CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Randomguy34]

The only item on the May Plan Commission agenda is the OPL: https://www.cityofchicago.org/conten...018_Agenda.pdf

Speaking of which....

Obama Foundation makes unique library deal for Obama Presidential Center

By Lynn Sweet

WASHINGTON – The Obama Foundation and the City of Chicago signed a tentative rent-free deal for a Chicago Public Library branch to be in the Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park, officials told the Chicago Sun-Times on Tuesday.

“I really think it’s kind of an ideal combination of uses, to have a Chicago Public Library at the OPC,” Obama Foundation executive director Robbin Cohen told the Sun-Times.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel, the first chief of staff for the former president, said in a statement: “In the spirit of Barack and Michelle Obama, this branch will serve as a neighborhood anchor with 21st century learning opportunities and shared spaces that will bring together community residents to gather, share and succeed for generations to come.”

[Mr Downtown]

^I always assumed the Trump Presidential Library would be the first to have a shelf of children's books.

In other news, the OPC wants to count closing Cornell Drive as creating new parkland:

From the Sun-Times:

WASHINGTON — Chicagoans are owed parkland for some of the acres in Jackson Park where the Obama Presidential Center will be located, and three park groups are rejecting the claim by the Obama Foundation, City of Chicago and Chicago Park District that closing and digging up Cornell Drive in the park should count as a replacement.

Friends of the Parks executive director Juanita Irizarry told the Chicago Sun-Times, “Upon hearing a few years ago of the plans for the OPC in a park and the Obama Foundation’s commitment to a park positive outcome, Chicagoans envisioned more than what we seem to be getting. We expected new parks to be created in the community, not just a reconfiguration of the spaces and uses within the current boundaries of Jackson Park.”

Counting Cornell as new parkland is “fuzzy math,” said Charles Birnbaum, the president of the Cultural Landscape Foundation based in Washington.

***
The foundation said in a document about “preserving parkland” that the four buildings in the Obama Center campus take up 2.6 acres — and of that, 1.6 acres of “roof” area will be “totally accessible open space” and the remaining 16.7 acres will remain “open and publically accessible.” And with “road improvements” — a reference to at least Cornell — “there will be a net gain of parkland” in Jackson Park.”

Hmmm. If one of you guys could give me $250, on Friday I'll give you back $100. Just think! You'd be increasing your income next week by $100!

[ardecila]

Park space is about quality and not quantity. That's why I hate metrics like "acres of parkland per capita", because it says nothing about how the space is actually used by citizens or whether it has a meaningful impact on quality of life. You have to make a holistic assessment, not tot up acreage gained vs lost.

There's no doubt in my mind that Jackson Park, or at least the west half of it, will be more heavily used without a six-lane drag strip running through it. Over time, the contiguous, larger section of parkland will allow more and different uses and programming. A music festival, for example, or larger family picnics. The Park District may eventually decide it can add more sports fields in this area. Etc, etc. The revised configuration of Jackson Park offers more possibilities for public and recreational use than the current configuration.

Of course, the Park District could still theoretically close Cornell even if the Obama Library was slated for a different location. Unfortunately in our car-obsessed society, there has to be a good political reason for why the Park District is closing off a favorite shortcut for thousands of South Siders. Without Obama, the closure would never happen.

[Mr Downtown]

From today's Chicago Tribune:

A federal lawsuit filed by a Chicago nonprofit in an attempt to block the Obama Presidential Center from being built in Jackson Park accuses organizers of pulling an “institutional bait and switch” by shifting the center’s purpose away from being a true presidential library.

Protect Our Parks Inc. also claims in its lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court on Monday, that the Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago don’t have the authority to transfer public parkland to nongovernmental entity such as the Obama Foundation.

POP is the group that got the Latin School's private soccer field moved further north in Lincoln Park and opened up to use by other groups.

I haven't yet read the complaint, but it looks like their federal cause of action is a generic due process complaint. I'm not terribly optimistic about their chances of succeeding. Of course, that's the same prediction I made about the opponents of the Lucas Museum.

[KOgc]

Does the lawsuit filed today have legs? I waffle back and forth on the park and it's use, but I don't waffle on not wanting the city to lose this one. Interested to hear if everyone was expecting this and if it's no big deal or not.

[Chi-Sky21]

Here we go again!

