CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Mr Downtown]

The University of Chicago is proposing that the Obama presidential library be built on about 20 acres of South Side parkland, either in Washington or Jackson parks, according to the university.
***
The two sites are:

•21 acres in western Jackson Park, bounded by South Stony Island Avenue to the west, South Cornell Avenue to the east, East 60th Street to the north and East 63rd Street to the south.

•22 acres in western Washington Park and 11 acres outside of it, stretching as far west as South Prairie Avenue, and encompassing the Garfield Green Line stop. The park acreage is bounded by South Martin Luther King Drive to the west, Ellsworth Drive to the east, East Garfield Boulevard to the south and East 51st Street to the north.

Chicago Tribune story

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

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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

Give it to NY. This is unacceptable.

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

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Give it to NY. This is unacceptable.

Fuck that. Give it to UIC. Or figure out a way to make U of C work. Chicago already won the competition when it made a greater impact on his political development than any of the other cities in play. The library (and the moneys that come with it) belongs in Chicago. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that anything else would be a betrayal. Plus, after 9/11 and the Recession, NYC is flush with federal dollars. (The WTC transit hub/Calatrava boondoggle/white elephant carcass alone cost $4 billion.)

[SamInTheLoop]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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??

[Pilton]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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

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.

[sentinel]

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

[Randomguy34]

UChicago has finally released a few renderings of their proposal and the site map.

All images from Chicago Curbed:

[Via Chicago]

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

[nomarandlee]

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]

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

[r18tdi]

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

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

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]

Originally Posted by rlw777

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]

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.

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

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).

This is a bit conspiratorial if you ask me. How does the foundation not being opposed to building in the park imply that they are pushing FOR the park land. Furthermore it would be quite presumptuous for the foundation to be committed to NOT building in the park. A city and it's citizens have the obligation and responsibility to make decisions about the use of city land for the public benefit. I certainly don't want some group of people who don't live in Chicago pushing opinions about how Chicago should use it's land.

[ardecila]

^ 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]

Originally Posted by ardecila

^ 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]

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?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by ardecila

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 shocked and disappointed to the point of incredulity. University of Chicago has hitherto made a series of intelligent urban planning/architectural decisions, preserving significant structures often and commissioning progressive designs to replace the ones they demolish. Increasing their presence across the Midway has made it safer and more of an asset to the school; I mean, it's pretty much a huge, publicly funded front lawn. Why the sudden shift in that strategy when their work in Woodlawn clearly isn't finished? Both sites are relatively far from core campus buildings. And in the case Washington Park, well, it will take much more than a presidential library to revitalize that neighborhood. Jackson Park? The adjacent block is already decently developed.

Appropriating functioning public land would be a slap in the face to the local community and a direct contradiction of Obama's origin story (i.e., empowering the disenfranchised, urban proletariat-- for whom the whole park system, it should be noted, was devised)-- especially when empty/non-functioning space abounds around it in the form of vacant, blighted lots.

The Obamas are placing a great deal of emphasis on the possible transformative effects of the library. As such, the library should embrace the city as part of its mission and its form. It should operate more like an inviting storefront, less like a castle in a garden. Does that require bolder thinking? Yes, because the archetype for these institutions is suburban or even bucolic in nature. But if there were ever a project for bold thinking, this would be it. Which is why I have the exact same response as Sam:

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

Is this truly the best it could do??

[Via Chicago]

And its reasons like this why, despite the blowback they tend to get here, organizations like Friends of The Parks matter.