HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #941  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 11:47 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
This city is maddening at times. I bet we lose this too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #942  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 2:07 AM
feynman feynman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 14
I agree, put this anywhere but in a lakeside park. I like Obama. I want the library on the Southside. I think it will do a lot of good for the city. But there are rules for a reason. If they get thrown out for a something you like, they may get thrown out for something you hate. There are plenty of good places, many of them closer to the L. And after the lawsuits with the Lucas project, why press for this in a park when it would without question would be litigated? This could get tied up for years if they really want to press it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #943  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 2:14 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,226
Umm, Obama had very little to do with the site selection, other than nodding his assent afterwards. I'm not even sure he was in the room when Jackson Park was chosen. He certainly wasn't in the room when the city and U of C decided to offer the park, and I don't think he was there when Oprah Winfrey stood up and told the site selection committee that major Chicago institutions go in parks on the lakefront; nowhere else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #944  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 2:23 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Umm, Obama had very little to do with the site selection, other than nodding his assent afterwards.

I find that hard to believe, but if true, than it's no one's fault except his own.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #945  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 3:09 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 23,340
* moderator note *

just a reminder folks, if you can't talk about the obama presdiential library without referencing the current president, then your posts will be summarily deleted.

if you want to talk about the current POTUS, we have a entire thread dedicated to that: https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/sho...6876&page=1687

please stay on topic.
__________________
If a Pizza is baked in a forest, and no one is around to eat it, is it still delicious?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #946  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 4:06 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,226
Actually. . .

While searching for Judge Blakey’s order online, I found this amicus brief by noted legal scholar Richard Epstein, who argues that it is Pres. Obama’s connection to Mayor Emanuel that creates a potential conflict of interest, thus requiring heightened scrutiny under the public trust doctrine rather than a mere recitation of public purpose as given in Paepcke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #947  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 12:45 PM
cityofneighborhoods cityofneighborhoods is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 18
I'm still surprised that anyone who really knows Jackson Park well would argue that placing the OBC in that part of the park would do anything other than greatly enhance the park. Cornell Drive essentially ruins what could be Chicago's best lakefront park. I think Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates will do a great job of bringing back some of Olmsted's vision to that stretch along with creating engaging landscape design people will actually be excited about. The truly beautiful sections of the park like Wooded Island, Bobolink Meadow, etc. will either be untouched or eventually get more resources for improvements. It really is an opportunity in investing to make Jackson Park Chicago's greatest park - a great catalyst for improving the South Side. If park groups were actually out there advocating and raising money to make improvements to our parks, I would fully support them. It's baffling to me how much energy they instead spend protecting concrete.

Another argument that I’m having trouble understanding is that putting this cultural institution in a public park while simultaneously increasing the actualized and useable park space is worse than having essentially glorified lawns with all non native vegetation intersected by a 4-6 way road with cars driving by at 50 mph. City parks are human made for human engagement and are meant to be improved and evolve over time. No one is arguing a museum should be built on a forest preserve.

I think it would also be transformational to put the OBC on Garfield Blvd. across from everything happening on the Arts Block. That stretch could become a pretty unique cultural destination. The only reason I prefer the Jackson Park site is the opportunity to create a really special continuous gathering space in Jackson Park. We are truly lacking in those in Chicago. Just off the top of my head, some of favorite urban spots in the U.S. combine structures with landscape design like the rooftop of the Met overlooking Central Park, the concourse between the De Young and the Cal Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park, etc. For comparison, both the MOMAs in NYC and SF are great museums both are not really place makers. You just go in and leave.

Last edited by cityofneighborhoods; Feb 22, 2019 at 1:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #948  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 2:00 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods View Post
I'm still surprised that anyone who really knows Jackson Park well would argue that placing the OBC in that part of the park would do anything other than greatly enhance the park. Cornell Drive essentially ruins what could be Chicago's best lakefront park. I think Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates will do a great job of bringing back some of Olmsted's vision to that stretch along with creating engaging landscape design people will actually be excited about. The truly beautiful sections of the park like Wooded Island, Bobolink Meadow, etc. will either be untouched or eventually get more resources for improvements. It really is an opportunity in investing to make Jackson Park Chicago's greatest park - a great catalyst for improving the South Side. If park groups were actually out there advocating and raising money to make improvements to our parks, I would fully support them. It's baffling to me how much energy they instead spend protecting concrete.

Another argument that I’m having trouble understanding is that putting this cultural institution in a public park while simultaneously increasing the actualized and useable park space is worse than having essentially glorified lawns with all non native vegetation intersected by a 4-6 way road with cars driving by at 50 mph. City parks are human made for human engagement and are meant to be improved and evolve over time. No one is arguing a museum should be built on a forest preserve.
EXACTLY. Plus i think you get more people going there if it is next to MSI than you would someplace else. Also, with them redoing the golf course and removing Cornell they can really transform the south end into a much better park. I have no problem with them using the park land, my issue is more that tax payers are going to be on the hook for Cornell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #949  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 2:55 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,226
The legal issue is not "which one looks nicer" or "which one will be used by more people?"

It's whether the Chicago Park District can sell public trust land to a private entity that will exclude the public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #950  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 3:22 PM
cityofneighborhoods cityofneighborhoods is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 18
^Right, I’m not saying there may not be some sort of legal hiccup that postpones groundbreaking long enough to change sites. I think even with the Lucas museum you had commented that if carried out until the end, FOP probably would have lost their case. I also understand the opposition to spending tax payer money. I’m more just trying to wrap my head around the commentary that somehow the OBC would ruin Jackson Park when from everything I’ve seen and read, it would usher in huge improvements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #951  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 3:45 PM
woodrow woodrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 805
^^^This. Why aren't the many butthurt fanboys of the Lucas Museum in the Soldier Field parking lot also upset by this? Just as the Lucas Museum would have VASTLY improved the part of the lakefront, this museum / library community center / GARDEN / increased parkland will VASTLY improve that part of Jackson Park.

