CHICAGO | General Developments

[ethereal_reality]

thanks for clarifying. Sorry for the confusion.

The Nike Missile installation was definitely at Montrose Harbor....
I'm just not sure if it was the bird sanctuary or not.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

I've been to Central Park and have no interest in trying to recreate that in Chicago, quite simply we cant.

Central Park is no where near a "completely natural habitat" as you say it is. We have lagoons in LP and Jackson Park for wildlife, very similar to CP. Park space in densly urban areas should be used for humans. Sorry for my anti-nature stance, but thats what I believe.

I agree that CP isn't a completely natural habitat. However, it does something that Grant park doesn't do: use nature to effectively break the park into many small enclaves. This makes the park feel much bigger and allows the opportunity to get an escape from other people, the hustle of the city and the activity in the other areas of the park.

Other parks in Chicago capture this feeling well; parts of Lincoln Park and Montrose harbor among them. Personally, I see no reason why large areas of Grant park and Northerly Island couldn't be landscaped similarly, providing the opportunity for escape for loop residents.

Now, if you don't see why such places are special, it doesn't surprise me much that you would be against such an idea. However, as TUP pointed out, such spaces are in high demand among urban dwellers. For me, the only good reason against such a move would be money: the changes would cost money to build and would limit potential revenue from crowd-oriented activities.

Taft

[CenIL_LA]

There are fundamental differences between Chicago's amenities and New York's. I agree that I dont want something completely naturalistic in this location but a more modified balance can accomplish both needs. Nature should be used to control how people experience the site and the city behind it. Central Park works as a forest because there is so little open space or nature in Manhattan. Since Chicago faces a lake, placing something so heavily wooded on a piece of flat land wouldnt begin to capture the feeling of such a park as Central Park. The neighborhood engages the nature in Manhattan.

In Chicago, it would likely fall into disuse being in this location. Its easier to encourage people to see heavy nature when it is right in thier own backyard, rather than across many heavily traveled roadways and parking lots. If this is to be a space used by people it has to be programmed that way or else there really is no reason to throw money at it begin with. There are honestly many interesting things they can do with this site that would bring people beyond LSD, stadiums and museums. If Chicago was to have more naturalesque parks, they would intrigueing most where they fight environment and the humanity that surrounds them. The beltway park systems in surrounding neighborhoods would accomplish the Olmsted effect best. The lakefront engages openess and horizon. Trees also have a hard time growing in this evironment to significantly create the jungle effect that people might want. Trees are more likley to assume a low squat profile on the lakefront than a big, full and fluffy green oasis.

Major grade enhancement would likely need to take place in order to get a more naturalesque environment. It would take a lot more than trees and all the earth to create it would be expensive, perhaps even have problems getting cleared by the EPA in an effective manor. I dont know how guarded these systems are. The site also has a unique history and to turn it into a dense patch of trees is playing ignorant to the past. It will be rewarding and memorable for Chicago if it allows some of this to play through. I say wait to see what JJR comes up with, they are a talented firm. The answers might actually solve both sides of the equation and hopefully make most of us happy.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Taft

I agree that CP isn't a completely natural habitat. However, it does something that Grant park doesn't do: use nature to effectively break the park into many small enclaves.

Other parks in Chicago capture this feeling well; parts of Lincoln Park and Montrose harbor among them. Personally, I see no reason why large areas of Grant park and Northerly Island couldn't be landscaped similarly, providing the opportunity for escape for loop residents.

Taft

I would argue against trying to use "natural" habitats to break up GP. It just needs to find a stronger meaning as a way to exist within its current framework. Its formal qualities are what divide its areas into smaller enclaves, and that's a fine approach to take if you can define each space better.

Recent projects such as the dog park, sculpture garden and Millenium Park create what I'm talking about. Stick to that. Northerly Island can take the approach your advocating for.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Taft

Now, if you don't see why such places are special, it doesn't surprise me much that you would be against such an idea. However, as TUP pointed out, such spaces are in high demand among urban dwellers. For me, the only good reason against such a move would be money: the changes would cost money to build and would limit potential revenue from crowd-oriented activities.

Taft

Its not that I dont think these places are special, I think that Chicago is doing a fine job creating these places as it is now. I think our front yard should be used for music festivals, food festivals, fireworks, what have you. That is one of the things thats makes Chicago so great. There are little pockets of nature in MP and GP that work well. It could probably be better, but personally I think its fine.

I live on the river, just north of the loop. MP, GP and museum campus are my urban getaway spots, and I love it. NI is a perfect venue for music as it is now. If it was strictly a natural habitat, tell me why people would go there, if its in such high demand as you say. To enjoy nature? It would be an empty wasteland for many months in the winter, and simply not big enough to sustain anything of substance. I dont think thats what Burnham envisioned.

