CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by left of center

Agreed. I understand the need to preserve our parks as open space for the public, however the museum footprint is smaller than the roadways removed, meaning we are ending up with more parkland than we had before.

I honestly wish they went further with the road removal. Cornell south of Hayes should have been removed entirely. Marquette as well, since Hayes already serves as a transverse road connecting Stoney Island with S. LSD. Hopefully this is something that is studied by the park district and maybe considered in the future.

https://jacksonparkimprovements.org/project

Removing Marquette and parts of Cornell are on CDOT's list. Should be happening most likely starting next year.

[left of center]

Oh wow, that is literally my entire wishlish. Thanks for sharing!

Now we need to address Grant Park....

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by woodrow

I am tired of the complaints about it being in the park, especially since they have removed a stroad. The park they have built looks beautiful and will on ly get more so with age.

I disagree. One may tire of it, but it is an extremely valid and important criticism. Should parks serve as actual parks, or are they just future staging grounds for steel (in this case, stone) and cement campuses?

The attitudes can be, and seem to be, that there is plenty of green space in this city still, so move along and don't ruin the mood. Whether the city has enough green space now and for the future is endlessly arguable. What is more clear is that it sets a legal and effective precedent for elites to alter our parks how they see fit, if only the elite people or foundation can sway the right political officials. Instead of revering park space as space designated for residents in perpetuity, it seems more like a canvas on which to plop your museum or library if you are elite or rich enough.

The argument will likely be made that the investment to beautify the park, and technically give it net park space, would not have happened if not for the Presidential Center. True enough. That makes a good deal of sense, particularly if it is viewed as factually preordained that one must give away part of the public domain to receive a reward from private philanthropy of some kind. That view also raises the broader question on if we will be willing to sell out parcels within our parks or lakefront to private entities for the sake of investment or net beautification of that park space. That is not a rhetorical question. It is a debate that should be had, not one that is seemingly settled, but in actuality, arbitrarily applied depending on political whims.

I'd hope that most can admit that in most other contexts, another benefactor wouldn't have been able to railroad such a campus in one of our major parks if they weren't a former President, and the U.S. first black President at that. The city, and by extension some of the public, was scared to death of actually losing out on the possibility of hosting the Library.

Given that Obama's presidency was so much about showing restraint and humility (not decorating the Oval Office during the Great Recession), I find it disappointing that he decided that the confines of Jackson Park were a required canvas to build his center-mausoleum. It is frankly more a move that would be anticipated from the likes of the current office holder than I would have hoped for from the Obamas. There was no lack of attractive non-park parcels in which to build a potential campus in this city. Yet, his ego insisted on taking a large area of a park to make it a staging ground for his edifice.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

I disagree. One may tire of it, but it is an extremely valid and important criticism. Should parks serve as actual parks, or are they just future staging grounds for steel (in this case, stone) and cement campuses?

The attitudes can be, and seem to be, that there is plenty of green space in this city still, so move along and don't ruin the mood. Whether the city has enough green space now and for the future is endlessly arguable. What is more clear is that it sets a legal and effective precedent for elites to alter our parks how they see fit, if only the elite people or foundation can sway the right political officials. Instead of revering park space as space designated for residents in perpetuity, it can not be seen as a canvas in which to plop your museum or library if you are elite or rich enough.

The argument will likely be made that the investment to beautify the park, and technically give it net park space, would not have happened if not for the Presidential Center. True enough, especially if taken as forordained that one must give away part of the public domain to receive a reward of some kind. That also raises the broader question on if we will be willing to sell out parcels within our parks or lakefront to private entities for the sake of investment or net beautification of that park space. Not a rhetorical question.

I'd hope that most can admit that in most other contexts, another benefactor wouldn't have been able to railroad such a campus in one of our major parks if they weren't a former President, and the U.S. first black President at that. The city, and by extension some of the public, was scared to death of actually losing out on the possibility of hosting the Library.

Given that Obama's presidency was so much about showing restraint and humility (not decorating the Oval Office during the Great Recession), I find it disappointing that he decided that the confines of Jackson Park were a required canvas to build his center-mausoleum. It is frankly more a move that would be anticipated from the likes of the current office holder than I would have hoped for from the Obamas. There was no lack of attractive non-park parcels in which to build a potential campus in this city. Yet, his ego insisted on taking a large area of a park to make it a staging ground for his edifice.

