CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by JK47

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.

What do you mean inapplicable? You are assuming that part of the building would have been on that 22 acres IN Washington Park. It could have been a spruced up gateway or made into a Presidential Garden while the center lay on the lot west of MLK DR, we don't know.

It really isn't even arguable that the WP site had many acres of prime but underused/derelict land to play with and build on that could have enlivened the immediate streetscape and neighborhood in a way not possible with Jackson Park while potentially enhancing the greenery and landscape of WP.

[rlw777]

More green space, improved park programming, beautiful architecture, temporary and permanent job creation, increased tourism.... what is the problem again?

[Halsted & Villagio]

I wonder how often the preservationists visit Jackson Park. I am not talking about visiting once or twice a year but really visiting and "regularly" using the park.

Jackson Park has not been truly kept up in quite some time. In fact, most times (other than a few "face of the park" sections that have been kept up fairly well) Jackson Park looks largely unkempt and overlooked. It is also not very safe. As someone who golfs there and plays softball there in summer, I can vouch for this first hand. Not that it is the worst area of the city but shootings do occur and there is always the ever present sense that danger is nearby. In other words, there is truly no rest at Jackson Park.

The Obama Library will focus attention on the park itself as far as much needed upkeep and security. A welcome change. The Library will also bring a whole new focus and (worldwide?) appreciation for Frederick Olmsted's work at Jackson Park... which now languishes in relative obscurity.

As a Hyde Park resident and someone who has great affection for Jackson Park, I welcome the changes the Obama Library will bring. Most of my neighbors feel the exact same way. With the library on premises there will still be ample green space to enjoy but with the added benefit of a cleaner park with, more importantly, a secure park. A win win as I see it.

.

[Mr Downtown]

I think you and your neighbors are being foolishly optimistic, distracted by a shiny object, and trading your birthright for a mess of pottage. The neglected and dubious corners of the park down along Marquette or Coast Guard Dr. aren't going to be magically transformed by this project (though Tiger Woods may succeed in fencing them off). Only the already safe and well-traveled space between Stony and the Wooded Isle (itself freshly renovated) will be affected. Having visitors walk for 150 feet along what's currently Cornell Drive isn't going to do diddly for the corner of 63rd & Kimbark.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The neglected and dubious corners of the park down along Marquette or Coast Guard Dr. aren't going to be magically transformed by this project (though Tiger Woods may succeed in fencing them off). Only the already safe and well-traveled space between Stony and the Wooded Isle (itself freshly renovated) will be affected. Having visitors walk for 150 feet along what's currently Cornell Drive isn't going to do diddly for the corner of 63rd & Kimbark.

What data is this analysis based on? Might the hundreds of workers and visitors at this museum daily increase foot traffic in the park and make a safer environment? It seems like the additional local jobs are more likely to improve 63rd and Kimbark than any other private project on the drawing board, no? Is the increase in actual green space somehow bad?

Someone who actually cared about our parks would be ecstatic about the idea of eliminating what is essentially a highway right through the park. Where does the cynicism come from?

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I think you and your neighbors are being foolishly optimistic, distracted by a shiny object, and trading your birthright for a mess of pottage. The neglected and dubious corners of the park down along Marquette or Coast Guard Dr. aren't going to be magically transformed by this project (though Tiger Woods may succeed in fencing them off). Only the already safe and well-traveled space between Stony and the Wooded Isle (itself freshly renovated) will be affected. Having visitors walk for 150 feet along what's currently Cornell Drive isn't going to do diddly for the corner of 63rd & Kimbark.

So doing nothing while giving in to cynicism is the answer? Is it really unreasonable to assume that a new multi-million dollar legacy facility will somehow want to be protected and preserved? And just like how beautiful homes are partly judged by the neighborhood in which they reside, is it unreasonable to assume that this new multi-million dollar legacy facility will want to keep the park surrounding it in good shape, safe and tidy?

As far as I know no'one has ever said that this facility will be a cure'all... but what cannot be denied is that doing nothing is not the answer. And right now, devoid of developers lining up for build multi-million dollar facilities at Jackson Park, I will gladly take this one.

