CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

What a bunch of losers.

Not really. I mean kinda because they are cowardly inconsistent and impractical but the bigger losers are the ego maniacs media titans and politicians who feel that settled parks are land banks for their edifices.

And I really couldn't care less if the whole adjoining neighborhood wouldn't mind seeing the whole Midway be asphalted over to make way for a library or museum either. The publicis full of idiots.

[Baronvonellis]

I'd like to know why Obama thinks its a good idea to put it on a part of a functioning park, that has a running track, and baseball fields. How is getting rid of that a good idea for the community in Hyde Park? When there are so many vacant lots in that area.

Yea, the FOTPL make me sick! Bunch of hypocrites!

[Kngkyle]

There is infinitely more merit to their objection of this project than than their was for their objection over the Lucas Museum. This is actually taking functioning parkland, not a parking lot. Not that I strongly object to this plan but it could have been better.

[pilsenarch]

I don't think Olmstead would necessarily object to placing civic institutions within his park...

[the urban politician]

Wow Mr D, for not being a member of FotP you sure are pretty involved.

Too bad you bought their BS on the Lucas Museum. Go ahead and enjoy that horrid parking lot for the rest of your life. Because nothing but gray asphalt will occupy that large plot of land for generations. Thanks for saving that for our children!

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

...The public is full of idiots.

The best six word explanation of Trump I've heard yet.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I love how FOTPL ends their statement with "we'll tell you the reasons why we are pussying out later". I'd say grow some balls, but they've already castrated themselves and couldn't possibly do any more damage to themselves as an organization than they already have. I don't see what they have to lose by opposing this thing.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

I don't think Olmstead would necessarily object to placing civic institutions within his park...

Of course not. The site indicated for the museum was originally intended for an administration building, but never got built. A similar administration center was built in Washington Park, and later converted to the DuSable Museum.

The worry here for me is not about the abstract concept of "buildings in a park" - significant buildings have always coexisted in parks. The problem is that a modern museum or institution isn't just a building but consumes acres of space around the building, for access roads, parking, loading docks, dropoff zones, bus queuing, drainage, service/maintenance, and in the case of the Obama Library, a secure perimeter. What starts as a relatively compact building footprint soon balloons to affect a significant portion of the park.

Yeah, you can bury these things as the MSI did, but that's really just a visual improvement. You're not gonna picnic or play football on that lawn, especially if there is a secure perimeter and guards chasing you away. Best case scenario, what was usable park space for the public is now just a lawn to look at from afar.

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by ardecila

The problem is that a modern museum or institution isn't just a building but consumes acres of space around the building, for access roads, parking, loading docks, dropoff zones, bus queuing, drainage, service/maintenance, and in the case of the Obama Library, a secure perimeter. What starts as a relatively compact building footprint soon balloons to affect a significant portion of the park.

isnt the building taking the golf course area???

[Mister Uptempo]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

isnt the building taking the golf course area???

Doesn't appear that way...


image source - University of Chicago

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by ardecila (way back in March)

...

At Little Rock, for example, the Clinton archives themselves are actually housed in a separate building from the public museum to keep the budgeting simpler. All of them are on a secure pedestrianized campus that doesn't really interface with the city well.

Arguably the Art Institute faces a big theft risk, but generally people don't build bombs out of their opposition to Picasso. The Art Institute faces no greater risk of terrorist threat than any other public place, while the Presidential Library is a symbol of Obama's politics and government generally which makes it a target. It's sad that our supercharged political rhetoric allows such wackos to flourish...

So the reason a security perimeter is so important is basically domestic terrorism? I think presidential libraries are an afterthought in the public's conscience and no violent activist wanting to make a point would bother with frozen history; some facility or institution that is active and prominent would be a far more likely target. If there is some dude wanting to show his rage about Obamacare or something, he'd have to be a nerd too to even get the idea to come to Chicago to the Obama Library as opposed to some institution that's regularly on the news, especially in a Hillary Administration. So I'm still not really grasping the grandiose invocations of a security perimeter for this project. Some security, yes; but even more than the Dirksen-Kluczynski complex? Plus, there are residences and a high school across the street; I presume they weren't planning on demolishing them all.

[Mr Downtown]

For Immediate Release

Obama Presidential Center Press Statement

Chicago, Illinois - Friends of the Parks warmly welcomes the Obama Library to Chicago's South Side, but reiterates dismay at the use of existing parkland in Jackson Park rather than abundant vacant land nearby.