Um, ok..but what about other buildings already in parks? Garfield Park Conservatory, Field Museum, Art Institute, Peggy Noetebart museum, MSI, Chicago History museum, etc. Don't those also represent precedent? I'm playing devil's advocate because as much as I'm not a fan of the form of the Obama center, I still think cultural institutions are fine in parks.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Um, ok..but what about other buildings already in parks? Garfield Park Conservatory, Field Museum, Art Institute, Peggy Noetebart museum, MSI, Chicago History museum, etc. Don't those also represent precedent? I'm playing devil's advocate because as much as I'm not a fan of the form of the Obama center, I still think cultural institutions are fine in parks.

Yes, I am perhaps being naive or overly idealistic, but someone should be.

Which of those were grandfathered in before protection ordinances?

You are right, they have set a precedent. So I guess the rebuttal to my thesis is to extend more negative precedent in order to be sure to extinguish the possibility of best practice? Maybe restraining from building large semi-private plazas, edifices, and campuses within our parks is not the best practice. Maybe they are the perfect place for them, but that is a different discussion.

My larger point is that there seems to be very little in the way of actual legal or effective protections if we keep abandoning the idea, in effect, that there should be, in fact, hard and fast protections. The reality seems to be that as long as the right amount of money comes rushing in, a big enough elite or benefactor submits their plan, and the right politicians can push through enough legalese and arbitrary wording to bypass the spirit of designated preservation, that we are just maintaining our limited large parks as earmarked for the footprints of X titan of industry or politician to mark their territory in the parks.

[buildityesterday]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

My larger point is that there seems to be very little in the way of actual legal or effective protections if we keep abandoning the idea, in effect, that there should be, in fact, hard and fast protections.

I'm not sure there should be hard and fast protections. Protections, sure, but as long as net park space is gained, I am happy to invite more cultural institutions to our parks. It's a shame we lost the Lucas Museum. At least we saved a couple of parking lots next to the (now Bears-less) Soldier Field.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Yes, I am perhaps being naive or overly idealistic, but someone should be.

Which of those were grandfathered in before protection ordinances?

You are right, they have set a precedent. So I guess the rebuttal to my thesis is to extend more negative precedent in order to be sure to extinguish the possibility of best practice? Maybe restraining from building large semi-private plazas, edifices, and campuses within our parks is not the best practice. Maybe they are the perfect place for them, but that is a different discussion.

My larger point is that there seems to be very little in the way of actual legal or effective protections if we keep abandoning the idea, in effect, that there should be, in fact, hard and fast protections. The reality seems to be that as long as the right amount of money comes rushing in, a big enough elite or benefactor submits their plan, and the right politicians can push through enough legalese and arbitrary wording to bypass the spirit of designated preservation, that we are just maintaining our limited large parks as earmarked for the footprints of X titan of industry or politician.

Well, the public trust doctrine was never intended for the "spirit of designated preservation".

It's meant to protect public ownership and access, which doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of a nature park.

If Chicago wanted to bulldoze a natural beach for a giant nonprofit industrial theme park on the lakefront, that is well within the city's prerogative. That *IS* the origin of Jackson Park after all. Not that the replaced section of Jackson Park was comparable to a natural beach. An open lawn between two major roads of speeding cars is more of a negative space, a nonspace, in my opinion.

The museum building and property still belong to Chicago, and the Obamas are legally leasing an exhibition space. At the end of the lease, Chicago is free to change the exhibition or to keep the existing one like any other lakefront museum.

As for parks being earmarked for elite display. .. that's most of the world's spectacular tourist sites and gardens. Grandeur and ego rarely come from the public.

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

...the confines of Jackson Park were a required canvas to build his center-mausoleum...

People keep calling it a mausoleum, but virtually every mausoleum that shows up in a Google image search looks exactly like a miniature version of the neoclassical museums we have in Chicago and most of the iconic federal buildings and monuments in D.C. (I realize there are some exceptions).

I know this is a small part of nomarandlee's larger, and thoughtful critique, but I don't quite get the comparison, and in some cases, negative connotation.

[ardecila]

I'm not sure it's possible to have a one-size-fits-all rule that covers all cases. We just have to trust that future generations will be good stewards of Daniel Burnham's free and open lakefront. Sometimes a new building may be appropriate, and in those cases it helps to have mitigations like removing or burying a section of roadway or parking lot.