Moreover, whether it is public or not, this library is already spurring development in the area. There have been public unveiling's of various developments on track for the area (a new occurrence) and other developments/plans are going on behind the scenes. For instance I recently purchased a property in that area that I am developing. My purchase did not make the news but it is a real project nonetheless.

Years ago I would have never looked at that area for development. Now I am actively scouring the area for more properties. Whether its known or not, that's real change.

.

[Mr Downtown]

False dichotomy, as always with giving away parkland. McCormick Place has to be right here walling off the lake or Chicago will lose all the big trade fairs. Greektown and Little Italy have to be wiped out or Chicago will never get a University of Illinois campus. Soldier Field has to be host an alien life form because the rest rooms are yucky. NMH has to be allowed to demolish Prentice or it will never build a cancer-curing research institute. One of the world's great Olmsted landscapes has to be obliterated or Chicago won't get the Olympics.

Wooded Isle has already been restored and will attract visitors; the golf course (for better or worse) will be made over into something that attracts visitors, the Yoko Ono project is quite independent of the Obama Community Center. The corner has already been turned on Jackson Park. Whatever U of C builds in place of the Mott Center will mean a lot more to activating 63rd & Kimbark than this building—a half-mile away—ever will. Jackson Park was not the U of C's to offer; this should be at the northwest corner of Garfield & Cottage Grove.

No, I don't mind putting Cornell Drive on a road diet. I do mind spending millions—from local tax money—to then have to widen Lake Shore Drive or Stony Island to make up for that.

[moorhosj]

These are the same ideological inconsistencies that you showed during the Lucas Museum debate. Here you mention the publicly-funded Yoko Ono art project in the park, then go on to complain about a publicly-funded road diet. One of them actually gives us more usable parkland, I would think a "Friend of the Park" would care about that.

[Mr Downtown]

^In what way is the Yoko Ono piece "publicly funded?"

[JK47]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

What do you mean inapplicable? You are assuming that part of the building would have been on that 22 acres IN Washington Park. It could have been a spruced up gateway or made into a Presidential Garden while the center lay on the lot west of MLK DR, we don't know.

Though the library would be built in a public park, the university has offered about 6 vacant acres to be used for enhancements such as parking or a promenade that would allow visitors to exit the Green Line and walk through a landscaped area to the library. The city and the CTA have offered an additional 5 acres.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...619-story.html

You're just spouting off without even spending even a couple of minutes to verify your claims. Your assumption is that they'd build the library OUTSIDE the park and, what, beautify 22 acres of Washington Park for just the hell of it? That isn't even remotely accurate. If you looked at a map you'd see that the 11 acre site outside the park is bisected by the L tracks. Given the parking requirements backers for the Washington Park site proposed parking or ancillary amenities on that site while the Library buildings would be located within the park.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by rlw777

More green space, improved park programming, beautiful architecture, temporary and permanent job creation, increased tourism.... what is the problem again?

You'd think we're discussing reviving the old Nike Missile battery and Radar Complex that used to be located in the Park based on the hue and cry.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by JK47

Though the library would be built in a public park, the university has offered about 6 vacant acres to be used for enhancements such as parking or a promenade that would allow visitors to exit the Green Line and walk through a landscaped area to the library. The city and the CTA have offered an additional 5 acres.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...619-story.html

You're just spouting off without even spending even a couple of minutes to verify your claims. Your assumption is that they'd build the library OUTSIDE the park and, what, beautify 22 acres of Washington Park for just the hell of it? That isn't even remotely accurate. If you looked at a map you'd see that the 11 acre site outside the park is bisected by the L tracks. Given the parking requirements backers for the Washington Park site proposed parking or ancillary amenities on that site while the Library buildings would be located within the park.

If the Obamas had decided that their 4 acres of buildings were to be built east of MLK DR inside the park that would be problematic as well. You act as if the ONLY options are to build inside these two parks. A completely ridiculous notion. I have a hard time believing that if the WP location had been chosen that the corner of MLK/Garfield would have only been used to build a parking garage and not a vital part of the complex but any official plans were never expressed in any case.

There was absolutely nothing preventing Obama to put the majority of his 4 acres of buildings inside the 11 acres west of MLKDR handed over by the city/CTA/UofC for the foundation to build on. There would have been a total of over 33 acres to play with and split between. For the sake of comparison the JFK(10), Clinton(27), Ike(22), Ford(20).

