CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[ardecila]

Well, the Olmsted park vision DID include roads. Central Park has four transverse roads that are like the Middle Earth version of a freeway, totally separated from pedestrian paths by picturesque stone bridges and little tunnels. Olmsted recognized that, especially in New York, traffic would need to move through his park between the East and West Sides of Manhattan. It also has a ring road that was intended for slow pleasure drives.

The Chicago parks and boulevards never really had the bridges to separate pedestrians from through traffic. All the park roads were intended for pleasure drives. Trucks and commercial traffic were simply banned from park roads by city ordinance, and car commuting was not popular enough to cause a traffic problem or a safety problem. When the 1950s rolled around and everyone started hopping in their car to go everywhere, the Park District simply surrendered all the boulevards and park roads to CDOT and they became the domain of the automobile.

Technically, trucks and commercial vehicles are still banned from boulevards and park roads, but the rule is seldom enforced except (occasionally) on Lake Shore Drive.

For the issue of Cornell, it's hard to make a decision in terms of what would be "faithful to Olmsted's vision". The guy died in 1903, five years before Henry Ford introduced the Model T. Automobiles, in his world, were expensive, maintenance-intensive pleasure devices for the rich. (Basically the same way we regard boats today.) Olmsted could not possibly anticipate how car traffic would reduce the public's enjoyment of his parks, so it's hard to endorse his vision of park roads as an appropriate idea for the 21st century.

[Mr Downtown]

From today's Tribune:

A small band of environmentalists takes fight against Obama Presidential Center to court

... the advocacy group Protect Our Parks [has] filed suit against the presidential center. They contend that the city and Park District do not have the authority to make public parkland available for the project. Jackson Park, they say, must remain untouched.
***
The [Obama F]oundation isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit. Instead the suit targets the city and park district saying that the presidential center isn’t the same as a presidential library and should not be granted public land. But even if the project was designed to house Obama’s archives, this collection still wouldn’t want it situated in a park.
***
... Protect Our Parks ... was formed in 2007 to challenge the park district when the Latin School of Chicago wanted to transform a grass field into a soccer field. The group filed a lawsuit that was settled out of court.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...724-story.html


Based on the Paepcke decision, I have my doubts that this will succeed legally. Of course, I said the same thing about the Lucas Museum lawsuit, and then the city unexpectedly just took its ball and went home.

[cityofneighborhoods]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

From today's Tribune:

A small band of environmentalists takes fight against Obama Presidential Center to court

... the advocacy group Protect Our Parks [has] filed suit against the presidential center. They contend that the city and Park District do not have the authority to make public parkland available for the project. Jackson Park, they say, must remain untouched.
***
The [Obama F]oundation isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit. Instead the suit targets the city and park district saying that the presidential center isn’t the same as a presidential library and should not be granted public land. But even if the project was designed to house Obama’s archives, this collection still wouldn’t want it situated in a park.
***
... Protect Our Parks ... was formed in 2007 to challenge the park district when the Latin School of Chicago wanted to transform a grass field into a soccer field. The group filed a lawsuit that was settled out of court.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...724-story.html


Based on the Paepcke decision, I have my doubts that this will succeed legally. Of course, I said the same thing about the Lucas Museum lawsuit, and then the city unexpectedly just took its ball and went home.

Environmentalists who fight to save roads and parking lots. We're all so lucky to have this white woman in Wilmette and white guy in Lakeview protect South Siders from an improved Jackson Park.

[Skyguy_7]

^Don’t be racist. You do have a point, however, that they’re from Wilmette and Lakeview respectively, and that they shouldn’t be involved with dealings in Jackson Park.

[cityofneighborhoods]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

^Don’t be racist.

^Don't be ignorant. I'm not looking to get in an argument, but you really should take a sociology class, read a book about Chicago history or just even a credible newspaper every once in awhile.

[pilsenarch]

Interesting that the Tribune fails to mention that the OC is *adding* significant green space to the park...

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by Skyguy_7

they’re from Wilmette and Lakeview respectively, and that they shouldn’t be involved with dealings in Jackson Park.

How on earth is the plaintiffs' domicile relevant to their legal challenge?