[Taft]

Originally Posted by CenIL_LA

There are fundamental differences between Chicago's amenities and New York's. I agree that I dont want something completely naturalistic in this location but a more modified balance can accomplish both needs. Nature should be used to control how people experience the site and the city behind it. Central Park works as a forest because there is so little open space or nature in Manhattan. Since Chicago faces a lake, placing something so heavily wooded on a piece of flat land wouldnt begin to capture the feeling of such a park as Central Park. The neighborhood engages the nature in Manhattan.

In Chicago, it would likely fall into disuse being in this location. Its easier to encourage people to see heavy nature when it is right in thier own backyard, rather than across many heavily traveled roadways and parking lots. If this is to be a space used by people it has to be programmed that way or else there really is no reason to throw money at it begin with. No one would go to see it. There are honestly many interesting things they can do with this site that would bring people beyond LSD, stadiums and museums. If Chicago was to have more naturalesque parks, they would intrigueing most where they fight environment and the humanity that surrounds them. The beltway park systems in surrounding neighborhoods would accomplish the Olmsted effect best. The lakefront engages openess and horizon. Trees also have a hard time growing in this evironment to significantly create the jungle effect that people might want. Trees are more likley to assume a low squat profile on the lakefront than a big, full and fluffy green oasis.

...

You make good points. I hadn't considered "foresting" Northerly Island a potential opportunity cost in terms of squandering lake views and blocking others. And you reiterate my point of natural space being more valuable to residents immediately around it. I completely agree and would like to see this happen in Grant park for just that reason.

Alex: interesting points about the sectioning of the park within its current layout and framework. One question for you (and everyone on the site): do you like the formal layout and style of Grant park?

To me, Grant park is just too open for it's own good. True, if more and more "enclaves" sprang up around the park and were adequately sheltered from one another, it would help a lot. But as it stands, the openness of the park just emphasizes its downsides, IMO: the fact that it it hemmed in by LSD and the MI ave streetwall, the fact that major roadways run right through the park, the fact that there are precious few places to "get away from it all" within the park. It just gives the feeling that you can experience the park just as well from the outside as you can inside. That there is no privacy or seclusion.

Taft

[Abner]

I think there are a few different ideas about what is meant by a nature preserve floating around here.

On the one hand there can be something like the Magic Hedge or the Wooded Isle, basically a heavily forested park area that might include some areas far enough from trails to provide migratory bird habitats. On the other hand there could be something that does not exist in the city on any large scale, which is an area that actually resembles what naturally exists in northern Illinois--tallgrass prairie or grassland interspersed with wetland. A well-done nature area would include efforts to keep invasive species out and could allow for seclusion.

Now keep in mind that either would be on a much larger scale than the Hedge or the Isle--the part of Northerly Island south of the beach is almost two thirds of a mile long and between 700 and 1200 feet wide. The Isle is about a third of a mile long and well under 700 feet at its widest, and the Hedge is smaller still. Furthermore, unlike either of those places, there is no traffic running through or near Northerly Island. It would of course be a sliver of the size of restored areas at Morton Arboretum or Fermilab, but it would be immediately adjacent to downtown.

Many Chicagoans on this forum couldn't care less about anything that isn't glass, steel, brick, or concrete--that is probably why you live in Chicago and not somewhere else. But there are plenty of people in the city who have different tastes, and there are plenty of other suitable places for whatever activities you think the city needs--concert venues, casinos, whatever.

But then I'm such a zealot I would be happy to trade development on Northerly Island for wetland/prairie restoration of the whole South Works site and concentrate new South Side development on infill, so feel free to disregard...

[Taft]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

I live on the river, just north of the loop. MP, GP and museum campus are my urban getaway spots, and I love it. NI is a perfect venue for music as it is now. If it was strictly a natural habitat, tell me why people would go there, if its in such high demand as you say. To enjoy nature? It would be an empty wasteland for many months in the winter, and simply not big enough to sustain anything of substance. I dont think thats what Burnham envisioned.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I agree that Northerly isn't the most optimal location for nature-oriented spaces. The people who would most use those spaces aren't tourists, they are everyday residents. Because of this, a park's convenience is likely paramount to its use. Northerly Island doesn't offer this convenience.

Taft

[Abner]

Originally Posted by Taft

One question for you (and everyone on the site): do you like the formal layout and style of Grant park?

I've always thought Grant Park would be an incredible formal space if Columbus Drive were a promenade instead of a road.

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Taft

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I agree that Northerly isn't the most optimal location for nature-oriented spaces. The people who would most use those spaces aren't tourists, they are everyday residents. Because of this, a park's convenience is likely paramount to its use. Northerly Island doesn't offer this convenience.

Taft

exactly, thats why it needs something like a music venue to draw people to the site. If it was strictly a natural site, I dont see many residents (obviously myself included) going out of their way to go there. Thats what Grant Park is for, and I also agree, could have some better natural enclaves, although I have no complaints with it now.

[Abner]

Why does every site along the lake need to be crowded all the time? What would be wrong with creating an environment specifically so that it would NOT be crowded?

[cbotnyse]

Originally Posted by Abner

Why does every site along the lake need to be crowded all the time? What would be wrong with creating an environment specifically so that it would NOT be crowded?

because it would be a complete waste of prime land in the center of major urban area?

