CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Would there be this much objection to a new pool facility or other recreational building built in the park which might have an even larger foot print?

Personally I object to all the stuff in Maggie Daley Park, along with that new skate park on the south end of Grant Park. There are plenty of places within the urban fabric of a city for high energy activities like climbing, ice skating and skate boarding. Don't know why those have to be in the middle of a large open park that's supposed to offer peace and seclusion.
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.

[le_brew]

Originally Posted by SSideAtty

Long time reader, first time poster.

Attorney and lifelong South-sider.

i read your sincere post and really felt your compassion regarding personal commitment and investments in the community. i, too, have been a s.sider and was persuaded, for a minute that you are right in citing the many contributions the library would make. then, i had a change of heart. the problem is that communities and demographics shift. the south and west sides were not always, and will not always remain impoverished despite what we would deem to be economic enhancement, today. twenty-five, fifty, one hundred years from now, we will be gone and the legacies that we leave will stand and speak volumes. therefore, i have to disagree with you that using park land is the best solution for the obamas' project--chicago can do so much better with its many alternatives.

leave the park land (all acreage) to the next generation(s).

[SSideAtty]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Perhaps youre not as large a proponent of prinicpals as you think you are. Because frankly if you are, I dont see how those viewpoints are compatible.

Parkland was not established for any swinging dick with billions of dollars to do whatever they want with the land. The land is owned by the public as a reprieve from city life, and it dosent have a price tag on it for a reason. We dont have mountains in Chicago. We dont have endless ocean. We dont have pristine forests. This is it, this is what we as residents have as a salve to the insanity of living in a giant concrete jungle.

Is nothing sacred to you as long as a dollar sign is attached?

I dont remember ever being asked if this was where I thought the best spot was. I dont recall any other Chicago taxpayer being asked either. All I seem to recall is being told by people in an ivory tower that "this is what we're doing".

You reference these parks as if you are living in a fantasy land. There is no "salve" in Washington/Jackson Park. That ship sailed about a good 50 years ago. You would do well while walking in those parks to avoid the bullet casings and drug paraphernalia strewn about. And you would do well to emerge from the either of the parks with your wallet, purse and your life in tact.

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.

.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by SSideAtty

You reference these parks as if you are living in a fantasy land. There is no "salve" in Washington/Jackson Park. That ship sailed about a good 50 years ago. You would do well while walking in those parks to avoid the bullet casings and drug paraphernalia strewn about. And you would do well to emerge from the either of the parks in question with your wallet, purse and your life in tact.

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. They are nothing close to the sanctuary that you are trying to make them out to be. 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 security/police presence that an Obama Library would bring would be the real salve.

That may be the reality today (although I disagree it is as doom and gloom as you make it out to be. I have spent time there too). However as a poster above me noted, it may not always be the case and hasnt always been either. Once the land is turned over to another purpose it isnt coming back. It is about setting a poor precedent about what is and isn't permissible in public parks.

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)

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 meet 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 magniloquence but you should at least write with sensitivity and awareness.

.

Excuse me? My comment had zero racial component to it whatsoever and you're the only one "going there"....

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.

[le_brew]

Originally Posted by SSideAtty

You reference these parks as if you are living in a fantasy land. There is no "salve" in Washington/Jackson Park. That ship sailed about a good 50 years ago. You would do well while walking in those parks to avoid the bullet casings and drug paraphernalia strewn about. And you would do well to emerge from the either of the parks with your wallet, purse and your life in tact.

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.

i have attended african festival of the arts (for years), as well the bud billiken parade and ended up in repose at 55th/king drive, on the well-kept grass, in fact, the designated proposed land. i have been to mus. sci & industry, the point, the harbor adjacent to la rabida and enjoyed the yacht club nearby.

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.

[SSideAtty]

Originally Posted by le_brew

i have attended african festival of the arts (for years), as well the bud billiken parade and ended up in repose at 55th/king drive, on the well-kept grass, in fact, the designated proposed land. i have been to mus. sci & industry, the point, the harbor adjacent to la rabida and enjoyed the yacht club nearby.

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.

They keep certain areas of the park clean more than other areas. This is common knowledge among people who frequent the park. The areas that put a face on the park (the areas you mentioned by the way) tend to be cleaner than the other areas. Don't just pass through, spend some real time there... the park is huge... walk all sections of the grounds, you will see.

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.

.

