[honte]

^Look, Honte....yours and Nowhereman's rhetoric is getting a little out of control. I have designed city blocks in downtown Chicago, it is absurd to be accusing me of not understanding architecture and how it gets built. I would suggest we refrain from the personal attacks.

As far as whether your consider it a 'landmark' or not, I'm not sure what readers are meant to assume from your comments otherwise (particularly considering your byline says exactly that).

Hmmm, nothing I have said was intended as a personal attack. Nor was anything intended to challenge your qualifications. If you would kindly quote the passage, I will consider rephrasing.

[pilsenarch]

Hmmm, nothing I have said was intended as a personal attack. Nor was anything intended to challenge your qualifications. If you would kindly quote the passage, I will consider rephrasing.

Ok, my mistake....I should have directed that only at Nowhereman....

Having said that, let me make sure I understand your position: The proposed CCM will either be so invisible that no one is going to attend, or, it will indeed destroy the park? and, no architect, no matter how talented, could possibly acheive anything but one or the other outcome?

[wrabbit]

From Kamin's blog:

Children's Museum gets ready to play tough
April 6, 2008

The Chicago Children's Museum is rolling out the heavy artillery in its controversial bid to move to Grant Park.....Monday morning press conference.....speakers include Lois Wille, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, former Chicago Tribune editorial page editor and author of the book, "Forever Open, Clear, and Free: The Struggle for Chicago's Lakefront." Also speaking: the Rev. Dr. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina's church.....

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/theskyline/2008/04/childrens-mus-1.html

[honte]

Having said that, let me make sure I understand your position: The proposed CCM will either be so invisible that no one is going to attend, or, it will indeed destroy the park? and, no architect, no matter how talented, could possibly acheive anything but one or the other outcome?

Well, it comes down to POV concerning what "destroy the park" means. To me, that means violate the legal precedents, so yes, I would generally agree with your summary.

Of course, there is a counterexample to every situation. You would have to get very, very lucky.

From my perspective, let me just summarize what I've been trying to say all along, and that will hopefully be the end of my comments on this topic for a while:

1. The proposal violates laws governing the use of Grant Park.
2. The proposal seeks to rebuild something that is already quite nice, in one the most improved areas of the city. By locating it here, its impact is weakened and an opportunity is lost. Even if Daley Bicentennial Plaza were a tar pit, with the presence of other recent improvements nearby such as Millennium Park, you cannot argue that this is an especially useful improvement from an urban planning perspective.
3. The surrounding community was not aware of this proposal initially until the wheels were set in motion, and overwhelmingly objects to its insertion in the park.
4. All of the City's leading preservation groups have come out against this proposal. Other community groups citywide have also spoken against this. Newspapers have written editorials against it.
5. The Children's Museum has existed quite prosperously at Navy Pier for many years and there is no indication that without this very site, they will fail. In fact, they might very well be served equally well if not better in another location.
6. The setting of Grant Park is imperiled by continued taxation of its resources (meaning that uses being placed in the park are not park-like in nature and adequate provisions for such have not been made), which in turn sets at risk the very intention of this park and the function it is supposed to serve for all residents. Current developments have ignored the initial master plan of Grant Park and have actually counteracted any effort to bring the park to a fully executed state.

Given the above conditions, from my point of view, this is a situation far larger than any practice, and I believe that no architecture firm could surmount these obstacles to create a winning design. What is winning design? I believe you and I have different opinions of that.

Also, I forgot to mention earlier in response to your question about locations for the museum: I believe an air rights development over the IC tracks next to the Museum Campus would be possibly the ultimate location for the museum. I've been arguing that since day one. This would give them visibility, a direct relationship to one of the world's premier museum collections, and would offer tangible benefits for all of Chicago (by extending the park system southward). It also would help energize the South Loop by giving it a cultural institution. Transit is currently lacking, but proposals active now directly to the south of this area could change that very quickly. Besides, transit doesn't seem high on their priority list. Parking in the area is abundant, especially when Soldier Field is not in use. Visiblity is huge. And, K+S could do what they do best - eg build a building, not a bunker.

[wrabbit]

All something of a tempest in a teapot, this hullabaloo over the CCM proposal, given that some adjoining property owners have already signaled their intent to trigger the Ward prohibitions. Doesn't matter how good the design, how noble the museum, how beneficial for Chicago, how much support Daley and the city lend, how many entitled speakers rally to the plan; conversely, doesn't matter if Reilly opposes the Grant Park site, how many preservation groups oppose it, how many signatures they collect. None of this matters to the courts and to the outcome. What matters is whether or not the adjacent property owners sue.

These property owners have real power here, folks. This isn't some legalistic hogwash. Their power here trumps Daley's.

Of course, the courts can determine that the CCM isn't a building. But that is for the courts to decide. Not Friends of Grant Park, not Reilly, not the museum.

[Mr Downtown]

all the Ward and 1838-plat mumbojumbo seem very irrelevant for this particular case.

