HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #801  
Old Posted May 24, 2018, 8:44 PM
jchase79's Avatar
jchase79 jchase79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods View Post
As someone who lives two blocks away from Jackson Park, the OPC is the best thing that could happen to the park.

I couldn't agree more with everything you said. I don't usually post here often but it baffles me the reaction this is getting from a lot of people here.

I've visited this park twice on two separate visits to Chicago and crossing those separate roads was horrible and I could see as a detriment for people trying to visit this park. It's a beautiful area that just needs a little investment to make the park more enjoyable. Hopefully this goes ahead as planned and I look forward to another visit to see everyone in the neighborhood enjoy it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #802  
Old Posted May 25, 2018, 2:56 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods View Post
It's hard to wrap my mind around how park groups can be opposed to cutting off Cornell Dr
What park group is opposed?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #803  
Old Posted May 25, 2018, 4:58 AM
cityofneighborhoods cityofneighborhoods is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
What park group is opposed?
Jackson Park Watch, Cultural Landscape Foundation
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #804  
Old Posted May 25, 2018, 5:30 AM
bnk's Avatar
bnk bnk is offline
પટેલ. કે ન
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: chicagoland
Posts: 10,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods View Post
Jackson Park Watch, Cultural Landscape Foundation
Never heard of them.

Likely have no more or less than 2 alderman that would support that group.

Nothing more to see here... Walk away folks...
__________________
facebook
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #805  
Old Posted May 25, 2018, 1:01 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is offline
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 1,909
I'm surprised FotP isn't involved at all... I assume they realized they burned so much political capital in running the Lucas Museum out of town that they had to lay low on this one.
__________________
"Eventually, I think Chicago will be the most beautiful great city left in the world." -Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #806  
Old Posted May 25, 2018, 2:13 PM
Baronvonellis Baronvonellis is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 855
Alright, I've changed my mind. I don't go to Jackson Park very often, I didn't realize there was that large Cornell Dr. that goes through the park, and that there are so many roads going through the park. Wow! As well as an expressway, Lake Shore Dr. being next to the park. I've always driven down Stony Island, I didn't even realize there was another busy street a block over. That makes no sense. I guess just eliminating all those roads through the park alone is worth doing, and since it's a benefit for everyone who uses the park I guess it's alright to have the city pay for it. It would be nice if the Obama foundation payed for it, but not a deal breaker.

This is part of a larger issue, with having so many roads going through Grant Park, Humbolt Park, Washington Park, Garfield Park, Douglas Park ect. This is a fault of all large parks in Chicago, with so many busy roads cutting though the parks that the Parks district and the city should fix. I would rather had Friends of the Park work on a large campaign to address this issue, to actually benefit the parks for people, pedestrian, safety/comfort, and improve them. Rather than chasing away the Lucas Museum.

I think Obama is a great guy, I"m not against him, I'm all for him building a library/research center. I think ideally it would have been better in some underdeveloped vacant land on the southside. I think Presidential libraries are rather boring in general, and I might visit it once and then forget about it.

I'm just still mad that they chased the Lucas Museum out of town, as being a art museum it's something I would have been much more interested in visiting, and it would have gotten rid of a parking lot and added park land to the lakefront. But of course, we've all discussed this before.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods View Post
It's hard to wrap my mind around how park groups can be opposed to cutting off Cornell Dr, a 60s affront to their supposedly beloved Olmsted design. Chicago has so few park spaces like in Prospect Park, Central Park, Golden Gate Park, etc. where you don't have to see cars whirling by while in the park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #807  
Old Posted May 25, 2018, 2:28 PM
ChiShawn ChiShawn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Nobody stopped all of those roads that cut through and forever ruined Grant Park because, after all, car is king.
Maybe this can be the first of many road closures. We can close Columbus through Grant park, Stockton and Cannon through Lincoln park, Sacramento/Humboldt through Humboldt park, Central Park through Garfield Park, and Morgan through Washington Park. We could have some NYC style parks where you can actually escape from the city.

I doubt this will ever happen though.
__________________
"In the big picture, architecture is the art and science of making sure that our cities and buildings fit with the way we want to live our lives." - Bjarke Ingels

"In a quality city, a person should be able to live their entire life without a car, and not feel deprived." - Paul Bedford
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #808  
Old Posted May 26, 2018, 4:08 AM
glowrock's Avatar
glowrock glowrock is offline
Becoming Chicago-fied!
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chicago (West Avondale)
Posts: 19,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiShawn View Post
Maybe this can be the first of many road closures. We can close Columbus through Grant park, Stockton and Cannon through Lincoln park, Sacramento/Humboldt through Humboldt park, Central Park through Garfield Park, and Morgan through Washington Park. We could have some NYC style parks where you can actually escape from the city.

