HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

About The Ads  This week the ad company used in the forum will be monitoring activity and doing some tests to identify any problems which users may be experiencing. If at any time this week you get pop-ups, redirects, etc. as a result of ads please let us know by sending an email to forum@skyscraperpage.com or post in the ads complaint thread. Thank you for your participation.


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #961  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 8:47 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityofneighborhoods View Post
I'm still surprised that anyone who really knows Jackson Park well would argue that placing the OBC in that part of the park would do anything other than greatly enhance the park.
A park can't be enhanced by making it not a park. A park is open land, open space. To be used for whatever temporary activities the people of the moment see fit. But once it becomes a Presidential Center, it is no longer open space. It is that institution, that function, and that only, for the next century at least.

Once that land is gone, it is gone forever. It can never be replaced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #962  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 9:19 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
A park can't be enhanced by making it not a park. A park is open land, open space. To be used for whatever temporary activities the people of the moment see fit.
For consistency, I assume you don't refer to Lincoln Park or Millennium Park as parks as they each contain buildings and non-open spaces. Grant Park has Buckingham Fountain, which isn't open land or open space, but a fountain. Humboldt Park has a boathouse, a field house and the National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture. Jackson Park has a golf course you must pay to use and MSI.

Do you consider Cornell Drive to be open land, open space? This pearl-clutching argument doesn't stand up to reality. The greatest parks in the world have structures and programming along with open spaces.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #963  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 10:05 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
For consistency, I assume you don't refer to Lincoln Park or Millennium Park as parks as they each contain buildings and non-open spaces. Grant Park has Buckingham Fountain, which isn't open land or open space, but a fountain. Humboldt Park has a boathouse, a field house and the National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture. Jackson Park has a golf course you must pay to use and MSI.

Do you consider Cornell Drive to be open land, open space? This pearl-clutching argument doesn't stand up to reality. The greatest parks in the world have structures and programming along with open spaces.
Thank you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #964  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2019, 12:41 AM
woodrow woodrow is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlajos View Post
I wanted both Lucas and this. I'm not a fanboy though.
Oh...I definitely wanted the Lucas Museum, and want the Obama Library. I just was using fanboy vis a vis Lucas to be a little snotty. But my point stands. Many of the people who wanted to put the Lucas in are trashing this project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #965  
Old Posted Feb 24, 2019, 11:35 PM
HomrQT's Avatar
HomrQT HomrQT is offline
All-American City Boy
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Forest Park / Uptown, Chicago
Posts: 1,662
Are there any other examples of Presidential libraries taking up public park land in an urban environment like Chicago's south side? What are the cons of him building on the street grid in an empty lot instead?
__________________
1. 111 W 57 - Manhattan, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
2. 9 Dekalb Ave - Brooklyn, New York - SHoP Architects - Photo
3. One Chicago Square - Chicago - HPA and Goettsch Partners - Photo
4. Chicago Board of Trade - Chicago - Holabird & Root - Photo
5. Cathedral of Learning - Pittsburgh - Charles Klauder - Photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #966  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 4:19 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,085
The Carter Library is within a large park, but one that was created contemporaneously with the building. Same with the Clinton Library.

There are no cons to building on the street grid except for imagined prestige. NARA apparently now wants a 150-foot exclusion zone around actual presidential libraries, but even that is quite possible on a two-block site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #967  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 10:53 AM
joeg1985 joeg1985 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by moorhosj View Post
For consistency, I assume you don't refer to Lincoln Park or Millennium Park as parks as they each contain buildings and non-open spaces. Grant Park has Buckingham Fountain, which isn't open land or open space, but a fountain. Humboldt Park has a boathouse, a field house and the National Museum of Puerto Rican Arts and Culture. Jackson Park has a golf course you must pay to use and MSI.

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

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

What happens in the next hundred years when there are 8 more presidents from Chicago? Are we to give up further limited public lands for said presidents' libraries? Where does it stop? That is why Friends of the Parks sues now and with Lucas and will sue again and again if need be. They are advocates for the public land. The land that was designated to stay free and clear and for all Chicago's citizens.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #968  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 2:18 PM
moorhosj moorhosj is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 511
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #969  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 2:33 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is online now
>~< , QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: South Loop, Chicago
Posts: 1,410
^ I don't want to dignify fotp with a website visit. Does last four miles refer to the LSD extension project?
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead. Trump delenda est.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #970  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 3:05 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,085
^The Last Four Miles project refers to dedicating additional lakefront parkland in South Chicago, and creating additional lakefill in Rogers Park, Edgewater, and South Shore so that the entire Chicago lakefront would be public parkland, as called for in the 1973 Lakefront Protection Ordinance. The extension of Lake Shore Drive is emphatically not part of the FotP proposal (though I personally wouldn't mind that if done sensitively).

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #971  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 7:38 PM
LouisVanDerWright LouisVanDerWright is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,294
The alderman in Edgewater should create a TIF on everything east of the red line and then use the money to eminent domain everyone's riparian rights to build the last four miles in Edgewater and Rogers Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #972  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2019, 11:47 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,085
Very few of those properties, at least south of Devon, still have their riparian rights. They sold them to the Lincoln Park Commission back in the 1920s.

It's more of a political problem, when you have condo owners going to meetings to demand "have there been any studies about how much property values go down from being next to a park?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #973  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2019, 2:26 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,829
^ It's too bad Loyola was prevented from their lakefill plan back in the 1980s, I think there would be a lot more momentum to complete the missing segments of lakefront park.