Yeah, and that 1791 Bill of Rights gobbledygook can't possibly be relevant to the modern world.

Something about that particular weasel-lawyer makes my skin crawl even more than his neighbor Phony Phioretti.

To the point of irrationality, it seems. What makes you think Reilly is even a lawyer? He was a political strategist and corporate public affairs executive before running against Natarus. Have you ever actually read his reasons for rejecting a Grant Park location? (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=15426116&postcount=387) They are the sort of reasoned and principled stands, based on research and reflection, that we seldom see from elected officials.

[pilsenarch]

^OK...Honte, nothing new there except for the suggested site....none of the above directly relates to the actual proposal and includes many facts that are much in doubt (particularly with regard to support or opposition)....the South Loop site is intriguing but would not have the accessibility and the Millennium exposure....

The legal arguments are all being made a little naively....the entire portion of Grant Park north of Monroe has been built on ABOVE grade as it relates to Michigan Avenue years ago when they built the garage and simply filled dirt on top....I'm not sure any court is going to accept the argument that a million square foot of garage with all of the ancillary 'above grade' structures necessary to make it work is somehow more appropriate for a park then the introduction of a few skylights....(once again, refer to the actual drawings)...all of the arguments against the CCM appear to put everything in black and white terms: no structures means no structures, allow this, and high-rises and Chili's will be locating next to Bunkingham fountain, etc. etc. If your concerned about ‘overtaxing’ the park, you should do all you can to eliminate the festivals, and stop worrying about what a bunch of 8-year-olds are doing up at Randolph.

The actual reality is that we live in a very gray world - one that we all know sometimes bends to the loudest voices. Once again, I would suggest all of you opposed to the CCM lobby your own alderman and definitely vote Daley out of office next chance you get.

Meanwhile, I think the system is working exactly as it should. Perfect? no, but it is reality.

[wrabbit]

.....The legal arguments are all being made a little naively....the entire portion of Grant Park north of Monroe has been built on ABOVE grade as it relates to Michigan Avenue years ago when they built the garage and simply filled dirt on top.....

The equation changes once the cranes are up, assuming that no-one has already filed suit. But I'm not arguing for or against here. This is just how the enforcement mechanism works, at least as I understand the case law that Mr. Downtown has linked to on page 159.

.....(A)ll of the arguments against the CCM appear to put everything in black and white terms: no structures means no structures.....

That would be the crux - is the K&S CCM more like an underground parking garage, or more like the Field Museum?

The actual reality is that we live in a very gray world - one that we all know sometimes bends to the loudest voices.....

Indeed, and I'm sure that CCM will make some very good arguments, though some situations are more open-and-shut than others. But, yes, the Chicago Way includes many little persuasions, and I don't mean to contest their efficacy. ;)

[pilsenarch]

wrabbit: just thought you deserved some appreciation for your excellent, clarifying posts....

[wrabbit]

^ Thanks, but credit there should really go to Mr. Downtown.

[pilsenarch]

^well, Mr. D is a priceless resource for historic references and such, but it is insights that a court might be interested as to whether the CCM proposal is more like the existing garage or more like the Field that is particularly valuable....

[honte]

^OK...Honte, nothing new there except for the suggested site....

Right, hence the term "summary" that I used. I was trying to explain why K+S face an entirely uphill battle in making a winning building.

Concerning the "actual proposal," I really don't care about the "proposal" as it is defined by line drawings and renders in light of my points above. If the facts leading up to a site selection and political environment are not a part of the "proposal," then what is? "Oh, we robbed this land from the Natives but forget about that - look what a really great shopping mall we built here." "Oh, sure, I painted over a Picasso poster, but look how great my work of art is." You can never separate art, or any act for that matter, from its origins, especially in just evaluation. You can take it out of context and take a look, but all you get is a partial assessment.

[Mr Downtown]

Not sure who's being naïve about legal research and precedent.

The Grant Park underground parking garage was approved by the state supreme court in 1952. "as to that portion of the garage proposed to be built below the surface of the park, the construction will not violate the restrictions of the dedications." Michigan Boulevard Bldg. Co. v. Chicago Park Dist., 412 Ill. 350.

For the Harris Theater, Jack Guthman went and got the exact same permission slips that had been used for the Art Institute. A friendly lawsuit (the Boaz case) was arranged to prove that Randolph Street property owners didn't have any similar rights. All this is recounted in Tim Guilfoyle's book Millennium Park.

For the Pritzker Pavilion, much was made of the fact that the "sculptures" didn't "enclose space." That argument can't be used for CCM's "skylights."

[pilsenarch]

^well Honte, that's an excellent point to end on....it's not about the architectural or planning proposal, (line drawings and 'renders') but about the politics....(Daley Bi = Picasso???)

so, lobby your alderman, it's your best hope.....