[SSideAtty]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

That may be the reality today. However as a poster above me noted, it may not always be the case and hasnt always been either. Once the land is turned over to another purpose it isnt coming back. It is about setting a poor precedent about what is and isn't permissible in public parks.

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)



Excuse me? My comment had zero racial component to it whatsoever and you're the only one "going there"....

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.

Its sort of like telling a Native American that it is ok for us to use the term "Redskins" ... what is there to be offended about? I mean, it represents a football team for Godsakes.

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.


.

[Via Chicago]

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by aaron38

Personally I object to all the stuff in Maggie Daley Park, along with that new skate park on the south end of Grant Park. There are plenty of places within the urban fabric of a city for high energy activities like climbing, ice skating and skate boarding. Don't know why those have to be in the middle of a large open park that's supposed to offer peace and seclusion.
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.

I guess you don't approve of childrens' playgrounds, climbing walls, skating rinks, or field houses in our parks?

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...

[Mr Downtown]

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.

[le_brew]

Originally Posted by SSideAtty

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.

how does situating an obama presidential library in a little corner "face of the park" mitigate any of these societal ills? do you foresee that dramatic a transformation based on this one project?

again, you seem to undermine your argument in favor of taking park land.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

Perhaps youre not as large a proponent of prinicpals as you think you are. Because frankly if you are, I dont see how those viewpoints are compatible.

Parkland was not established for any swinging dick with billions of dollars to do whatever they want with the land. The land is owned by the public as a reprieve from city life, and it dosent have a price tag on it for a reason. We dont have mountains in Chicago. We dont have endless ocean. We dont have pristine forests. This is it, this is what we as residents have as a salve to the insanity of living in a giant concrete jungle.

Is nothing sacred to you as long as a dollar sign is attached?

Everything has a price, in all honesty it does. Would you sell a 20 acre piece of Washington Park for $100 million? How about $500 million? How about $1 billion? If someone offered to pay the parks district $100 million for 20 acres of Washington Park, I hope to god they'd take it. They could acquire ten times that amount of land directly adjacent to the park for that and still have a fat stack left over. Anyone who doesn't believe that everything has a price is mad.

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!

I dont remember ever being asked if this was where I thought the best spot was. I dont recall any other Chicago taxpayer being asked either. All I seem to recall is being told by people in an ivory tower that "this is what we're doing".

Thank goodness we don't live in a direct democracy or I'd think there is something wrong with our system! Guess what, this is why we have elected officials, so they can quash noisy dissenters when the public good is at stake with an unpopular decision.

[Via Chicago]

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.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Everything has a price, in all honesty it does. Would you sell a 20 acre piece of Washington Park for $100 million? How about $500 million? How about $1 billion? If someone offered to pay the parks district $100 million for 20 acres of Washington Park, I hope to god they'd take it. They could acquire ten times that amount of land directly adjacent to the park for that and still have a fat stack left over. Anyone who doesn't believe that everything has a price is mad.
...

I don't think they could get 200 acres of land near Washington Park for less than $100 million, and I especially don't think they could acquire it and turn it into parkland for that price. Even in Washington Park, land is rarely available for less than $500,000 per acre, which is about $35k per Chicago standard lot. There are a few lots available for less than that, but not most. And then they'd have to spend money to actually turn it into parkland. My guess is that if the Park District started buying up land their actual costs would be closer to $5 million per acre, at a minimum, at which point they've basically only traded parkland with someone. Which is kind of not worth it.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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.

No, because Grant Park is subject to a higher standard than the rest of the lakefront, at least north of 11th Place and south of Randolph (as you have often pointed out).

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.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

I highly doubt any design would include surface parking, whether in the park or in the neighborhood.

Would there be this much objection to a new pool facility or other recreational building built in the park which might have an even larger foot print?

What if the roof of the library was landscaped and integrated into the park?

If you believe they will not build surface parking, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Nobody builds structured parking in Chicago unless they absolutely have to, or they have a big fat check of taxpayer money. Land values here just aren't high enough to justify underground parking. U of C has built garages, but the land is much, much scarcer on their side of the park and the demand for parking far outstrips the available open land.

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.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

I guess you don't approve of childrens' playgrounds, climbing walls, skating rinks, or field houses in our parks?

There are big parks and little parks. Playgrounds belong in the little neighborhood parks, where the kids actually live. LSE park just to the north has a playground. Why does Grant Park need one?
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.