I doubt this will ever happen though.
Not so sure I ever see Columbus through Grant Park ever being completely closed down permanently, but I do think a road diet could easily be put into place, making it less of a a hindrance to the overall personal enjoyment of Grant Park as an "escape" from the city.

Completely closing it off would result in even more gridlock along an already pretty much gridlocked section of LSD, and would impact Michigan Ave. through that area as well. Again, already nearly gridlocked.

Stockton/Cannon aren't anywhere near as major an arterial as Columbus is, and perhaps one/both of them CAN reasonably be closed. I've only actually driven on Cannon a couple of times, and I'm really not sure what true use it has, honestly.

Not going to comment on the others, since I don't have too much knowledge on the specifics...

Aaron (Glowrock)
__________________
"My first day in Chicago, September 4, 1983. I set foot in this city, and just walking down the street, it was like roots, like the motherland. I knew I belonged here." -- Oprah Winfrey
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #809  
Old Posted May 27, 2018, 1:28 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,884
Well, the Olmsted park vision DID include roads. Central Park has four transverse roads that are like the Middle Earth version of a freeway, totally separated from pedestrian paths by picturesque stone bridges and little tunnels. Olmsted recognized that, especially in New York, traffic would need to move through his park between the East and West Sides of Manhattan. It also has a ring road that was intended for slow pleasure drives.

The Chicago parks and boulevards never really had the bridges to separate pedestrians from through traffic. All the park roads were intended for pleasure drives. Trucks and commercial traffic were simply banned from park roads by city ordinance, and car commuting was not popular enough to cause a traffic problem or a safety problem. When the 1950s rolled around and everyone started hopping in their car to go everywhere, the Park District simply surrendered all the boulevards and park roads to CDOT and they became the domain of the automobile.

Technically, trucks and commercial vehicles are still banned from boulevards and park roads, but the rule is seldom enforced except (occasionally) on Lake Shore Drive.

For the issue of Cornell, it's hard to make a decision in terms of what would be "faithful to Olmsted's vision". The guy died in 1903, five years before Henry Ford introduced the Model T. Automobiles, in his world, were expensive, maintenance-intensive pleasure devices for the rich. (Basically the same way we regard boats today.) Olmsted could not possibly anticipate how car traffic would reduce the public's enjoyment of his parks, so it's hard to endorse his vision of park roads as an appropriate idea for the 21st century.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #810  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2018, 2:42 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,094
From today's Tribune:
A small band of environmentalists takes fight against Obama Presidential Center to court

... the advocacy group Protect Our Parks [has] filed suit against the presidential center. They contend that the city and Park District do not have the authority to make public parkland available for the project. Jackson Park, they say, must remain untouched.
***
The [Obama F]oundation isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit. Instead the suit targets the city and park district saying that the presidential center isn’t the same as a presidential library and should not be granted public land. But even if the project was designed to house Obama’s archives, this collection still wouldn’t want it situated in a park.
***
... Protect Our Parks ... was formed in 2007 to challenge the park district when the Latin School of Chicago wanted to transform a grass field into a soccer field. The group filed a lawsuit that was settled out of court.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...724-story.html


Based on the Paepcke decision, I have my doubts that this will succeed legally. Of course, I said the same thing about the Lucas Museum lawsuit, and then the city unexpectedly just took its ball and went home.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #811  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2018, 10:31 PM
cityofneighborhoods cityofneighborhoods is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
From today's Tribune:
A small band of environmentalists takes fight against Obama Presidential Center to court

... the advocacy group Protect Our Parks [has] filed suit against the presidential center. They contend that the city and Park District do not have the authority to make public parkland available for the project. Jackson Park, they say, must remain untouched.
***
The [Obama F]oundation isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit. Instead the suit targets the city and park district saying that the presidential center isn’t the same as a presidential library and should not be granted public land. But even if the project was designed to house Obama’s archives, this collection still wouldn’t want it situated in a park.
***
... Protect Our Parks ... was formed in 2007 to challenge the park district when the Latin School of Chicago wanted to transform a grass field into a soccer field. The group filed a lawsuit that was settled out of court.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/o...724-story.html