[pilsenarch]

The Grant Park underground parking garage was approved by the state supreme court in 1952. "as to that portion of the garage proposed to be built below the surface of the park, the construction will not violate the restrictions of the dedications." Michigan Boulevard Bldg. Co. v. Chicago Park Dist., 412 Ill. 350.


that's interesting....but the reality is that the mass majority of the garage was NOT built 'underground' but rather above the existing grade....the 'ground' was raised to cover the garage....

a court would most likely entertain this point due to the fact that it directly effects the view/air corridor issues in relationship to Michigan Avenue.....precedence is indeed important....

Edit: the reference to naivete is the assumption that anyone can determine a court decision ahead of time in this political world...

[Nowhereman1280]

Ok, my mistake....I should have directed that only at Nowhereman....

Like honte said, quote where I made an attack against you and I will take it back since I did not intend to attack you. I only use caps and italics to emphasize points, not to demean you.


The only of Reilly's suggestions that pleased me (I think this was on his list) was Pritzker "park" (AKA Pritzker fenced-off and unimproved patch of dirt), which would be right on State, adjacent to all of Chicago's train lines, publicly owned, and ultra-visible.


I hadn't even thought of this site, this would be the ultimate place to build it. Also, then K+S could design a building you can actually see.

I'm not saying I disagree with the rest of your post, becuase I'm still on the fence about the issue, but it is only 3-4 blocks from the Wabash el stops, many Metra lines run into Grant Park, there is a stop right on Randolph and Michigan, not to mention the many bus lines that circle Grant Park. I dont know how much more accessible it could be to the public.

Count again, its 5-6 blocks depending on how you count it. I'll give you that there are a lot of metra lines that converge there. More accessible to the public would be the plot mentioned by Honte above, literally built on top of and below all of our el lines...

I have designed city blocks in downtown Chicago, it is absurd to be accusing me of not understanding architecture and how it gets built. I would suggest we refrain from the personal attacks.

I dunno, maybe having designed whole blocks in downtown Chicago isn't a thing to brag about if you ask certain forumers like Adrian who think most design in Chicago sucks. ;)

Anyhow, no one is doubting your knowledge of architecture, but if you think that you should ignore law when considering design and planning than no matter how much you know about architecture, your opinion holds no value in the real world.


The legal arguments are all being made a little naively....the entire portion of Grant Park north of Monroe has been built on ABOVE grade as it relates to Michigan Avenue years ago when they built the garage and simply filled dirt on top....

That is irrelevant because it is now the grade of the land since they raised it. If you wanted to make that arguement you could say that nothing could be built underneath grant park unless it was below the water table since the original elevation of grant park was below the surface of the lake, which would just be ridiculous. If the museum was just using an entrance the size of the current Daley bi, I would be fine with it, but since they are eating up like 20x the space that is currently occupied, its not ok.

[Mr Downtown]

the 'ground' was raised to cover the garage....

That might be true of the East Monroe garage, but not the Grant Park North and South garages. After all, their topmost levels include the area underneath Michigan Avenue, which was obviously already at its current grade.

[pilsenarch]

^yes, I was speaking of the Monroe garage, which, of course, is also the site in question....you will now have to also include the Millinnium Park garage, of course....

nowhereman, I stand by my earlier post with re to you....in fact, you did it again in your latest post....

[LaSalle.St.Station]

str to the point... lse residents dont want pub shcl kids bused in daily to their oasis.... but, if your playing the open and free card, wasn't millenium park essentiallly a building ( parking garage) built on the Grant PaRK foot print... so ... why the selective fight....? to me with the
Randolph viaduct edge,... it makes sense to have a cliff reducing structure that brings people year round to GP.

[BWChicago]

if your playing the open and free card, wasn't millenium park essentiallly a building ( parking garage) built on the Grant PaRK foot print... so ... why the selective fight....?

I'd suggest that Millennium Park was a bit of a special case since it was built over the Illinois Central tracks, which were never really part of Grant ark but rather a right-of-way through it; the garage elevation doesn't exceed the surrounding elevations. So it's not an obstruction.

[jstush04]

nowhereman, I stand by my earlier post with re to you....in fact, you did it again in your latest post....

...

I dunno, maybe having designed whole blocks in downtown Chicago isn't a thing to brag about if you ask certain forumers like Adrian who think most design in Chicago sucks.;)

Anyhow, no one is doubting your knowledge of architecture, but if you think that you should ignore law when considering design and planning than no matter how much you know about architecture, your opinion holds no value in the real world.

[nomarandlee]

normandlee, that link has expired. Here's the new one: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...park07.article

Thanks wrabbit

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politic...park07.article

Parks may lease island assets
MEIGS FIELD SITE | It would raise cash to turn site of airstrip into nature park April 7, 2008Recommend

BY FRAN SPIELMAN AND ANDREW HERRMANN Staff Reporters

The Chicago Park District board president is hinting the agency might lease assets to help pay for the transformation of the former Meigs Field into a nature park.

In the coming days, the park district is expecting to sign an agreement with the the urban and landscape design firm JJR LLC to formulate redevelopment plans of the 91-acre Northerly Island peninsula just east of Soldier Field, park officials say.