I think the reaction when the Bears proposed a new dome was appropriate - most people I know felt that it was way too large and overbearing for the lakefront, especially when wedged between Soldier Field and McCormick Place. Yes, the site is currently a parking lot but erecting a giant building there (whether a stadium, Lucas museum, etc) will forever block the intended use of that land as park space for Chicagoans to enjoy. A football stadium cannot be covered with a green quilt of park space as Obama was; the Bears proposed a lot of this over their parking garages etc around the stadium, but at the end of the day the dome was just too gargantuan to be allowed.

Also, I think most Chicagoans regret the construction of Lakeside Center. The future of that building has yet to be written, but we've got our own cautionary tale for what happens when we put the wrong building on precious lakefront.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

People keep calling it a mausoleum, but virtually every mausoleum that shows up in a Google image search looks exactly like a miniature version of the neoclassical museums we have in Chicago and most of the iconic federal buildings and monuments in D.C. (I realize there are some exceptions).

I know this is a small part of nomarandlee's larger, and thoughtful critique, but I don't quite get the comparison, and in some cases, negative connotation.

Depends on the culture.

But I wouldn't argue against someone who compared the Obama Center to Qasr al-Farid. An American interpretation of a giant monolith set amongst a flat landscape.

I can see similarities with Naqsh e Rustam and other ancient tombs and monoliths as well.

Even some Midwest links such as the Harrison tomb.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Depends on the culture.

But I wouldn't argue against someone who compared the Obama Center to Qasr al-Farid. An American interpretation of a giant monolith set amongst a flat landscape.

I can see similarities with Naqsh e Rustam and other ancient tombs and monoliths as well.

Even some Midwest links such as the Harrison tomb.

Great examples; but it all goes back to my original question: why? Why would he want his legacy to be compared to a tomb? That's a fair and inevitable comparison. There are many things to admire about the building and grounds; the gardens, the community center, the interior exhibits, the cultural impact, globally and locally; even the technical aspects of the building...the materials, the detailing, etc. But all of these things together, in the manner that they're composed by the architect and approved by the Obamas, is a real headscratcher.
The John Ronan design was so beautiful..it felt airy, open and transparent where it needed to be. It embraced Jackson Park in a way that the final, built design by Williams+Tsien does not.
A monument to a presidency that prided itself in being new, fresh, open and inviting does not really convey many of those qualities...and maybe it doesn't need to, but it just comes off as...apathetic, which Obama was not.

[sentinel]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

Well, the public trust doctrine was never intended for the "spirit of designated preservation".

It's meant to protect public ownership and access, which doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of a nature park.

If Chicago wanted to bulldoze a natural beach for a giant nonprofit industrial theme park on the lakefront, that is well within the city's prerogative. That *IS* the origin of Jackson Park after all. Not that the replaced section of Jackson Park was comparable to a natural beach. An open lawn between two major roads of speeding cars is more of a negative space, a nonspace, in my opinion.

The museum building and property still belong to Chicago, and the Obamas are legally leasing an exhibition space. At the end of the lease, Chicago is free to change the exhibition or to keep the existing one like any other lakefront museum.

As for parks being earmarked for elite display. .. that's most of the world's spectacular tourist sites and gardens. Grandeur and ego rarely come from the public.

Thank you for this.

The Lucas Museum was very similar, the city would lease the land, while the Lucas Foundation was to spend their money (no taxpayer money, mind you) to build the structure. Along with 12 acres of park space. But people said 'it's a dumb star wars museum', or 'an art museum doesn't belong in the MUSEUM campus', or 'it doesn't belong in Chicago, it's not relevant because it's entertainment-based', etc, etc, etc. A 'world-class' city saying 'NO' to something because they had a well-funded non-profit with too much power butting in and saying 'we don't want anything built on this asphalt parking lot that's used 4 months out of the year, because there COULD be a park built there in the future', even though a literal park was planned along with the museum. Now, 12 years later, a museum is opening imminently in LA, along with a $1 billion charitable foundation. Chicago has a parking lot.
(Yes, I'm venting, and yes, it's relevant to this discussion; no one should ever forget the massive fumble that Chicago made because Friends of The Park decided they knew better than everyone else).