Based on the Paepcke decision, I have my doubts that this will succeed legally. Of course, I said the same thing about the Lucas Museum lawsuit, and then the city unexpectedly just took its ball and went home.
Environmentalists who fight to save roads and parking lots. We're all so lucky to have this white woman in Wilmette and white guy in Lakeview protect South Siders from an improved Jackson Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #812  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2018, 11:14 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,257
^Don’t be racist. You do have a point, however, that they’re from Wilmette and Lakeview respectively, and that they shouldn’t be involved with dealings in Jackson Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #813  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2018, 11:51 PM
cityofneighborhoods cityofneighborhoods is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
^Don’t be racist.
^Don't be ignorant. I'm not looking to get in an argument, but you really should take a sociology class, read a book about Chicago history or just even a credible newspaper every once in awhile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #814  
Old Posted Aug 3, 2018, 11:57 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
Interesting that the Tribune fails to mention that the OC is *adding* significant green space to the park...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #815  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2018, 3:02 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyguy_7 View Post
they’re from Wilmette and Lakeview respectively, and that they shouldn’t be involved with dealings in Jackson Park.
How on earth is the plaintiffs' domicile relevant to their legal challenge?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #816  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2018, 6:39 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
How on earth is the plaintiffs' domicile relevant to their legal challenge?
You are right, we should have filed a lawsuit to block the construction of the Lucas Museum in LA!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #817  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2018, 7:20 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright View Post
You are right, we should have filed a lawsuit to block the construction of the Lucas Museum in LA!
That was funny I give you that.

However, I think it's rather folly. Are all matters local? And just how local? Should only 10k Alaskans have a say in if the Arctic Wildlife refuge becomes industrialized? I guarantee you a lot few outsiders will say see that compared to say a Presidential Library.

There are great reasons to be opposed to the Library location other than you are for/against the idea of changing the immediate neighborhood. The +200million price tag for the road realignment is one thing. Some here were moaning about a $10million cost improvement to the much more high profile river walk yesterday yet we are talking about x20 to change a park. And for what reason other than the whims of a former President?
And again I have to ask, if President Trump wanted his library there would the reaction be the same? If groups that are against the library in JP were proponents of it would there be the same shrill sarcasm about them living on the North Shore/side? Nope.

It begs the question, why are we so easily bought. And for what good reason? The alternative of the Washington Park location was a wonderful location. Most would say a preferable opportunistic location. Why must we at great taxpayer expense use the money on infrastructure to increase minimum parkland just because an ex-Prez wants to be near the lake or MSI or whatever the reason.

Other than being snarky about the opponents we rarely hear convincing reasoning why this location is the most reasonable and sensible location.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #818  
Old Posted Aug 4, 2018, 10:32 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
^Because it is actually improving the park, increasing usable green space, enjoys the support of the local community and the larger citizenry of Chicago, and insures that more of the public will actually visit and use the park itself...

and, of course, a Trump Center wouldn't enjoy the same support, not because of the changes to the park itself necessarily, but because Chicago is largely a progressive city and President O claimed it as his home town... raise this issue when the next president from Chicago wants to build a center... (particularly if that President is a conservative, HA!)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #819  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2018, 2:17 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,094
Crain’s editorial board asks

Just why is the Obama Center heading to Jackson Park?
***
So why, in a city that covers 237 square miles, with plenty of vacant land on the South and West sides, does the Obama Center have to be on 22 acres of public lakefront that isn’t near neighborhoods that could use an economic shot in the arm? Why was this location better than North Lawndale, the proposed site in the University of Illinois at Chicago’s bid? What about the “third site” in the U of C’s bid—55th and Garfield, with Washington Park to the east, on a site that now sports a gas station and is steps from the Garfield Green Line stop? And why, with so little information at hand, are we expected to give up that much public space while also forking over $175 million to cover the cost of the Cornell Drive revamp and other odds and ends?
***
If past is prologue, most of these questions will remain unanswered. But Crain’s Lisa Bertagnoli and Lynne Marek have been asking anyway, and in doing so they recently learned one interesting thing: The Jackson Park plan isn’t quite the done deal you might think. “The City Council has yet to introduce, much less enact, an ordinance authorizing the construction and operation of the center,” the city’s corporation counsel, Edward Siskel, noted in a June 28 court filing in response to a lawsuit filed by a grass-roots outfit called Protect Our Parks.



http://www.chicagobusiness.com/opini...g-jackson-park
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #820  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2018, 2:46 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
>~< , QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Loop, Chicago
Posts: 1,460
As someone who passes by the Washington Park site at least several times a week... I really wish that location was chosen. It's a perfect site for an anchor institution.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:17 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.