............The idea is to make the south end of Northerly more natural with trees and other plantings with the north end focused more on active use, Biagi said.

"We're not being that prescriptive [to LLC]. There will be a way to move through the park on bicycle and on foot. Do we need to have some sort of intermodal form of transportation? . . . Those are the kind of ideas we want them to look at,'' she said.

..........She suggested the volleyball facility might have a post-Games life as a music venue. ..

[wrabbit]

^ normandlee, that link has expired. Here's the new one: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/880799,CST-NWS-park07.article

So, the CPD will use music pavilion revenues to commission JJR LLC to study ways in which to use a music pavilion to generate revenues.....

Northerly Island is a great park resource, now that it has been neutered. I took the pup over there several times before the CPD banned dogs; already, quite pleasant, with tall grasses, and a small hidden beach at the SE tip.

I hope that they keep the "wild" aspect to the plans, like that patch down at the South Shore cultural center, rather than muck it up with too much order & symmetry, as some (cough cough Daley) are wont to do. It could serve as a nice downtown counterpoint to the studied formality of Grant Park. Of course, Northerly is a man-made island, but still...one really does feel apart from the city there.

[ethereal_reality]

Only a small portion of Millennium park was built directly over the tracks.
At that point, the tracks converged to enter Randolph St. station.
I helped clean up that area with Sara Lee Corp. volunteers on EARTH DAY in the late 90s.
It seemed a forgotten corner of Grant Park despite its location at Michigan and Randolph.

Oh...and another Sara Lee note : John Bryan, the former Corporation Chairman,
raised $205,000,000 in private contributions for Millennium Park.

He's also one of the nicest men you'd ever want to meet.
In my eyes, he's a bit of an unsung hero.

(He also raised the money to buy Meis' Farnsworth House)

[the urban politician]

^ normandlee, that link has expired. Here's the new one: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/880799,CST-NWS-park07.article

So, the CPD will use music pavilion revenues to commission JJR LLC to study ways in which to use a music pavilion to generate revenues.....

Northerly Island is a great park resource, now that it has been neutered. I took the pup over there several times before the CPD banned dogs; already, quite pleasant, with tall grasses, and a small hidden beach at the SE tip.

I hope that they keep the "wild" aspect to the plans, like that patch down at the South Shore cultural center, rather than muck it up with too much order & symmetry, as some (cough cough Daley) are wont to do. It could serve as a nice downtown counterpoint to the studied formality of Grant Park. Of course, Northerly is a man-made island, but still...one really does feel apart from the city there.

^ 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

[ethereal_reality]

^^^
I think that is a GREAT idea.

[the urban politician]

^ Throw in a mountain lion or two to sass it up a bit (fun headlines such as "lakefront biker attacked by lion" to spruce up your Sunday morning coffee) and you've got yourself a full-grown nature preserve

[nomarandlee]

^ 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

That sounds great to me though I don't know the first thing about horticulture or landscaping. Just let some tall trees with good dense cover grow there and I am set. True wild prarie grass doesn't do much for me because it gets hard to traverse through and uncomforable to sit on. Just set up some dirt paths (not paved!!!) and some beaches. The absolute least concrete or cement the better.

Extending the island out east from the south end so that it forms an L should be considered as well if the northern side is basically going to be an extension of the meseum campus and harbor. I also think that a bridge connecting Burhnam park to the island at the southern tip HAS to be a part of the plan.

Also I would rather see the bike velodrome stay after the games rather then a vollyball stadium or maybe both could be left on the far northern side of the island. The lakefront should be aimed for pedestrians and casual riders not people who are trying to train for the summer triathelon. Plus it could just as well double as a concert venue as well.

[Abner]

^ 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

It's not a crazy idea at all. I doubt it will happen that way because of the city's eagerness to treat Northerly Island as a cash cow, but right now Northerly Island has a very special feeling to it, as mentioned above. There is no other place in the city (that is legal to enter, at least) where the environment has started to really resemble what the area looked like before settlement. It's been amazing to see nature "reclaim" the island with such incredible speed; after only about a season there were already tallgrasses with birds nesting in them all over the place. Chicagoans have never been interested in the natural environment that used to exist where the city now stands, but a nature preserve could help people see the beauty in it. I think the city should even consider installing a wetland habitat in a protected area at the southern tip of the island if deemed feasible.

There's a group of artists that created sort of a visionary proposal to turn Northerly Island into a bison habitat, something like those in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and at Fermilab. http://www.bisonarium.com/ I think it is more of a mental exercise than anything else, intended to get people to think about the issue a little more broadly.

This would also be of (maybe more serious) interest: http://www.openlands.org/policy.asp?pgid=247

[honte]

^ Oh man, that's great. I knew those guys when they were screwing around with the "Bisonarium" idea many years ago. The one guy had cards made that read "Bison at Northerly Island" and he would pass them out to everyone he could find. It was really just a tongue-in-cheek thing back then. Maybe they were serious too? I don't know - it was impossible to get them to tell you. "What do you do when the Bison get overpopulated?" "Well, you can hunt them, that's what they used to do."

