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by marothisu

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

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.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by i_am_kyry

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...

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.

[UPChicago]

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!

[ithakas]

Anyone have thoughts on this?

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

Speculative?

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by ithakas

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.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ 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.

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.

[Steely Dan]

Sun-Times exclusive: Gov. Rauner to sign Obama Library, Lucas Museum bill
Posted: 05/01/2015, 09:57am | Lynn Sweet


WASHINGTON — Gov. Bruce Rauner on Friday afternoon will sign the bill making it harder to legally challenge the construction of the Obama presidential library complex and the Lucas Museum.

“I am very excited about it. I look forward to signing it,” Rauner told the Sun-Times.

“I plan to sign it this afternoon as soon as I get back to Springfield,” he added. “The bill obviously makes it easier to get the Obama Library in Chicago. And I think the president’s library will be a very benefit to the state of Illinois and to the city of Chicago and I am very supportive of that.”

Likewise, he said, “I also think the Lucas museum will be a big benefit to the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago and I am supportive of that.”

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

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by ithakas

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

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

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ 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.

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

Originally Posted by aaron38

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.

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.

[LouisVanDerWright]

“I also think the Lucas museum will be a big benefit to the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago and I am supportive of that.”

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

[SamInTheLoop]

^ 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.......

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

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

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

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by ChickeNES

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.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

^ 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.......

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.

[woodrow]

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.