[wrab]

^ Well, whatever else happens to Northerly, we can pretty much count on an Olympics venue there should Chicago get the games.

At some point, someone (in city planning?) suggested camp sites, but I can see all kinds of problems with that - crime, used syringes, Chicago jellyfish, etc.

I was thinking perhaps an airport for the island, but I think that has been tried already

But it is an island, so it would be nice if whatever goes in capitalizes on the island aspect.

---

As for Grant Park, it is a more formal space than, say, Washington, Jackson & Humboldt parks. I think of it as a kind of village square or green, blown up to a properly gargantuan Chicago scale. Personally, I like the idea of festivals, rallies and concerts there, in keeping with the village green aspect. Perhaps the notion of GP as a series of distinct outdoor rooms could be explored/enhanced more thoroughly.

GP is the only urban park I can think of offhand that gives up its best side from the vantage point of a skyscraper/tower. You experience & understand it in a very different way from up there. It is somewhat like the great classical French gardens, which offer up one elevated viewpoint from which you can survey and make sense of their grand schemes.

Too bad about all the vehicular traffic, though.

[honte]

^ How about a bisonport?

Originally Posted by Abner

Why does every site along the lake need to be crowded all the time? What would be wrong with creating an environment specifically so that it would NOT be crowded?

Seriously, I do agree with this. The hidden treasures in a city are as important as the big spectacles.

[wrab]

Originally Posted by honte

^ How about a bisonport?



Seriously, I do agree with this. The hidden treasures in a city are as important as the big spectacles.

^ Not sure what a bisonport is LOL, but I do kinda like the idea of bison there, as they have at Golden Gate Park in SF, at least for a segment of the site. Especially since we're on the edge of the prairies here. Freshwater sea meets sea of grass, or something like that.

[tintinex]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ This may sound utterly retarded, but what do you guys think about the idea of simply not planning anything at Northerly Island? Tear down all the concrete, perhaps fertilize the soil, throw a few seeds around from different species, and let it all grow. I can't think of a better natural sanctuary than pure, wild nature. Perhaps the city can pave a few paths through it, but other than that, leave it to mother nature

I biked through Northerly Island for the first time last summer and I have to say that was one of the most pleasant moments I've had, all those wild flowers, the nice warm wind and the beautiful skyline far away, made me stop my bike and stay there the rest of the afternoon. I just wish that they finish tearing down the airport structures and just let nature take its course, I am definitely looking forward in going there this summer many times.

[Chicago Shawn]

I would prefer to see a natural dune landscape on Northerly Island. How bad ass would that be? Imagine a dense forest and grassland, then one can climb to the top of a set of dunes which breaks through the forested canopy and allows a 360 degree vista of skyline and open water. There for sure would be some major complexity and logistics of creating such an environment, but once the sand is transported and mounded up, we could let nature take over and sculpt it, take root and establish the landscape. The prevailing winds would probably craft us a nice new beach before the plants take hold, but then again the northerly winter winds are sculpting two new dunes on Montrose Beach, which grow higher every year.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by cbotnyse

NI is a perfect venue for music as it is now. If it was strictly a natural habitat, tell me why people would go there, if its in such high demand as you say. To enjoy nature? It would be an empty wasteland for many months in the winter, and simply not big enough to sustain anything of substance. I dont think thats what Burnham envisioned.

NI as a nature sanctuary makes a lot of sense to me. It's okay if it becomes a "wasteland" in the winter. Many places become that because of the harsh winters in Chicago.

Its upside is a quiet place that's different then all the rest. Different strokes for different folks. I much prefer commercial enterprises cluttering up other areas.

[alex1]

Originally Posted by Taft

Alex: interesting points about the sectioning of the park within its current layout and framework. One question for you (and everyone on the site): do you like the formal layout and style of Grant park?

Taft

it's not so much that I "like" the formal qualities of Grant Park as much as I understand them.

But with anything in life, there's an interesting way of working within set parameters that may seem mundane to some. I do believe that the way we interact with Grant Park is kind of soulless. I would encourage experimentation with how we landscape the spaces within that park.

I'm not really the person to really figure out how to do it. It's a challenge but one that can be readily figured out by extremely talented landscape designers and artists.

[Dr. Taco]

Originally Posted by Chicago Shawn

I would prefer to see a natural dune landscape on Northerly Island. How bad ass would that be? Imagine a dense forest and grassland, then one can climb to the top of a set of dunes which breaks through the forested canopy and allows a 360 degree vista of skyline and open water. There for sure would be some major complexity and logistics of creating such an environment, but once the sand is transported and mounded up, we could let nature take over and sculpt it, take root and establish the landscape. The prevailing winds would probably craft us a nice new beach before the plants take hold, but then again the northerly winter winds are sculpting two new dunes on Montrose Beach, which grow higher every year.

if they could do it effectively, this is absolutely by far the best idea ive seen for northerly island. Have a beach and sand dunes on the island

unbelievably good idea