CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[left of center]

Good news regarding the garage being moved, and being put entirely underground beneath Jackson Park. On the other end, probably not so good news about UC staff opposing the Center though. A bit too late in the process for them to come out against the location now, isn't it?



Obama Center has picked up another opponent

Barack Obama may be the pride of University of Chicago, but a lot of heavy hitters there are strongly opposing current plans for his library.

More than 100 U of C faculty members who say they support the location of an Obama Center near the campus nevertheless are opposing plans for it on economic and preservation grounds.

They say the center's proposed location lacks room to jump-start economic development, and its footprint will consume parts of historic Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance. "Not only are public lands being given to a private entity but the public will pay to have Cornell Drive closed and Stony Island Avenue and Lake Shore Drive widened," at an estimated cost to taxpayers of more than $100 million, the faculty wrote in a letter.

​

The signers include such luminaries as Neil Harris, a history professor emeritus, divinity professor Wendy Doniger and political scientist Charles Lipson.

​

"We are concerned that rather than becoming a bold vision for urban living in the future it will soon become an object-lesson in the mistakes of the past," the group wrote. "We urge the Obama Foundation to explore alternative sites on the South Side that could be developed with more economic benefits, better public transportation, and less cost to taxpayers. We would be pleased to support the Obama Center if the plan genuinely promoted economic development in our neighborhoods and respected our precious public urban parks."

...

Meanwhile, the foundation has called off plans to locate the center's parking garage on the east end of the Midway. The plan, for an above-ground parking structure, drew opposition from groups including Jackson Park Watch and Save the Midway, both of which include South Side residences and businesses.

“After numerous meetings with the community and other valued stakeholders over the past months, the Foundation understands that many of those voices feel strongly that the parking for the OPC should be located within the OPC campus in Jackson Park,” the foundation said in a statement regarding the location of the garage. “The Foundation has heard those voices, and has decided to locate the OPC's parking underground in Jackson Park.”

Source: http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...other-opponent

[nomarandlee]

wrong thread

[BuildThemTaller]

In summary, a former President of the United States with significant ties to the South Side of Chicago picks a spot on the South Side of Chicago for his Presidential Museum (The public doesn't really want or care about his papers, if we are being honest. Let's not call it a library). The city donates a prime but underutilized spot in an important public park. The President and his team hold several public hearings to solicit ideas and present their plans. The initial plans for the museum included some good things (reducing the amount of car traffic cutting through the park) and some bad (above ground parking garage and in a most unfortunate location). The major bad thing was scrapped due to community input. On net, this is a huge plus for the city, yes?

[Vlajos]

^ Agree, not much to complain about. They are putting the parking underground, where it should be.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

In summary, a former President of the United States with significant ties to the South Side of Chicago picks a spot on the South Side of Chicago for his Presidential Museum (The public doesn't really want or care about his papers, if we are being honest. Let's not call it a library). The city donates a prime but underutilized spot in an important public park. The President and his team hold several public hearings to solicit ideas and present their plans. The initial plans for the museum included some good things (reducing the amount of car traffic cutting through the park) and some bad (above ground parking garage and in a most unfortunate location). The major bad thing was scrapped due to community input. On net, this is a huge plus for the city, yes?

Pretty much agree but am a bit curious about your emphasis on not calling it a library. Is this supposed to be condescending or do you mean it in the sense that people won't be interested in 44's papers like say they are interested in Nixon's?

[Khantilever]

The UofC professors are really, really late to the game. My guess is they’re just annoyed about the traffic (and they say as much in the letter).

The irony of those guys complaining about this is that UofC has been really terrible (seemingly by design) at delivering projects that kickstart development and improve the local community.

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

In summary, a former President of the United States with significant ties to the South Side of Chicago picks a spot on the South Side of Chicago for his Presidential Museum (The public doesn't really want or care about his papers, if we are being honest. Let's not call it a library). The city donates a prime but underutilized spot in an important public park. The President and his team hold several public hearings to solicit ideas and present their plans. The initial plans for the museum included some good things (reducing the amount of car traffic cutting through the park) and some bad (above ground parking garage and in a most unfortunate location). The major bad thing was scrapped due to community input. On net, this is a huge plus for the city, yes?

The location is just plain wrong. It intrudes upon a historic but rundown section of parkland that deserves to be returned to the original design, rather than the insertion of a sort of post-Mayan temple.

There is a perfect spot, not parkland and undeveloped at the NW corner of King Drive and Garfield that's sitting there empty and is right on top of a CTA station and with easy car access from the Ryan. No need to take over any parkland at all. The UofC is making a major investment in the land on the South Side (under construction at the moment).