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

How on earth is the plaintiffs' domicile relevant to their legal challenge?

You are right, we should have filed a lawsuit to block the construction of the Lucas Museum in LA!

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

You are right, we should have filed a lawsuit to block the construction of the Lucas Museum in LA!

That was funny I give you that.

However, I think it's rather folly. Are all matters local? And just how local? Should only 10k Alaskans have a say in if the Arctic Wildlife refuge becomes industrialized? I guarantee you a lot few outsiders will say see that compared to say a Presidential Library.

There are great reasons to be opposed to the Library location other than you are for/against the idea of changing the immediate neighborhood. The +200million price tag for the road realignment is one thing. Some here were moaning about a $10million cost improvement to the much more high profile river walk yesterday yet we are talking about x20 to change a park. And for what reason other than the whims of a former President?
And again I have to ask, if President Trump wanted his library there would the reaction be the same? If groups that are against the library in JP were proponents of it would there be the same shrill sarcasm about them living on the North Shore/side? Nope.

It begs the question, why are we so easily bought. And for what good reason? The alternative of the Washington Park location was a wonderful location. Most would say a preferable opportunistic location. Why must we at great taxpayer expense use the money on infrastructure to increase minimum parkland just because an ex-Prez wants to be near the lake or MSI or whatever the reason.

Other than being snarky about the opponents we rarely hear convincing reasoning why this location is the most reasonable and sensible location.

[pilsenarch]

^Because it is actually improving the park, increasing usable green space, enjoys the support of the local community and the larger citizenry of Chicago, and insures that more of the public will actually visit and use the park itself...

and, of course, a Trump Center wouldn't enjoy the same support, not because of the changes to the park itself necessarily, but because Chicago is largely a progressive city and President O claimed it as his home town... raise this issue when the next president from Chicago wants to build a center... (particularly if that President is a conservative, HA!)

[Mr Downtown]

Crain’s editorial board asks

Just why is the Obama Center heading to Jackson Park?
***
So why, in a city that covers 237 square miles, with plenty of vacant land on the South and West sides, does the Obama Center have to be on 22 acres of public lakefront that isn’t near neighborhoods that could use an economic shot in the arm? Why was this location better than North Lawndale, the proposed site in the University of Illinois at Chicago’s bid? What about the “third site” in the U of C’s bid—55th and Garfield, with Washington Park to the east, on a site that now sports a gas station and is steps from the Garfield Green Line stop? And why, with so little information at hand, are we expected to give up that much public space while also forking over $175 million to cover the cost of the Cornell Drive revamp and other odds and ends?
***
If past is prologue, most of these questions will remain unanswered. But Crain’s Lisa Bertagnoli and Lynne Marek have been asking anyway, and in doing so they recently learned one interesting thing: The Jackson Park plan isn’t quite the done deal you might think. “The City Council has yet to introduce, much less enact, an ordinance authorizing the construction and operation of the center,” the city’s corporation counsel, Edward Siskel, noted in a June 28 court filing in response to a lawsuit filed by a grass-roots outfit called Protect Our Parks.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/opini...g-jackson-park

[SIGSEGV]

As someone who passes by the Washington Park site at least several times a week... I really wish that location was chosen. It's a perfect site for an anchor institution.

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

As someone who passes by the Washington Park site at least several times a week... I really wish that location was chosen. It's a perfect site for an anchor institution.

Agreed, but WP is still a park though. The site would face many of the same issues facing the JP location.

[Halsted & Villagio]

There is really no need to get worked up about any of this. The library is going to happen... at the site currently chosen. Too many people with clout (including the Mayor himself) are behind this. And yes, the Mayor was behind Lucas as well. But Lucas vs Obama clout is really no comparison at all. An Ex.President wins that one every time. And in the end, clout wins -- its the Chicago way.

As far as someone from the Northshore or wherever (besides the Southside) speaking out against this... think about it for a second. If you do not use the Jackson Park on a regular basis and/or are not directly affected it or its environs on a regular, ongoing basis... then surely that person's opinion should not be given more weight and credibility than the people directly affected by park.