[maru2501]

feels like they opened themselves up to this with that stupid parking deck situation, which was obvious and eventually removed from the plan

[the urban politician]

I really don't care

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^I always assumed the Trump Presidential Library would be the first to have a shelf of children's books.

That and the entire future archives of the National Enquirer

[BVictor1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...517-story.html

Amid heated debate, city approves plan for Obama Presidential Center
Lolly BoweanContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune

After more than seven hours of emotional and passionate testimony from hundreds of residents, community activists and elected officials, the Chicago Plan Commission voted overwhelmingly to approve the Obama Presidential Center on Thursday afternoon.

The decision was a major hurdle for the Obama Foundation, but it is just the beginning of a long process before any construction takes place.

Next week, the foundation will go before the city’s zoning board for more approvals. Then it will have to have a formal long-term lease agreement approved by the full City Council. In addition, the project is still under federal review because of Jackson Park’s status on the National Register of Historic Places.

Still, the vote was considered a major victory the foundation’s top officials, who represent the former President and First Lady.

[bnk]

• Video Link

[Fvn]

Approved 47-1 by city council

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...523-story.html

[Vlajos]

^ The one dissenter:

Only Ald. David Moore, 17th, voted against the matter. Moore said he could not support it because the development would require about $175 million of city infrastructure improvements and it was not clear where the city would get that funding. Voting to spend money on the center, while streets in his Englewood community remain riddled with potholes and easily flood, would be a vote against his constituents, he said.

[Baronvonellis]

I'm kind of against it going in Jackson Park, when there's lots of cheap vacant land around there they could have used. For the Lucas Museum they were building it on a parking lot and creating parkland, which seemed like a win win. While this they are taking parkland when they don't have to. The Friends of the Park spent all their time on the wrong museum to me. Why not have him make create land for a new Obama Park? Instead of taking land from a landmarked park?

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

I'm kind of against it going in Jackson Park, when there's lots of cheap vacant land around there they could have used. For the Lucas Museum they were building it on a parking lot and creating parkland, which seemed like a win win. While this they are taking parkland when they don't have to. The Friends of the Park spent all their time on the wrong museum to me. Why not have him make create land for a new Obama Park? Instead of taking land from a landmarked park?

yup

[nomarandlee]

^^ Ego is the only satisfactory answer.

Just because the person in question is well received and revered by the public in the community should be no reason to sell out our parks like a cheap suit.

Would Londoners allow a Churchill center of this size in Hyde Park? Would New Yorkers allow a Roosevelt Center this size in Central Park? Why do we allow it in one of most prized parks is a question we ought to ask.

[Kenmore]

short answer, it isn't one of our most prized parks and 99% of the city has never been

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

short answer, it isn't one of our most prized parks and 99% of the city has never been

Indeed. Plus that park has been altered/reshaped/changed so much through the years that any hue and cry to keep it in its original state lacks credulity and smacks of being a red herring.

This is a good development. In a perfect world it would have landed in an abandoned, weed infested lot. But the world is not perfect... in lieu of perfection I will gladly take this.

This is a good day for the South Side and for the entire city of Chicago.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by Kenmore

short answer, it isn't one of our most prized parks and 99% of the city has never been

Denigrating Jackson Park in order to justify the land grab. Nice.

Yea, the park where the 1893 World's Fair took place. The only major park on the south side that fronts the lake. Yea, Jackson Park may rank 12th on the list of Chicago's numerous sizable parks.

If 99% of the city or metro has ever been is really immaterial and just an excuse to justify the grab. Change the name or purpose of the building and the allowance wouldn't come so readily. And it shouldn't matter who/what the building's functions are past the fact that they impose themselves ON the park.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Baronvonellis

For the Lucas Museum they were building it on a parking lot and creating parkland

As I recall, this project will also create more parkland. The entire lakefront is protected, so the argument about a "landmarked park" compared to lakefront land is kinda weak.

Every dissent I hear about this project is so weak that it leads me to believe people have other motives for their complaints (politics?). The chorus goes out time and time again for wealthy people to invest in under-served urban areas. When someone actually does it, the first reaction is criticism. "Not this particular location" or "Not this particular community".

In reality, Woodlawn has an average household income below the regional average. It is also close enough to UofC to extend that development node to the south and help it spread (hopefully) to South Shore and Grand Crossing.