And oh, it isn't a library. It won't hold the archives which will remain in DC at the National Archives, this is a museum and community center.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

In summary, a former President of the United States with significant ties to the South Side of Chicago picks a spot on the South Side of Chicago for his Presidential Museum (The public doesn't really want or care about his papers, if we are being honest. Let's not call it a library). The city donates a prime but underutilized spot in an important public park. The President and his team hold several public hearings to solicit ideas and present their plans. The initial plans for the museum included some good things (reducing the amount of car traffic cutting through the park) and some bad (above ground parking garage and in a most unfortunate location). The major bad thing was scrapped due to community input. On net, this is a huge plus for the city, yes?

I think a huge plus for the city would have been the Washington Park location.

We don't have the luxury of dozens of quality open parks in this city to give away huge chunks of free land and call it a "large win". It's a shame that the Obama's felt that only this spot made a great choice given all the considerations. Rather selfish and egomaniacal to be honest.
Granted if it was the current President he would try to take up 2/3rd of Central Park for a Library but that is another animal.

What's done is done and power/money play.

[west-town-brad]

What I observe with the site selection of the Obama Center is a desire to push an area over the hump to long term critical mass/success.

Instead of spreading city and quasi-private investments equally across the city or the south side in this case, by concentrating these investments into one area you can have a higher chance of long term success.

The downside of this is clear (some areas get nothing) but the upside is that we at least have some areas doing well. Over time these areas serve as expanding nodes.

I think Mr. Obama himself said something like "we need a park like Lincoln Park on the south side" to serve as that expanding node.

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Pretty much agree but am a bit curious about your emphasis on not calling it a library. Is this supposed to be condescending or do you mean it in the sense that people won't be interested in 44's papers like say they are interested in Nixon's?

I guess I think of a library as a place to go, read some things, study, access social services, etc. It's a collection that you get to handle and maybe take out of the building for a time. This is a museum and community center. It will be a big draw for people that want to go and learn about the President, his family, and the things he did leading up to and during his time in office.

Thanks to others for pointing out the other criticisms. I was hoping to hear that other side. It's important to remember the original vision of Jackson Park, as well as how it has evolved over time. I don't agree with all of it and think "ego-maniacal" is going too far in the personal name calling. Presidents build museums in modern times. Why should or would we expect that Barack Obama would be different in that regard? And he did consider multiple sites that the city offered to him and his family. If we, the people, should be upset with anyone, it should be the person(s) that offered him that plot of land. The Mayor and Park District are charged with protecting the peoples interest.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

If we, the people, should be upset with anyone, it should be the person(s) that offered him that plot of land. The Mayor and Park District are charged with protecting the peoples interest.

i think its possible to take issue with both. yes, its gross that public parkland time and time again gets offered up as a freebie bargaining chip to people in positions of power by our elected politicians. that said, obama didnt "have" to take the offer either. he of all people should understand how sensitive this issue is. and certainly he could just as easily have decided to build something transformative that was woven into the urban fabric, without requiring a single square acre of parkland. hell, he could have built an entirely new world class park if he wanted to on abandoned or neglected land. but he didnt.

[Mr Roboto]

I dont know, there are other structures in park land in the city - MSI, the museum campus, art institute, the lincoln park zoo, peggy notebart/childrens nature museum etc, are all built in park land. I dont have a problem with utilizing public space for a different form or a new variety of public space. I dont think its ego-maniacal to follow this same concept.

I also think the idea that this will create a strong principal node/focus area on the south side from which to grow from is a decent one.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

he of all people should understand how sensitive this issue is. and certainly he could just as easily have decided to build something transformative that was woven into the urban fabric, without requiring a single square acre of parkland.

You say this like it's some kind of no-brainer, but the arguments against building the museum in Jackson Park are complicated and arcane.

The city has a long tradition of building museums in parks, including MSI up the street from the Obama site and DuSable Museum in Washington Park. I'm sure the Obamas felt that they were just one more in this long tradition.

We all need to get off Olmsted's dick here... his designs in Chicago have already been modified in serious and substantial ways, usually with a lot less care than Williams/Tsien bring. Change and preservation do not have to be enemies.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

You say this like it's some kind of no-brainer, but the arguments against building the museum in Jackson Park are complicated and arcane.

The city has a long tradition of building museums in parks, including MSI up the street from the Obama site and DuSable Museum in Washington Park. I'm sure the Obamas felt that they were just one more in this long tradition.

We all need to get off Olmsted's dick here... his designs in Chicago have already been modified in serious and substantial ways, usually with a lot less care than Williams/Tsien bring. Change and preservation do not have to be enemies.

the only reason people are rampantly defending this decision is because this is the corner we have been backed into. we will never know what "could have been" since the city immediately capitulated and because of that, i dont get the sense the Obama foundation seriously ever considered any other options. thats a knock on the city and its also a knock on Obama. but i dont know anyone who would willingly give up scarce public green space if they didnt have to. and frankly, i still fail to understand how this was ever U of C's land to "offer up" in the first place.

if Obama had said something along the lines of "i respect that the city parks remain a public good and while the offer is incredibly generous, i do not wish to intrude onto them or take away from existing public resources. instead i choose to build my museum on privately acquired land, and will place my library inside the urban fabric of the neighborhood i served and rose up out of, rather than isolating it alone as a symbolic monument".....im sure everyone would be hailing his decision as humble and transformative and visionary rather than self centered and egotistical.

honestly, this is the sort of response i would have hoped for from a person like Obama, and as someone who stood in grant park on election night in 2008, im pretty dissapointed in the way they have chosen to approach this project.

