CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[ardecila]

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.

Not so. UIC offered a site next to the Circle, and also a brownfield site on the West Side. UChicago offered sites in Washington Park as well as the Jackson Park site. Out of those sites, the Jackson Park site was chosen for two reasons, it seems to me. First, it has a deep personal connection to the Obamas, this corner of the city was important to Michelle's childhood and their later courtship/time at UChicago.

Second, look at great museums in American cities. The ones that are truly long-standing institutions are often located in public parks, or they have such a big green setback that they create their own park. That's the tradition in America, like it or not. I don't need to tell you the countless examples in Chicago, including some recent additions, but name virtually any major American city, and it will probably have a museum (usually Classical) sited in a park.

A major legacy of Obama's presidency was in recognizing the value of such long traditions, and striving to make them more open, democratic, and multiracial, but without upsetting the applecart and just throwing out the old entirely. He had to be a black statesman without being a radical, even though the very idea of a black statesman is itself radical in this country.

but i dont know anyone who would willingly give up scarce public green space if they didnt have to.

I'm not sure the green space really is all that scarce. People always assume the South Side is park-poor because the residents are poor, but most of Chicago's parks were laid out when the city was consistently working-class, from Jefferson Park down to Pullman. The amount of parks, and park acreage, does not reflect Chicago's racial fault lines.

Of course, the quality of neighborhood parks and the resources they receive are another matter entirely... but Obama's explicit goal is to bring more resources toward maintaining and programming Jackson Park, so really this is just a debate about acreage.

[Via Chicago]

It's a valid concern when Chicago has less green space per capital than nearly any major us city



It dosent compete well from a global standpoint either


And yes. If it was Trump doing this and there was a republican mayor who let it proceed, everyone would be incredulous.

[pilsenarch]

^Again, doesn't this add green space? And, as far as I can tell, all of the museums and institutions cluttering Grant and Lincoln Parks actually substantially encourage use of the parks, not the other way around...

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

^Again, doesn't this add green space? And, as far as I can tell, all of the museums and institutions cluttering Grant and Lincoln Parks actually substantially encourage use of the parks, not the other way around...

shhhh....don't let facts get in your way.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

It's a valid concern when Chicago has less green space per capital than nearly any major us city

That graph uses a horrible metric. It seems to equate acreage with quality. I don't need 10 acres of parkland per person. It also appears to amazingly operate on the assumption that the sq ft per person is permanantly occupied by a person. That's like saying every citizen gets a patch of sidewalk that they can rope off and call their own, not that it's traversed by hundreds or thousands of other citizens occupying it for brief periods of time, seconds, minutes, etc. Apparently housing density isn't even a variable either. Stupid graph.

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

It's a valid concern when Chicago has less green space per capital than nearly any major us city



It dosent compete well from a global standpoint either


And yes. If it was Trump doing this and there was a republican mayor who let it proceed, everyone would be incredulous.

This graph presents an awful measure. Parkland per person? All that does is show which cities are the least dense.

Alberquerque has a density of 2,900 people/mi2, Chicago is 11,000. Chicago is only 50mi2 larger in space but has 2.2 MILLION more people. Chicago will NEVER "have as much parkland as Alberquerque" unless we kick people out.

There is a reason Chicago and New York are at the bottom - we have the most density! (Vegas and Miami, though - they have problems)

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by XIII

Alberquerque has a density of 2,900 people/mi2, Chicago is 11,000. Chicago is only 50mi2 larger in space but has 2.2 MILLION more people. Chicago will NEVER "have as much parkland as Alberquerque" unless we kick people out.

There is a reason Chicago and New York are at the bottom - we have the most density! (Vegas and Miami, though - they have problems)

all the reason more why we should be protecting the existing parkland we do have from additional development. we dont have the luxury of wide open natural spaces as part of our urban fabric. also the density argument dosent entirely carry water. look at hong kong as an example, where something like 40% of the city is dedicated to open space. london has 33%. madrid has 35%. sydney is nearly 50%. so on and so forth.

we can quibble about the way these statistics are compiled and/or the way city limits are defined, but the reality is if you look at chicago from a satellite view, there aint a whole lot of green working its way into the urban fabric, and those that do (i.e. lakefront areas) hold a disproportionate share.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

if you look at chicago from a satellite view, there aint a whole lot of green working its way into the urban fabric, and those that do (i.e. lakefront areas) hold a disproportionate share.

dig up all of the rotting bodies in rosehill, st. boniface, and graceland, tear down the fucking walls, and BOOM! 500 brand new acres of parkland for the northside.

rinse wash repeat on the other sides of the city.

i hate cemeteries.