At least, I think these are the same people... maybe the idea was picked up by others.

[cbotnyse]

^ 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 natureNo offense, but I think this idea is retarded. What is the real benefit here? If I wanted to walk around in the a bunch of plants and trees, I'll go out to a forrest preserve. And "pure, wild nature" has no paved paths through it.

I think the current music venue is perfect for the site, along with some good park land.

[nomarandlee]

Or what do you do if the bison get brave and decide to walk across the frozen harbor in the winter and join traffic on LSD. That would be awesome. We should just a half dozen roam in the city. Don't some major cities in the world have monkeys, camels, or cows as part of their urban fabric. Chicago could have bison. :tup:

[Taft]

No offense, but I think this idea is retarded. What is the real benefit here? If I wanted to walk around in the a bunch of plants and trees, I'll go out to a forrest preserve. And "pure, wild nature" has no paved paths through it.

I think the current music venue is perfect for the site, along with some good park land.

Have you ever sat in a secluded, wooded area of NY's central park? If you haven't experience finding a secluded, quiet spot smack in the middle of a jumping metropolis, I'm not sure you can understand how special it can be.

And, IMO, this is where the tension arises in Grant park: current usage is primarily as a playground and not a park. I think this makes Grant park both an incredible asset to the city and its urban feel and an incredible waste in terms of usability and seclusion for the growing number of residents surrounding it.

I would personally like to see areas of the park transition heavily towards more traditional parkland and away from special uses, though I doubt this would happen. Using Northerly Island for this would be nice, but don't think this would serve downtown residents very well, given how relatively remote the Island is. I do think this is the most likely scenario for creating a patch of wilderness in downtown Chicago.

In a perfect world, I would see Northerly Island reserved for the city's "carnival" styled events and Grant park rebuilt for more natural usage. Likely, that will be only my dream, unrealized in the rush to add even more public events to Grank park.

Taft

[cbotnyse]

In a perfect world, I would see Northerly Island reserved for the city's "carnival" styled events and Grant park rebuilt for more natural usage. Likely, that will be only my dream, unrealized in the rush to add even more public events to Grank park.I agree. I think NI is a dumb location for some kind of protected natural habitat. I think Grant Park is doing fine too. Maybe I'm just too much of an urban creature to enjoy such things in the city. Our miles and miles of open lakefront are all the nature I need.

[pilsenarch]

For anyone who is interested, the following is a link to the current K+S CCM design. I found the sections comparing before and after particularly interesting....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/arts/chi-080406museum-photogallery,1,563811.photogallery

[ethereal_reality]

not everyone in the inner city can simply drive out to a forest preserve.

[cbotnyse]

not everyone in the inner city can simply drive out to a forest preserve.I understand that, but roaming around in a dense forest isnt all that high on urban dwealers priority list. Lincoln Park, Jackson Park, Grant Park and the 26 miles of lakefront all provide enough of that, IMO.

[Abner]

I agree. I think NI is a dumb location for some kind of protected natural habitat. I think Grant Park is doing fine too. Maybe I'm just too much of an urban creature to enjoy such things in the city. Our miles and miles of open lakefront are all the nature I need.

But there's absolutely nothing natural about the lakefront; the entire stretch of it is a formal manmade environment, as are all the other major parks you mentioned. Surely you understand that there are things you have no use for that would be a great amenity to others (for me, this would be the Taste and all such festivals in Grant Park). And as pointed out, many people don't have the opportunity to head out to a forest preserve.

I think Northerly Island's seclusion is exactly what makes it a good candidate for this type of environment. We don't have a tract of land as big as Central Park for people to wander in, so we can compensate by making it a little bit more out of the way to access (and, maybe more importantly, farther from all the roads that cut through Grant Park).

[ethereal_reality]

http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/1900/wetlandmontagebb7.png

[Marcu]

With all the talk the Children Museum move has stirred about Grant Park, I think we overlooked what this may do to Navy Pier. As a non-tourist and someone that doesn't have small kids, I personally find Navy Pier a bit nauseating, tacky, and a wasted opportunity. Also, I think Chicago is one of a few "world class" waterfront cities that doesn't have a kind-of-a nightlife board walk area, the kind seen all over the Mediterranean, California, etc. Some will bring up the riverwalk as the part of town most suitable for this. I just don't see it happening. At this point it's too "high end" to be anything more than a happy hour destination for Loop law partners. It also smells like urine due to the prevalence of homeless people. Perhaps the Museum move can turn Navy Pier into move of a day AND night destination with more grown up entertainment.

[ethereal_reality]

I agree, Navy Pier is extremely tacky. Does anyone have copies of that recent renovation plan (by a Toronto firm....puh..leese)
It too, was god awful.