"However, the organization will not sue as it is our understanding that the site that was chosen apparently is not public trust land-unlike the proposed sites for the Lucas Museum," said Friends of the Parks Executive Director Juanita Irizarry. "Friends of the Parks' analysis suggests that there is no realistic legal remedy at this time to protect this public open space from this development."

Since the public discussion began in 2014 about the possibility of Chicago being chosen as the site for the Obama Presidential Library, Friends of the Parks has said that the organization is excited about the "once in a lifetime" opportunity to host Obama's presidential legacy on the south side where the President and First Lady have a deep connection to the community. Friends of the Parks has also said from the beginning that Friends of the Parks objects to the use of existing parkland for the Obama Library. We will continue to voice that concern.

Chicago ranks 12th on a list of the most-densely populated cities in the country in terms of parkland per 1000 residents. President Obama is familiar with these statistics and knows the importance of parks in the lives of ordinary people. In fact, as a young community organizer, Mr. Obama came to Friends of the Parks and asked how we might work together to increase park space in South Side communities.

"We admire President Obama's record as a champion of the environment. Friends of the Parks similarly has a deep commitment to the protection and preservation of the public's use of and access to open space," said Friends of the Parks Board Chair Lauren Moltz. "Friends of the Parks looks forward to working with the Foundation, the City, the Chicago Park District and the University of Chicago to protect and promote parkland, public space and public access. We would like to ensure that any impact on historic Jackson Park will be minimal and preserve the integrity of Frederick Law Olmsted's design."

Since the announcement was made in May 2015 that the Obamas chose Chicago for the library and would pick a site in either Washington Park or Jackson park, we have urged the Obama Foundation to take any and all necessary steps to ensure the impact on either park is minimal and that any construction fits with the vision of Frederick Law Olmsted's design. In that respect, we continue to urge the Obama Foundation to conduct a study by outside and independent experts to assess the possible adverse environmental impacts in the construction of the library on open land and on the original artistic design of the park. To that end, Friends of the Parks hopes to work with the Foundation, the City and the University to find ways to protect and add to parkland and public space and public access, to offset any adverse environmental impacts or loss of open space.

"The design of the Obama Library should maximize the use of available vacant land and underground space, and be truly 'park positive' by adding parkland to the surrounding community," said Juanita Irizarry. "Furthermore, any design should upgrade the park's facilities and preserve existing recreational uses by the public."

Moving forward, Friends of the Parks urges the Foundation to work closely with the surrounding community to address community benefit agreements, public access to these parks as well as regular communication with all stakeholders. We look forward to working with the Obama Foundation, the City, the Chicago Park District, the University of Chicago and the community on implementing the recommendations of an open space coalition and as a consulting party for any historic preservation assessments of Jackson Park.

[XIII]

Good thing this museum decided to use land that wouldn't affect suburban bears fans or the views of fussy retired sloopers looking to "stick it to Rahm".

Either that or maybe the library promised to tear down some trees and drop some more blacktop in Jackson Park, seeing as that seems to be FotPL's raison d'etre these days.

http://chicago.curbed.com/2016/7/8/1...-lot-expansion

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

For Immediate Release

[SIZE="5"][B]Obama Presidential Center Press Statement

For the love of God, will you and this tired organization shut up?

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by ithakas

For the love of God, will you and this tired organization shut up?

Seconded.

And Mr. D stop acting like you're not basically a member of FotP. You are obviously getting all of their correspondence.

[UPChicago]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

"Friends of the Parks' analysis suggests that there is no realistic legal remedy at this time to protect this public open space from this development."

Isn't this a direct contradiction to their current lawsuit?

[rlw777]

For Immediate Release

Statement

Chicago, Illinois - The citizens of Chicago warmly invite Friends of the Parking Lots to take their hypocrite BS and shove it.

[rgolch]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Seconded.

And Mr. D stop acting like you're not basically a member of FotP. You are obviously getting all of their correspondence.

Also agree. At this point, on this forum it's borderline trolling.

[davytudope]

Originally Posted by ithakas

For the love of God, will you and this tired organization shut up?

I actually appreciate opposing viewpoints, and I don't see anything in their statement that should be met with hate.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by davytudope

I actually appreciate opposing viewpoints, and I don't see anything in their statement that should be met with hate.

Welcome to the forum!

This forum does appreciate opposing viewpoints on development topics. There is a constant discussion on the merits of buildings, their styles, their construction and their interaction and place in the city.

However, a group which uses frivolous lawsuits to glorify themselves and undermine and prevent development in this city isn't going to win any fans on a forum of people who support progress and development.

There are many discussions here to appreciate, but the self-important turd waffles at "friends of the parking lots" deserve every ounce of vitriol they get.