[mrnyc]

how come indonesia is not in the running?

i didnt read the thread i'm probably way late on that joke…

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by aaron38

There are big parks and little parks. Playgrounds belong in the little neighborhood parks, where the kids actually live. LSE park just to the north has a playground. Why does Grant Park need one?
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.

No mention of the attractions in Millenium? Meanwhile, Mr. D. and all, just because there was parking in the Park before hand, doesn't mean it wasn't a park. (I'm sure I can dig up a few dozen maps that identify all of that area as "Grant Park", Mr. Maps)

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?

[Tom In Chicago]

Originally Posted by SSideAtty

Long time reader, first time poster.

Attorney and lifelong South-sider. I am not trained in Architecture although it was truly my first love. In college it became apparent that my ability with complex math was suspect at best but that I was given an ability to think quick on my feet and lead and inspire with rhetoric - so I chose law. As for writing, it comes and goes depending upon what time of day it is

I have played golf at Jackson Park many times over the years - drove the green for the first time in my life at Jackson Park - believe it was the 8th or 9th hole. I have also played softball in Washington Park and have also gone to a number of cookouts on the park grounds. As someone who has been intimately associated with the park, this issue of the Obama Presidential library location and its proposed attendant use of park grounds matters a great deal to me.

THIS ISSUE... the Obama Library issue... was enough to get me off the sidelines and take a few moments out of my day to give my 2 cents. The question I have is WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? Who are those people who stand to gain the most by having this library in Washington/Jackson Park?

Is it the people who care most about history and preservation? Those same people who rarely if ever have even bothered to set foot in either one of the parks in question? And if they did bother to come on the south-side and set foot in the park was it in passing or did they stay and continue to use the park on a consistent basis? Do those people live in the neighborhood surrounding the park? Do they even live on the south-side?

See, it is easy to sit back and dictate what others should do while sitting in an ivory tower far removed from the day to day life that others live.

The U of C proposal says that they will replace the park space that will be utilized for the library. As someone who has seen that neighborhood, I believe them. And I am sure friends of the park and neighborhood groups will ensure that they make good on their word - and it will, of course, all be in writing at the appropriate time.

There are plenty of blank lots in that area and other lots with dilapidated homes on them where you will likely find the homeowner amenable to sell for the right price. I believe the new park space can be contiguous. Will a road run through that newly contiguous space? Probably but there are roads that run through parts of the park right now. As long as the ball fields are saved, areas to golf are saved, as long as areas to cookout and gather together are saved, and as long as the wide expanse of land is saved for parkland... helping to maintain the general character, essence and feel of the park, I think this can be a win/win for all involved.

I would submit to you that the real stakeholders are the people who stand to benefit most from seeing the areas in question being reinvigorated, revitalized and gentrified. The real stakeholders are the people who actually use the park and live in neighborhoods around the park. And for the those people, most (not all, but most) would surely welcome the tremendous boost that this Library would bring to their long forgotten, long dilapidated, crime infested neighborhoods. And most (not all, but most) of those people would gladly give up a small portion of either of the parks in question if it served the greater good and improved the quality of life of the people in that neighborhood and of the people that actually use the parks in question.

And finally, EVERY Chicagoan should have an interest in seeing the South-side come to life. As long as the south-side is viewed worldwide as a forgotten crime infested wasteland to be avoided and Chicago is viewed as a city of two cities - one for the haves and the other for the have-nots - one to be lived in the other to be avoided - as long as it is viewed like that, Chicago will never reach its truest potential and be as great as it can be. It wasn't until New York gentrified Harlem, the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. and lowered crime did it reach the favorable world view/peak in popularity that it now enjoys. Chicago must do the same. If Chicago hopes to continue to thrive well into this century and the next, it must eliminate the negative stigma of the south-side because whether you like it or not it is a driver -- that perception drives the news media, drives the news coverage that Chicago gets, drives perception, drives away some potential businesses and drives away potential new residents.

I submit to you that the South-side is our Bronx, Harlem, etc. And I see nothing on the horizon quite like the Obama Presidential Library proposal that has the potential of a 5/10 or even 15 year complete turnaround for that area. And if that area is turned around, it could spur a complete turnaround of Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and eventually Grand Crossing, etc. This is the gift horse. This is the potential catalyst. We would be fools to turn it away.


.

Welcome to the forum. . . thanks for sharing. . .

. . .