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Great examples; but it all goes back to my original question: why? Why would he want his legacy to be compared to a tomb? That's a fair and inevitable comparison. There are many things to admire about the building and grounds; the gardens, the community center, the interior exhibits, the cultural impact, globally and locally; even the technical aspects of the building...the materials, the detailing, etc. But all of these things together, in the manner that they're composed by the architect and approved by the Obamas, is a real headscratcher.
The John Ronan design was so beautiful..it felt airy, open and transparent where it needed to be. It embraced Jackson Park in a way that the final, built design by Williams+Tsien does not.
A monument to a presidency that prided itself in being new, fresh, open and inviting does not really convey many of those qualities...and maybe it doesn't need to, but it just comes off as...apathetic, which Obama was not.

The John Ronan design has some Silicon Valley vibes and might become dated as quintessential 00's and 10's.

I think the Obamas chose the design they did because there is something very reminiscent of East Africa and other neighboring cultures in it.

Perhaps in another context, we wouldn't be thinking "tomb" but rather "temple" like the stone churches of Ethiopia.

And perhaps the conversation the building has with its surroundings is in fact meant to be opposotional. The Classical Temple design of the MSI isn't exactly free of its own negative connotations.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Thank you for this.

The Lucas Museum was very similar, the city would lease the land, while the Lucas Foundation was to spend their money (no taxpayer money, mind you) to build the structure. Along with 12 acres of park space. But people said 'it's a dumb star wars museum', or 'an art museum doesn't belong in the MUSEUM campus', or 'it doesn't belong in Chicago, it's not relevant because it's entertainment-based', etc, etc, etc. A 'world-class' city saying 'NO' to something because they had a well-funded non-profit with too much power butting in and saying 'we don't want anything built on this asphalt parking lot that's used 4 months out of the year, because there COULD be a park built there in the future', even though a literal park was planned along with the museum. Now, 12 years later, a museum is opening imminently in LA, along with a $1 billion charitable foundation. Chicago has a parking lot.
(Yes, I'm venting, and yes, it's relevant to this discussion; no one should ever forget the massive fumble that Chicago made because Friends of The Park decided they knew better than everyone else).

Amen. Friends of the Parking Lot. What an amazing own goal we pulled on that one.

[Via Chicago]

Found online but looks great in blue hour



I am a bit surprised the observatory doesn't have a true skylight looking up. Seems like it would have been a no brainier for a James turrel esque skyspace. Is there a logistical reason they didn't do this?

[vexxed82]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

The John Ronan design has some Silicon Valley vibes and might become dated as quintessential 00's and 10's.

I think the Obamas chose the design they did because there is something very reminiscent of East Africa and other neighboring cultures in it.

Perhaps in another context, we wouldn't be thinking "tomb" but rather "temple" like the stone churches of Ethiopia.

And perhaps the conversation the building has with its surroundings is in fact meant to be opposotional. The Classical Temple design of the MSI isn't exactly free of its own negative connotations.

Thanks for those examples, galleryfox. Those certainly helped broaden my snap-judgement image of common 'western' mausoleums - and what I assumed commenters on my posts were referring to.

I still don't like that it's used a a pejorative towards the design. Plenty of world wonders are mausoleums.

And I totally forgot about the Ronan design. If you allowed me choose back then, I would have certainly chosen the sleek, glassy design. But looking at it now, it feels so...bland and corporate (no thanks to Apple's HQ, I'm sure). And it does feel dated. There's something about the current design that feels both modern and ancient at the same time. Which does give it a more temple-like feel. It's not a place of mourning like you'd expect at a tomb, but a place of civic reverence, reflection, and respect.

I've really had a hard time articulating why I like the current iteration as much as I do, because I reflexively feel like I shouldn't. There's something about the audacity and boldness of this direction that the other proposal lacked. Had that onward been built I'm sure I would have liked it, too. I'm easily impressed by bright and shiny buildings, but I feat might have been another corporate glass box - in ring form.

I think I'm rambling now.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

There's something about the current design that feels both modern and ancient at the same time. Which does give it a more temple-like feel. It's not a place of mourning like you'd expect at a tomb, but a place of civic reverence, reflection, and respect.