This is Chicago, why do we have that mediocre ferris wheel??
This is the birthplace of the world's first ferris wheel (World's Columbian Exposition 1893).
We should have something on par with the LONDON EYE, only bigger. :)

[cbotnyse]

But there's absolutely nothing natural about the lakefront; the entire stretch of it is a formal manmade environment, as are all the other major parks you mentioned. Surely you understand that there are things you have no use for that would be a great amenity to others (for me, this would be the Taste and all such festivals in Grant Park). And as pointed out, many people don't have the opportunity to head out to a forest preserve.

I think Northerly Island's seclusion is exactly what makes it a good candidate for this type of environment. We don't have a tract of land as big as Central Park for people to wander in, so we can compensate by making it a little bit more out of the way to access (and, maybe more importantly, farther from all the roads that cut through Grant Park).And Northerly Island would be just as "man made" as any other parks I mentioned. The island itself is man made isnt it??? I think good, effective urban park land should be nice open, landscaped space where people can go to lounge around in, play sports, have festivals, etc. Not go all Jeff Corwin and explore for new species.

[the urban politician]

I understand that, but roaming around in a dense forest isnt all that high on urban dwealers priority list. Lincoln Park, Jackson Park, Grant Park and the 26 miles of lakefront all provide enough of that, IMO.

^ Chicago's lakefront provides none of that. And this comment shows that you obviously haven't been to New York's Central Park which, while admittedly manmade, has a lot of informal naturalesque spaces (and forest) which attract HUGE numbers of people, thus discounting your theory that they are not high on urban dwellers' priority list.

I'm talking about a competely natural habitat. Nothing but birds, grass, trees, squirrels, and wind. Nobody mows the lawn. Nobody trims the hedges. No special events, no stupid volleyball or softball games, nothing.

Why not?

[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_am_hydrogen]

^ Chicago's lakefront provides none of that. And this comment shows that you obviously haven't been to New York's Central Park which, while admittedly manmade, has a lot of informal naturalesque spaces (and forest) which attract HUGE numbers of people, thus discounting your theory that they are not high on urban dwellers' priority list.

I'm talking about a competely natural habitat. Nothing but birds, grass, trees, squirrels, and wind. Nobody mows the lawn. Nobody trims the hedges. No special events, no stupid volleyball or softball games, nothing.

Why not?

Actually, Chicago's lakefront does have areas with some of these characteristics. These types of places do exist, you just have to dig a little deeper to find them. North Pond in Lincoln Park, which I'm fortunate to live a few blocks from, is a fairly natural area (though also man-made). Admittedly, you can still see high-rises from many vantage points, but the vegetation is thicker and less-orderly. Geese, ducks, gulls, and squirrels abound. The Montrose Park Bird Sanctuary/Magic Hedge (also part of Lincoln Park) plays host to hundreds of different species of migratory birds. You can really lose yourself in there. Jackson Park contains the Paul Douglas Nature Sanctuary.

[cbotnyse]

I'm talking about a competely natural habitat. Nothing but birds, grass, trees, squirrels, and wind. Nobody mows the lawn. Nobody trims the hedges. No special events, no stupid volleyball or softball games, nothing.

Why not?and you honestly think this is an effect use of land at Northerly Island? No landscaping? nothing at all? sorry, I just don't see it.

[ethereal_reality]

for anyone interested :

http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/4198/ferriswheel1893nowpw2.jpg

2,160 people! Each car held 60 people....now that's amazing. :)

[wrabbit]

.....This is Chicago, why do we have that mediocre ferris wheel??
This is the birthplace of the world's first ferris wheel (World's Columbian Exposition 1893).
We should have something on par with the LONDON EYE, only bigger. :)

Finally, a kindred spirit who understands how awesome that would be. I believe that bits & pieces of the original are warehoused somewhere in Missouri? Perhaps not. But something along the lines of the original, not necessarily a replica, but something with the same sense of scale, could be a lotta fun.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/1893ferr.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/entrance.jpg
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/detailferriswheel.jpg

-----

Forrec doesn't have any pics of the NP redesign up on their site, but I did find this at archidose.com:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/wjcordier/crappier2.jpg

http://www.archidose.org/Blog/crappier2.jpg

Although the pic doesn't even begin to highlight some of the plan's nastier aspects, such as the two floating parking lots (disguised as ships).

[ethereal_reality]

Parts of the original ferris wheel were used to build arch bridges downstate. I'm not sure if this is true or a myth.
There's one near Milford IL

[wrabbit]

Actually, Chicago's lakefront does have areas with some of these characteristics. These types of places do exist, you just have to dig a little deeper to find them. North Pond in Lincoln Park, which I'm fortunate to live a few blocks from, is a fairly natural area (though also man-made). Admittedly, you can still see high-rises from many vantage points, but the vegetation is thicker and less-orderly. Geese, ducks, gulls, and squirrels abound. The Montrose Park Bird Sanctuary/Magic Hedge (also part of Lincoln Park) plays host to hundreds of different species of migratory birds. You can really lose yourself in there. Jackson Park contains the Paul Douglas Nature Sanctuary.