[Mr Downtown]

The bigger problem with the "per square mile" graph is that it's including, in cities like Phoenix and Albuquerque and LA, many square miles of inaccessible and unimproved mountain reserves simply because they have been annexed into the city. We'd look much better if we included the county forest preserves.

Meanwhile, though, the architects have been revising the plan.



Now the parking garage will be under the park, one or two levels, with 450 stalls. They'll still force users to walk outside, though, because . . . .

“We believe in the idea of activating the street,” Williams said.

The vibrant retail streetscape being discussed:


Anyway, on to the buildings:

The museum tower: To address criticism that their initial design was massive and opaque, the architects shrank the tower’s footprint and increased its height to about 225 feet from a planned 160-180 feet.

Hey, maybe they'll add a 775-foot spire . . .

The interior of the tower would have eight main floors in addition to mezzanine levels. The top floor would be a skylit room, open to the public, with views of Lake Michigan and the surrounding city. The museum itself, a multilevel facility with exhibition spaces lodged in the tower’s midsection, would be open only to visitors who buy tickets.

The forum building: It would have a 300-seat auditorium on its north end and a restaurant on its south end.

The library building: The foundation continues discussions with Chicago Public Library officials in an attempt to locate a branch library in this building. About two-thirds of the building would serve as back-of-house space for deliveries and mechanical equipment.

Unlike a traditional presidential library, the center won’t house presidential papers. Instead, digitized version of Obama’s unclassified records will be available online and the physical documents will be stored in an existing facility of the National Archives and Records Administration.

The athletic center: This two-level building, which would have one level at ground level and another below, would contain a flexible space that could be used for basketball, dance and other sports. It would include community meeting and workout rooms. A glass facade would overlook an outdoor running track to the south.

Obama Foundation


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...010-story.html

[Busy Bee]

Hmm, I kind of liked the older window "cutouts" of the previous design. It seemed more Yavin temple to me and that's why I liked it.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

That graph uses a horrible metric. It seems to equate acreage with quality. I don't need 10 acres of parkland per person. It also appears to amazingly operate on the assumption that the sq ft per person is permanantly occupied by a person. That's like saying every citizen gets a patch of sidewalk that they can rope off and call their own, not that it's traversed by hundreds or thousands of other citizens occupying it for brief periods of time, seconds, minutes, etc. Apparently housing density isn't even a variable either. Stupid graph.

Also, it seems suspect to me. Parks are administered differently in each city, sometimes under city government but sometimes under county, regional, state, or special-purpose governments. Does this include parks of all stripes and colors? Does it include, for example, the Forest Preserves that essentially provide all the needed "big park" space for Chicago's Bungalow Belt?

[XIII]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

all the reason more why we should be protecting the existing parkland we do have from additional development. we dont have the luxury of wide open natural spaces as part of our urban fabric. also the density argument dosent entirely carry water. look at hong kong as an example, where something like 40% of the city is dedicated to open space. london has 33%. madrid has 35%. sydney is nearly 50%. so on and so forth.

we can quibble about the way these statistics are compiled and/or the way city limits are defined, but the reality is if you look at chicago from a satellite view, there aint a whole lot of green working its way into the urban fabric, and those that do (i.e. lakefront areas) hold a disproportionate share.

In Hong Kong 40% of the territory is park. That would be like Chicago including all of the suburbs and part of Wisconsin and Indiana in the count. Hong Kong the city actually has very high density and few parks. London is the same way, not many parks, but lots of green belt outside the city. There are really only a handful of "parks" in the city and they're clustered around the palace where they used to serve as hunting grounds.

Chicago devotes 8.5% of its total area (12,429 acres) to parks without counting outside Cook County (like London, Hong Kong or Madrid do). Can we do better with some of the parks we have? Sure, but Hong Kong, London and Madrid are certainly not models you want to use.
To put it in perspective, Paris always seemed to have a good urban / park balance and they only have around 9% held for parks.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

dig up all of the rotting bodies in rosehill, st. boniface, and graceland, tear down the fucking walls, and BOOM! 500 brand new acres of parkland for the northside.

rinse wash repeat on the other sides of the city.

i hate cemeteries.

Graceland is a gem and should be a national landmark. To suggest otherwise is crazy to me. It holds the most famous Chicagoans in history and is incredibly beautiful. If you truly are pro-architecture then you should be thinking otherwise.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Bonsai Tree

Graceland is a gem and should be a national landmark. To suggest otherwise is crazy to me. It holds the most famous Chicagoans in history and is incredibly beautiful. If you truly are pro-architecture then you should be thinking otherwise.

as i said beofe, i hate cemeteries. i don't care who's buried in them.

stupid wastes of space.

all of that open green space should be meadows, soccer fields, and baseball diamonds for people who are actually alive to use.

and tear down those god-awful walls!!!

