CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Mr Downtown]

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.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

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.

[Steely Dan]

* 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.

[Mr Downtown]

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.

[cityofneighborhoods]

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.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods

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.

[Mr Downtown]

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.

[cityofneighborhoods]

^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.

[woodrow]

^^^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.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by woodrow

^^^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.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

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.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods

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.

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by aaron38

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.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

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.

[woodrow]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

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.

[HomrQT]

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?

[Mr Downtown]

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.

[joeg1985]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

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.

[moorhosj]

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.

Your own slippery slope argument below implies we have no choice but to further interrupt Lincoln Park with additional structures. Unless that isn't a valid argument and we can evaluate each proposal on it's own merits.

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.

Something that has happened once in 250 years is now going to happen 8 times in a century? Seems like a stretch. If it does happen, we can evaluate each of those proposals on their merit. The slippery slope argument is weak and undercut by your own comments above.

They are advocates for the public land. The land that was designated to stay free and clear and for all Chicago's citizens.

Would you describe Cornell Drive's 6 lanes plus a median as "free and clear"? If not, why isn't Friends of the Park working to eliminate it? When all you can point to are the things you stand against, what are you standing for? FOTP's website lists three "signature projects", Lucas Museum, Obama Library and Last Four Miles (report came out 10 years ago). That says all I need to know.

[SIGSEGV]

^ I don't want to dignify fotp with a website visit. Does last four miles refer to the LSD extension project?