Also, South Shore Cultural Center Nature Sanctuary. http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/custom.natureOasis13

[wrabbit]

Parts of the original ferris wheel were used to build arch bridges downstate. I'm not sure if this is true or a myth.
There's one near Milford IL

And in Kankakee.

[i_am_hydrogen]

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.

Thoreau would be very offended. But seriously, why not have it both ways? Montrose Harbor is a perfect example of a mixed-use park. It has a beach, boat harbor, game field, bird sanctuary, and plenty of space for fishing. During the warmer months, it's a thriving crossroads, both socially and economically. I can't count how many languages I've heard spoken there. People are fishing, boating, swimming, tanning, cruising, partying, etc. It has a special vibe.

[cbotnyse]

Also, South Shore Cultural Center Nature Sanctuary. http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/custom.natureOasis13and these...

Columbus Woodland and Lagoon
Gompers Park Wetland
Gompers Park Lagoon
Hurley Park Savanna
Lincoln Park Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool
Nature and Wildlife Gardens
Nichols Park Wildflower Garden
Burnham Prairie Path
Jackson Park Bobolink Meadow
Montrose Point Bird Sanctuary
Marquette Park Ashburn Prairie
McCormick Place Bird Sanctuary
South Shore Cultural Center Nature Sanctuary
Lincoln Park Addison Migratory Bird Sanctuary
Lincoln Park North Pond
Paul Douglas Nature Sanctuary (Wooded Island) in Jackson Park

[cbotnyse]

Thoreau would be very offended. But seriously, why not have it both ways? Montrose Harbor is a perfect example of a mixed-use park. It has a beach, boat harbor, game field, bird sanctuary, and plenty of space for fishing. During the warmer months, it's a thriving crossroads, both socially and economically. I can't count how many languages I've heard spoken there. People are fishing, boating, swimming, tanning, cruising, partying, etc. It has a special vibe.that is what I meant by making park space for humans, more shared space, than the vast natural wasteland UP described. I think Chicago has done a fine job of it too.

[wrabbit]

Anyone here attend?

Backers of Chicago Children's Museum plan unite
Clout-heavy supporters want to see it in a new Grant Park home
By Robert Mitchum and Dan Mihalopoulos | Tribune reporters
12:19 PM CDT, April 7, 2008
-
Seeking to bolster support for its plan to relocate in a new building in Grant Park, the Chicago Children's Museum held a news conference Monday to announce the formation of a group that will back its ambition.....

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-childrens-museum-web-07apr08,0,18732.story

[i_am_hydrogen]

that is what I meant by making park space for humans, more shared space, than the vast natural wasteland UP described. I think Chicago has done a fine job of it too.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

[ethereal_reality]

The bird sanctuary at Montrose Harbor was a
NIKE missile installation during the coldwar.

What a difference 4 decades makes.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/2199/nikecv6.jpg

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/4522/nike2qx5.jpg

[ethereal_reality]

OOPS. I was wrong.
The missiles were along inner lake shore drive at Montrose Harbor.

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/8191/nikeaerialip6.jpg

OK...I'm driving myself crazy here.
Is this photo Montrose harbor......or is this Belmont harbor?
As I recollect, the water doesn't come this close to LSD at Montrose.

(this aerial photo is from a Nike Missile Sites web site.)
hmmmm......I think I was misinformed.


Somebody help! !

[BVictor1]

^That's Belmont

[i_am_hydrogen]

That's Belmont Harbor.

[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]

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]

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]

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.

TaftIts 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Taftexactly, 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]

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? :shrug:

[wrabbit]

^ 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? :shrug:

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.

[wrabbit]

^ How about a bisonport? :shrug:



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.

[migueltorres]

^ 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]

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]

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.

[jstush04]

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

[Mr Downtown]

What Burnham envisioned (and Guérin painted) for the south lakefront:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/1626/51southlakefrontlagoonmkt5.png

Plate 51 from the Plan of Chicago.

[wrabbit]

^ Wow - looks almost like a 19th C Japanese woodblock.

[ethereal_reality]

^^^
Mr. Downtown....that is beautiful.
anymore? ;)

[Abner]

double post

[Abner]

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.

The kind of dunes that exist in Indiana are not part of the natural lakeshore on our stretch of the lake, so this would be quite artificial, even if it would be fun. I have doubts that you could keep the sand on the island for long, due to the wind (the Indiana dunes do a lot of "wandering"), and the island is probably too narrow to support dunes that are high enough to offer much of a vantage point. I would prefer something simpler and more natural--just tallgrass, wildflowers, and dirt paths with some benches. Not sure what the best thing would be for the shore; there's already a beach on the north end of the island.

migueltorres's experience is a great example of the potential that exists there. If you're concerned about accessibility, keep in mind that it's very easily (and pleasantly) accessible by the lakefront path. Makes an amazing picnic spot for people on the path too. It would also see heavy use from birdwatchers--a much bigger and calmer area than the Magic Hedge for watching the dozens of species that would stop there as they migrate along the lakeshore.