[ardecila]

To their credit, Graceland has done a good job opening to the public, and recently removed their ban on bike-riding. Other urban cemeteries are gradually opening more to the public also... this mirrors what happened back in the late 1800s, when folks would go out and picnic in cemeteries even if they weren't paying respects to a particular deceased person.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Out of those sites, the Jackson Park site was chosen for two reasons, it seems to me. First, it has a deep personal connection to the Obamas, this corner of the city was important to Michelle's childhood and their later courtship/time at UChicago.

A major legacy of Obama's presidency was in recognizing the value of such long traditions, and striving to make them more open, democratic, and multiracial, but without upsetting the applecart and just throwing out the old entirely. He had to be a black statesman without being a radical, even though the very idea of a black statesman is itself radical in this country..

I think it stretches credulity to portray the JP decision as a way of somehow respecting tradition by gobbling up green space for his museum or as an effort to implement democratic transparency by doing so. I mean really?

Jackson Park or many parks may hold endearing memories for many XYZ citizen, that is precisely the point of a public park. It is not for the benefit of any singular powerful person or entity. And while Jackson Park may or may not hold enduring romantic memories for the Obama's I would say that hardly entitles them or anyone to a huge chunk of the park for their own library when there are other good alternatives available.

It isn't as if Washington Park or even the Steel Works site was 50 miles away from where the Obama's would have ever wandered during their time here.

Originally Posted by pilsenarch

^Again, doesn't this add green space? And, as far as I can tell, all of the museums and institutions cluttering Grant and Lincoln Parks actually substantially encourage use of the parks, not the other way around...

Precedent is not a great reason for keeping on with the same bad trade-offs. The idea that museums and parks would both not benefit if they were built say across the street from one another is a suspect argument.

Do we have our "parks" merely to showcase buildings for the powerful or do we have our parks to have green space with trees, grasses, flowers, and water?

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

dig up all of the rotting bodies in rosehill, st. boniface, and graceland, tear down the fucking walls, and BOOM! 500 brand new acres of parkland for the northside.

rinse wash repeat on the other sides of the city.

i hate cemeteries.

I'd get on board with that 100%. The earth is for the living. The dead can be cremated and stored in a metal shoe box stacked 100feet high in a decommissioned Amazon shipping center.

It befuddles me that people who believe in an afterlife feel the need to have a permeant outline of the earthly bodies planted firmly into the ground so that the rest of us can't use that space for all eternity.

[jpIllInoIs]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The bigger problem with the "per square mile" graph is that it's including, in cities like Phoenix and Albuquerque and LA, many square miles of inaccessible and unimproved mountain reserves simply because they have been annexed into the city. We'd look much better if we included the county forest preserves.

And is the index including lake front marinas and the water playground AKA Lake Michigan that lies within the Chicago City boundary?

[Mr Downtown]

^No.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

look at hong kong as an example, where something like 40% of the city is dedicated to open space.

Hong Kong is a Territory, not a city. If you want to make a comparison with Hong Kong then you should be comparing it against Cook County at the very least. Hong Kong is also an interesting case because much of that "open space" isn't really available for development due to the topography (mountainous and steep). Which also calls into question how beneficial that "green space" is for the average citizen when the terrain is challenging to reach and navigate with uses that are more limited than say a leveled and programmed park.

london has 33%

You should always check your sources. For instance, here we are talking about Parkland while the source that compiled that London statistic is using a broader term ("Green Space"). The definition of "Green Space" used by that source is any vegetated area larger than 5 square meters (50 sq ft roughly), other than private gardens, regardless of whether such space is publicly accessible (so technically the median on LaSalle is "Green Space"). The actual percentage of publicly accessible parkland, woodland, and gardens in London amounts to just 9% of its area. The balance remaining is made up of private green spaces (non-public but used in common with certain neighbors), sports fields (cricket grounds, soccer fields, etc), wasteland, and farmland. Using this kind of definition we could count the green spaces on amenity decks, Wrigley Field, cemeteries, and Golf Courses towards Chicago's total.

So, when trying to advocate to preserve parks don't cite statistics that pad their numbers with broad definitions of "Green Space" that basically include any land that isn't occupied by a building, a road, or parking lot.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

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.

What am I talking about? Refresh your memory about the Washington Park proposal. Both of the proposals relied on nearly identical amounts of parkland (22 acres of Washington Park versus 21 acres of Jackson Park). The land west of King Drive is part of the Washington Park proposal and is thus inapplicable.