There would also be the possibility of land acquisition with very little demolition on the SW lot of MLK/51st. Or the complex could have been split between the quadrants of MLK/Garfield perhaps connected by sky-bridge or tunnel. There would have been number of different ways to maximize that location and not needlessly infringe on the park as opposed to taking the WHOLE 22 acres of the Jackson Park site.

Not to mention the transit accessibility would have been tops and the revitalization of a true integrated urban fabric filtering throughout the immediate community unlike the comparatively isolated Jackson Park location would have been preferable. Why is it some affront or hearsay to acknowledge these plain as day realities? Is it somehow disrespecting him as a President to point out the obvious advantages of other sites or the problems with the selected one?

[Mr Downtown]

For example:

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^In what way is the Yoko Ono piece "publicly funded?"

From the Tribune:

"Executives with Project 120 Chicago, a public-private partnership with the Chicago Park District overseeing the work, said Ono chose the location after visiting the park in 2013 when 130 cherry trees were planted."

[Mr Downtown]

Overseeing ≠ funding.

[aaron38]

Obama Foundation takes the wraps off revised—and taller—design for Presidential Center
https://chicago.curbed.com/2018/1/10...tecture-design

Umm, that's not better.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by JK47

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.

Look up Kowloon Park in Hong Kong for an example. Very hilly and programmed.

[pilsenarch]

Wow, where do we begin:

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

False dichotomy, as always with giving away parkland. [Actually increasing parkland] McCormick Place has to be right here walling off the lake or Chicago will lose all the big trade fairs. [Here's the slippery slope argument... because of this arguable planning mistake in the past, all projects in Chicago parks shall be forever forbidden] Greektown and Little Italy have to be wiped out or Chicago will never get a University of Illinois campus. [How do 60's era urban planning mistakes involving the destruction of hundreds of acres of existing city fabric have anything to do with the OPC?] Soldier Field has to be host an alien life form because the rest rooms are yucky. NMH has to be allowed to demolish Prentice or it will never build a cancer-curing research institute. [again, what relevance do either of these examples have to OPC? Are you really suggesting that the OPC is destroying and/or demolishing Jackson Park in its entirety?] One of the world's great Olmsted landscapes has to be obliterated or Chicago won't get the Olympics. [hmmm, obliterated you say? regardless, based upon scale and the fact that the OPC adds parkland, and this example you reference was never built, there is no basis for comparison...]

Wooded Isle has already been restored and will attract visitors; the golf course (for better or worse) will be made over into something that attracts visitors, the Yoko Ono project is quite independent of the Obama Community Center. The corner has already been turned on Jackson Park. Whatever U of C builds in place of the Mott Center will mean a lot more to activating 63rd & Kimbark than this building—a half-mile away—ever will. Jackson Park was not the U of C's to offer; [no, but it was the city's to offer] this should be at the northwest corner of Garfield & Cottage Grove.

No, I don't mind putting Cornell Drive on a road diet. I do mind spending millions—from local tax money—to then have to widen Lake Shore Drive or Stony Island to make up for that.[You can't have a 'road diet' without also spending significant sums to upgrade LSD...and this Mr. D approved 'diet' would have to be paid for with taxpayer dollars... and I'm not sure what real benefit a 'diet' would be anyhow... the only real benefit is to remove Cornell entirely.]

The problem with all of your arguments, Mr. D., is that they are always binary... You have your 'rules' and if one of those 'rules' is ever broken, then this new thing must be horrifically bad... black and white... NO grays! No potential benefits for the city or community because my rule was broken!

That's how we lost the Lucas...

[aaron38]

We lost The Lucas because he insisted on building it on land that wasn't his. As far as I'm concerned it was never a serious proposal. And neither is this. Serious proposals from serious developers acquire private land and then build on their land.
And as broke as the city is, the asking price for park land (yes, even parking lots in parks) should be 10 times the recent private land sale price in that neighborhood.
I'd bet they'd reconsider the location if they weren't being gifted a massive handout.

[Chi-Sky21]

Gee I wonder how much the art institute or any of the others paid for their land......you gotta give something to get something.