[Mr Downtown]

Guérin's renderings are one of the main reasons the Plan of Chicago is so memorable. You'll be seeing them a lot next year, the centenary of the Plan. I'm already working on various booklets, exhibits, and websites. I'm sure the surviving originals will be displayed at the Art Institute. For now, you can browse the Plan reprint at any large bookstore, or online at
http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/10417.html

[ethereal_reality]

Thanks for the information Mr Downtown. I appreciate it.

[modkris]

I walked to Northerly Island from Grant Park on a gorgeous September day last year with a friend. We were both extremely surprised how peaceful and natural it felt out there, knowing it used to be an airstrip. Although I think it needs future improvements, I am definitely for keeping it as natural feeling as possible. More little beaches on the east side, picnic areas, more trees, etc... Now if we had more than one of these manmade islands the possibilities would be endless. The Chicago lakefront is priceless as is, but I would kill for a chain of manmade islands off our coast for strictly public recreational use.

[Chicago2020]

How much would it cost to build man made islands the size of the Burnham Plan???

[alex1]

How much would it cost to build man made islands the size of the Burnham Plan???

it ranges from expensive to even more expensive. It all depends on the depth of the lake.

[cbotnyse]

How about something like this? :D

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/palm_jumeirah.jpg

[wrabbit]

From today's Trib op-ed page, regarding the Children's Museum (both for & against):


.....Any addition or subtraction must enhance its role as Chicago’s original “public ground,” welcoming all the people of the city, whatever their race, age or economic status. The proposed Children’s Museum meets this test, for these reasons:.....
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/vox_pop/2008/04/chicago-childre.html#more

---

.....Today, the question is: “Will we protect Grant Park for future generations of Chicagoans from every corner of the city to enjoy free-of-charge as past generations protected it for us?”.....
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/vox_pop/2008/04/childrens-museu.html#more

[brian_b]

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.

You do know that the airport structures house a migratory bird hospital and the proximity to downtown greatly increases the survival chances for the many hundreds of birds that hit buildings during the twice-annual migrations, right?

http://www.grantparkconservancy.com/calendar.html

Flint Creek Wildlife Rehabilitation at Northerly Island Bird hospital - We are entering the beginning of the famous international migratory bird season where millions of migrants fly through Chicago in the spring time. Dawn Keller will give a presentation that will blow you away. Her work has really taken flight. The Grant Park Conservancy and Chicago Park District have partnered with her to create a bird hospital at Northerly Island to be closer to the injured wildlife in downtown Chicago and avoid lengthy commutes to the suburbs with injured wildlife. What she does there and her education outreach and scientific data collection are truly remarkable. Come hear it first hand and meet some of the raptors.

[Marcu]

I'm still completely puzzled as to why Daley is puttng this much political capital behind this move. Not to be cynical or anything, but what's in it for him? The sales tax revenue from State street?

[AdrianXSands]

How about something like this? :D

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f21/cbotnyse/palm_jumeirah.jpg

no, no, no... if we're going to build man-made islands off the lakeshore, they should be shaped like cool things... like FIRE or a TRUCK... or the word FREEDOM! but not a PALM TREE, that would be silly. :tup:

[cbotnyse]

no, no, no... if we're going to build man-made islands off the lakeshore, they should be shaped like cool things... like FIRE or a TRUCK... or the word FREEDOM! but not a PALM TREE, that would be silly. :tup::haha: why a TRUCK? how about a snowflake? I seriously wonder if residential development would sell at premium prices if something like that ever happened. Could you imagine how cold the winters would be living on the lake?

[wrabbit]

^ Maybe an island in the shape of Daley's profile?

[BWChicago]

In other news, Thursday the Landmarks Commission will consider preliminary landmarking for the Germania Club building and (a surprise to me) the Village Theatre next door. A "trade" for the Esquire Theatre perhaps (:()?


So, any word on what the outcome of this was, anyway?

[alex1]

^ Maybe an island in the shape of Daley's profile?

that's one way to kick dirt on his face.

[VivaLFuego]

....changing gears for a moment, I'm not sure if the "South Loop Commons" project has been mentioned here before. It's at Canal/Taylor, across from the Southgate Market.
http://www.sierraadvisors.com/Chicago-city.aspx
South Loop Commons (Canal & Taylor) is a 240,654 SF retail project and is located in the heart of downtown Chicago in the South Loop. It features integrated parking garage with more than 700 spaces and direct access to each floor. South Loop Commons between Lake Shore Drive and I-90/I-94 and is surrounded by 175,000 downtown residents. It is in close proximity to the Downtown University District, Chicago's Museum Campus, McCormick Place, Sears Tower, and the UIC campus.
http://www.sierraadvisors.com/images/SouthLoopCommons.gif

To replace an existing non-descript 1-2story 30s/40s era yellow brick warehouse/industrial building.

I have to say, I'm a little disappointed by the density of the project, though the overall form/use fits in the apparent character of the neighborhood. It's just a shame there won't be any mixed uses in this neck of the woods to keep things vibrant after hours.