Just to give one example (there are many)... were Southsiders able to impair or impede ANYTHING that was done with respect to the 606 Trail? Have Southsiders property values gone up because of the 606? Did Southsiders directly benefit from the 606? The answer to each of those questions is a resounding "no" and yet their tax dollars were certainly spent on that project. Did you see a hue and cry and lawsuits filed by Southsiders to prevent the 606? Again, that would be a "no". And will the 606 bring in as much money as the Obama Center will for ALL Chicagoans? Surely not.

As for the park itself, Jackson Park has been changed and modified so much through the years that that argument holds little water. In fact, with the latest modifications, that park will arguably become more relevant that it has ever been in its entire history.... and it be will manicured and well taken care of -- something that is somewhat lacking in its today's incarnation.

Regarding race - I don't see this as an issue about race but an issue about location. As I just said above, those areas in and around the Obama Center location should be given more deference than those not affected by it. But I do understand the frustrations of some Southsiders who feel that their areas have been long overlooked and neglected. And to now have people (well intended or not) who likely have no affiliation to the area in question, come in and try to change this project/derail it/or even kill it... is like telling a man dying of thirst that he cannot have water while you chug away on a 2 liter.

This ^ is what leads to heightened emotions that can even spill into racial frustrations. It does not make it right. I am just explaining what some may be feeling.

[chrisvfr800i]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...814-story.html


I know how desperate many on this forum are to see this project move forward, and to that I say "whatever", but a city with big crime and fiscal problems shouldn't be giving any land away. If Obama and Emmanuel want the library there so bad then make them pay for it!

[BonoboZill4]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...814-story.html


I know how desperate many on this forum are to see this project move forward, and to that I say "whatever", but a city with big crime and fiscal problems shouldn't be giving any land away. If Obama and Emmanuel want the library there so bad then make them pay for it!

I'm not really sure how those two things are relevant to one another...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I'm not really sure how those two things are relevant to one another...

Me neither. Maybe it was some jab at how much attention Rahm pays to this. However, IMO it shows a lack of understanding of how the management portion of a city actually works (or large corporation) down to the reality of departmental allocation of monies.

Perhaps the poster (who is in the NYC area) believes that this land would somehow sell to investors for some $$, but it wouldn't. It's park district owned and at the end of the day, giving the land away for the library will come back to the city indirectly money wise in the future.

[BonoboZill4]

Exactly what I was thinking. It's underutilized parkland going to something that will have far reaching benefits beyond just Hyde Park's borders. It's not perfect, but I think long term we will be happy to have such an addition to a world class park.

It'll basically make each Lincoln, Grant, and Jackson Park museum campuses in their own right. Can't think of many city's with three different places in three different parts of their city with so much civic participation.

[chrisvfr800i]

Originally Posted by BonoboZill4

I'm not really sure how those two things are relevant to one another...

I thought the relationship would be obvious. The land has value because somebody wants it. SELL the land and use the proceeds to fund more police, or teachers, or whatever. Giving it away is so incredibly stupid only a government could think of it.


Oh, and BTW, I am a Chicago native and Chicago-area resident.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

I thought the relationship would be obvious. The land has value because somebody wants it. SELL the land and use the proceeds to fund more police, or teachers, or whatever. Giving it away is so incredibly stupid only a government could think of it.


Oh, and BTW, I am a Chicago native and Chicago-area resident.

The land is park district owned. The selling of the land would almost never happen. There's a reason the only organizations that have structures in park district land are essentially cultural assets like museums (except Soldier Field but you could argue this in another way). Right nearby is the Museum of Science and Industry in park district land, not a bunch of bars and restaurants or housing units. There's a damn good reason for this. Do you think the city is really dumb enough to not realize that they have thousands of acres right next to a giant lake that looks like an ocean which people would clamor to live right next to with no roads?

I think you are not properly understanding the lakefront park land reality of when the city realizes it's a "good" I idea to give up a little land. The city is not about to give this away to a non cultural entity with enough national or international exposure, nor is there enough to make the sacred lakefront park land magically disappear. All of this type of thinking will set Chicago back. If you truly want Chicago to progress and be even more world class, then you'll stop protecting things like parking lots.