[pilsenarch]

Doesn't the plan actually add net green space?

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by ardecila

We all need to get off Olmsted's dick here... his designs in Chicago have already been modified in serious and substantial ways, usually with a lot less care than Williams/Tsien bring. Change and preservation do not have to be enemies.

I guess you an I are in agreement. I wrote "It's important to remember the original vision of Jackson Park, as well as how it has evolved over time." But you went right to it. Bravo!

[Mr Roboto]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

the only reason people are rampantly defending this decision is because this is the corner we have been backed into. we will never know what "could have been" since the city immediately capitulated and because of that, i dont get the sense the Obama foundation seriously ever considered any other options. thats a knock on the city and its also a knock on Obama. but i dont know anyone who would willingly give up scarce public green space if they didnt have to. and frankly, i still fail to understand how this was ever U of C's land to "offer up" in the first place.

if Obama had said something along the lines of "i respect that the city parks remain a public good and while the offer is incredibly generous, i do not wish to intrude onto them or take away from existing public resources. instead i choose to build my museum on privately acquired land, and will place my library inside the urban fabric of the neighborhood i served and rose up out of, rather than isolating it alone as a symbolic monument".....im sure everyone would be hailing his decision as humble and transformative and visionary rather than self centered and egotistical.

honestly, this is the sort of response i would have hoped for from a person like Obama, and as someone who stood in grant park on election night in 2008, im pretty dissapointed in the way they have chosen to approach this project.

I disagree that its egotistical. It was simply the path of least resistance, if anything. At the same time, I think the location is actually pretty reasonable, and Im pretty sure most involved throughout the decision process thought so as well.

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

Doesn't the plan actually add net green space?

Sounds similar to the Lucas museum in that respect then. Im wondering where friends of the parking lot are now on this plan.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

Im wondering where friends of the parking lot are now on this plan.

Who cares. They can all take a long walk off a short pier.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

instead i choose to build my museum on privately acquired land, and will place my library inside the urban fabric of the neighborhood i served and rose up out of

Yeah because I'm sure he wants to spend ten or twenty years trying to get that off the ground while dealing with a myriad of intransigent landlords and speculators looking to make a tidy fortune.

im sure everyone would be hailing his decision as humble and transformative and visionary rather than self centered and egotistical.

You've set the bar so low for "transformative" and "visionary" actions that I'm not even sure you know what those words mean. It would be a ridiculously difficult process that would waste a good deal of cash and capital that could have been put to better use by funding programming that would benefit the community. Whether it is located in a park across the street or in the middle of a block is immaterial.

Indeed, if he HAD opted to try to acquire several acres of land I'm sure you would have complained about that too since that process would invariably lead to negative outcomes for some local owners as well. Land acquisitions like that rarely go without a hitch and often people nearby don't appreciate the drastic change in their built environment.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by JK47

Yeah because I'm sure he wants to spend ten or twenty years trying to get that off the ground while dealing with a myriad of intransigent landlords and speculators looking to make a tidy fortune.


You've set the bar so low for "transformative" and "visionary" actions that I'm not even sure you know what those words mean. It would be a ridiculously difficult process that would waste a good deal of cash and capital that could have been put to better use by funding programming that would benefit the community. Whether it is located in a park across the street or in the middle of a block is immaterial.

Indeed, if he HAD opted to try to acquire several acres of land I'm sure you would have complained about that too since that process would invariably lead to negative outcomes for some local owners as well. Land acquisitions like that rarely go without a hitch and often people nearby don't appreciate the drastic change in their built environment.

What are you talking about? The other sites (primarily the one just directly west of Washington Park) already had land banked and ready to be donated. Any cost would have been minimal.

Originally Posted by Mr Roboto

I disagree that its egotistical. It was simply the path of least resistance, if anything. At the same time, I think the location is actually pretty reasonable, and Im pretty sure most involved throughout the decision process thought so as well.
.

Best to judge the merits of an action if you somehow remove the names involved. Would you say it wasn't egotistical if the current President proposed to have his library there? Of course, we all (rightly) would. Just because we (or even the surrounding community) feel indifferent or positive about Obama doesn't change the rather egotistical arrogance of insistence of the location. If you mean path of least resistance because pols reward other power pols while circumventing standard public policy than you are right.

I'm not sure what the ole backslap for reasonability is for. That he did ask for twice the plot size or didn't ask for the same plot in Grant Park?