I think that's why it's growing on me with the photos from the last couple of weeks. I love modern..... but if it was a glass behemoth - It would come across as forgetful since we've had so much glass in our high rise architecture in downtown over the last decade.

This really does seem like an attempt to blend some ancient elements with a modern look. With the evening lighting, and that exact stone color.... It just looks cool to me.

Obviously not an apples-to-apples, but had you looked at the John Hancock Center right after completion, you would think it looked weird and out of place..... Things can grow and have the environment around them blend into it after time.

[Via Chicago]

It's not an exact comparison but when thinking about blending ancient and modern I think of Louis Kahn's designs. Especially stuff like the Bangladesh capital. The designs feel out of place and time and almost elemental. Some of that ethos and philosophy carries over here IMO

[2PRUROCKS!]

Originally Posted by sentinel

Thank you for this.

The Lucas Museum was very similar, the city would lease the land, while the Lucas Foundation was to spend their money (no taxpayer money, mind you) to build the structure. Along with 12 acres of park space. But people said 'it's a dumb star wars museum', or 'an art museum doesn't belong in the MUSEUM campus', or 'it doesn't belong in Chicago, it's not relevant because it's entertainment-based', etc, etc, etc. A 'world-class' city saying 'NO' to something because they had a well-funded non-profit with too much power butting in and saying 'we don't want anything built on this asphalt parking lot that's used 4 months out of the year, because there COULD be a park built there in the future', even though a literal park was planned along with the museum. Now, 12 years later, a museum is opening imminently in LA, along with a $1 billion charitable foundation. Chicago has a parking lot.
(Yes, I'm venting, and yes, it's relevant to this discussion; no one should ever forget the massive fumble that Chicago made because Friends of The Park decided they knew better than everyone else).

Yes! Yes! & Yes!

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by vexxed82

Thanks for those examples, galleryfox. Those certainly helped broaden my snap-judgement image of common 'western' mausoleums - and what I assumed commenters on my posts were referring to.

I still don't like that it's used a a pejorative towards the design. Plenty of world wonders are mausoleums.

And I totally forgot about the Ronan design. If you allowed me choose back then, I would have certainly chosen the sleek, glassy design. But looking at it now, it feels so...bland and corporate (no thanks to Apple's HQ, I'm sure). And it does feel dated. There's something about the current design that feels both modern and ancient at the same time. Which does give it a more temple-like feel. It's not a place of mourning like you'd expect at a tomb, but a place of civic reverence, reflection, and respect.

I've really had a hard time articulating why I like the current iteration as much as I do, because I reflexively feel like I shouldn't. There's something about the audacity and boldness of this direction that the other proposal lacked. Had that onward been built I'm sure I would have liked it, too. I'm easily impressed by bright and shiny buildings, but I feat might have been another corporate glass box - in ring form.

I think I'm rambling now.

Interestingly, I think many people are experiencing the same reaction as to the Picasso statue. The Obama Center is very impressive, even imposing and monumental.

But the style is not familiar so it can’t altogether feel comfortable at this time. Some reviewers are using “funereal” to describe that discomfort, but I think that’s mostly because true monuments in modern culture are usually reserved for somber settings.

We don’t truly know how the Obama Center will feel until the visitors establish the mood. Few people would have guessed that the Bean in Millennium Park would have become the exuberant selfie Mecca of Chicago.

I think the experience of the Obama Center will change with time as weathering and growing plant life and the course of history alters the mood.

I for one look forward to taking my toddler to the new fancy playground.


August 15, 1967

"Mayor Daley tugged a white ribbon, loosing the blue percale wrap. A hearty cheer went up as the covering slipped off the big steel sculpture that looks at once like a bird and a woman."
-- Chicago Sun-Times (Seiji Ozawa leads the Symphony. The Mayor smiles. And 50,000 See.)

Does man love Art? Man visits Art, but squirms.
Art hurts. Art urges voyages--
and it is easier to stay at home,
the nice beer ready.
In commonrooms
we belch, or sniff, or scratch.
Are raw.

But we must cook ourselves and style ourselves for Art, who
is a requiring courtesan.
We squirm.
We do not hug the Mona Lisa.

We may touch or tolerate
an astounding fountain, or a horse-and-rider.
At most, another Lion.

Observe the tall cold of a Flower
which is as innocent and as guilty,
as meaningful and as meaningless as any
other flower in the western field