At least those that were anti-Lucas in the park and are anti-Obama in the park are consistent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #952  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 3:51 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow View Post
^^^This. Why aren't the many butthurt fanboys of the Lucas Museum in the Soldier Field parking lot also upset by this? Just as the Lucas Museum would have VASTLY improved the part of the lakefront, this museum / library community center / GARDEN / increased parkland will VASTLY improve that part of Jackson Park.

At least those that were anti-Lucas in the park and are anti-Obama in the park are consistent.
I wanted both Lucas and this. I'm not a fanboy though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #953  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 8:15 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
That is just so stupid. A presidential library is not a "vanity project".
i get the sense that part of the issue is that this actually wont be a presidential library. obama isnt even calling it one anymore. hes dubbed it a presidential "center". the fact there wont be physical archives means it wont be managed by the National Archives. that decision alone has been catching a lot of flack among historians and researchers. i remember one of the big points of excitement initially was the notion that all these researchers/authors/intellectuals would be coming from around the world to gain access to first hand documents, but it definitely seems like that wont be the case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/a...istration.html

i wonder had it actually been managed by the National Archives if it would have potentially avoided some of these issues around privatization of parkland since itd be a public institution overseeing operations.

that said, they are intending to include a CPL branch inside, which further confuses things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #954  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 8:47 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods View Post
I'm still surprised that anyone who really knows Jackson Park well would argue that placing the OBC in that part of the park would do anything other than greatly enhance the park.
A park can't be enhanced by making it not a park. A park is open land, open space. To be used for whatever temporary activities the people of the moment see fit. But once it becomes a Presidential Center, it is no longer open space. It is that institution, that function, and that only, for the next century at least.

Once that land is gone, it is gone forever. It can never be replaced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #955  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 9:19 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
A park can't be enhanced by making it not a park. A park is open land, open space. To be used for whatever temporary activities the people of the moment see fit.
For consistency, I assume you don't refer to Lincoln Park or Millennium Park as parks as they each contain buildings and non-open spaces. Grant Park has Buckingham Fountain, which isn't open land or open space, but a fountain. Humboldt Park has a boathouse, a field house and the National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture. Jackson Park has a golf course you must pay to use and MSI.

Do you consider Cornell Drive to be open land, open space? This pearl-clutching argument doesn't stand up to reality. The greatest parks in the world have structures and programming along with open spaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #956  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 10:05 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
For consistency, I assume you don't refer to Lincoln Park or Millennium Park as parks as they each contain buildings and non-open spaces. Grant Park has Buckingham Fountain, which isn't open land or open space, but a fountain. Humboldt Park has a boathouse, a field house and the National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture. Jackson Park has a golf course you must pay to use and MSI.

Do you consider Cornell Drive to be open land, open space? This pearl-clutching argument doesn't stand up to reality. The greatest parks in the world have structures and programming along with open spaces.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #957  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2019, 12:41 AM
woodrow woodrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
I wanted both Lucas and this. I'm not a fanboy though.
Oh...I definitely wanted the Lucas Museum, and want the Obama Library. I just was using fanboy vis a vis Lucas to be a little snotty. But my point stands. Many of the people who wanted to put the Lucas in are trashing this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #958  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2019, 11:35 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Hinsdale / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,861
Are there any other examples of Presidential libraries taking up public park land in an urban environment like Chicago's south side? What are the cons of him building on the street grid in an empty lot instead?
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. 9 Dekalb Ave - Brooklyn, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #959  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 4:19 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,226
The Carter Library is within a large park, but one that was created contemporaneously with the building. Same with the Clinton Library.

There are no cons to building on the street grid except for imagined prestige. NARA apparently now wants a 150-foot exclusion zone around actual presidential libraries, but even that is quite possible on a two-block site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #960  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 10:53 AM
joeg1985 joeg1985 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
For consistency, I assume you don't refer to Lincoln Park or Millennium Park as parks as they each contain buildings and non-open spaces. Grant Park has Buckingham Fountain, which isn't open land or open space, but a fountain. Humboldt Park has a boathouse, a field house and the National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture. Jackson Park has a golf course you must pay to use and MSI.

Do you consider Cornell Drive to be open land, open space? This pearl-clutching argument doesn't stand up to reality. The greatest parks in the world have structures and programming along with open spaces.
You are being ridiculous now. The Obama center is going to create open land on top of structures as well as around them. Presumably, security will patrol/control this property in ways that the surrounding Jackson Park is not patrolled/controlled. Millennium Park is by no means open space, you can't even walk your dog there. Lincoln Park is a giant public park spanning most of the north lakefront and is interrupted with structures both public and quasi-public, but we certainly wouldn't want it to be further interrupted with additional structures.

Point blank, the Obama Presidential Library Organization has plenty of resources to develop the project on private land. There is no need to put this facility on public land.

What happens in the next hundred years when there are 8 more presidents from Chicago? Are we to give up further limited public lands for said presidents' libraries? Where does it stop? That is why Friends of the Parks sues now and with Lucas and will sue again and again if need be. They are advocates for the public land. The land that was designated to stay free and clear and for all Chicago's citizens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.