A Robert Moses style leader could potentially get the project done by adding back in the LSD extension and relying on the support of drivers... the problem is that there's really no good outlet for the traffic once you hit city limits. Howard or Touhy would be overwhelmed if they extended six lanes up to city limits. Maybe the extension just ends up being a 2-lane urban parkway with a few pulloffs and passing lanes, like Rock Creek Parkway in DC. All pedestrian crossings would be on underpasses. After that, put in a bus lane on Sheridan so everyone benefits.

Also, just to play devil's advocate: CDOT and the Park District could absolutely remove Cornell with or without the Obama Library. That traffic really should be on Stony Island and calmed aggressively, as the city's plan now calls for, or detour east to Lake Shore Drive where pedestrians can cross over/under. It looks like taxpayers will be on the hook for this work anyway, so even if Obama decides to take his ball and go home, this would be a worthy investment in a historically dense, lakefront community.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #974  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2019, 9:44 AM
blacktrojan3921's Avatar
blacktrojan3921 blacktrojan3921 is offline
Regina rhymes with fun!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
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.
Not to nitpick; but hasn't most of the US throughout it's history involved basically selling public trust land to private entity that excludes the public?

In anycase, I find it odd that the opposition to the Library is really this steadfast in opposition to it. After all, it's not like it's going to demolish over people's homes like what the last presidential library did xD
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #975  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2019, 9:47 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,085
"Public trust land" is land that has specifically had a restriction placed on it during transfer. That's not the same as land owned by the government being sold off for homesteading and settlement as contemplated.

The state of Illinois deeded the site of Jackson Park to the South Park Commission with the express restriction that the land “be held, managed and controlled by them and their successors, for the recreation, health and benefit of the public, and free to all.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #976  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 1:22 AM
blacktrojan3921's Avatar
blacktrojan3921 blacktrojan3921 is offline
Regina rhymes with fun!
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Regina, SK
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
"Public trust land" is land that has specifically had a restriction placed on it during transfer. That's not the same as land owned by the government being sold off for homesteading and settlement as contemplated.

The state of Illinois deeded the site of Jackson Park to the South Park Commission with the express restriction that the land “be held, managed and controlled by them and their successors, for the recreation, health and benefit of the public, and free to all.”
Call me elitist, but that seems like a silly thing to be honest. Considering the fact that the center will only occupy a small parcel of land in the North western portion of the park, I think the brewhaha is a bit hyperbolic.

It also doesn't help that Protect our Parks, the main party behind the lawsuit, reeks like it's sister organization Friends of the Park of being elitist nimbyism that don't want development just, because.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #977  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 2:24 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,782
It's not "just, because". And it's not anti-development. It's anti taking of open public land, that is not themed, programmed, dedicated to a single use. And making it, for the next 99 years at least, off limits to any other use.

This is much different than constructing say a field house of equal footage in a park. A field house at least can be used by any organization for any purpose. It does not belong to one organization, one theme, one use, and that use only. (Note, I'm not a fan of field houses in parks either, when they are better sited elsewhere).

Now on the subject of roads and parking lots, to be consistent, no, those are not parkland either, they are plazas. Were you aware that the United Center is surrounded by acres of open green fields?


Plazas are not parks. Daley Plaza is not a park. But it is non-themed open space, and I bet everyone here would reject losing Daley Plaza for a building. A parking lot, a street can be closed at any time. Used for any other use like any field.
Columbus Drive is closed and used for street festivals, races, etc. Same with the tailgating lot at Soldier Field. They are closed to cars, and nothing says they have to have cars for the next 99 years. Nothing dedicates them to one sole use. And they are easily converted to parkland open space if that's what a future public decides.

There is a real legal distinction between putting a private organization's private building in a park that is not at all comparable to existing public buildings, roads and parking lots.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #978  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 2:47 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
It's not "just, because". And it's not anti-development. It's anti taking of open public land, that is not themed, programmed, dedicated to a single use. And making it, for the next 99 years at least, off limits to any other use.

This is much different than constructing say a field house of equal footage in a park. A field house at least can be used by any organization for any purpose. It does not belong to one organization, one theme, one use, and that use only. (Note, I'm not a fan of field houses in parks either, when they are better sited elsewhere).

Now on the subject of roads and parking lots, to be consistent, no, those are not parkland either, they are plazas. Were you aware that the United Center is surrounded by acres of open green fields?


Plazas are not parks. Daley Plaza is not a park. But it is non-themed open space, and I bet everyone here would reject losing Daley Plaza for a building. A parking lot, a street can be closed at any time. Used for any other use like any field.
Columbus Drive is closed and used for street festivals, races, etc. Same with the tailgating lot at Soldier Field. They are closed to cars, and nothing says they have to have cars for the next 99 years. Nothing dedicates them to one sole use. And they are easily converted to parkland open space if that's what a future public decides.

There is a real legal distinction between putting a private organization's private building in a park that is not at all comparable to existing public buildings, roads and parking lots.
Like the Shedd, Field and Adler?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #979  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 3:20 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,782
Like I said, once that land is gone, it is gone forever. If the next generation decides that they don't like museums in parks, too bad, stuck with it. I see no reason to continue the assault.

I was responding to the argument that since Cornell Drive cuts through Jackson Park, and MSI is there, the rest of the land is fair game for development because every acre of Jackson Park isn't pristine wilderness.
Bad past decisions don't justify future bad decisions.

How about we just consider the parks landmarked at this point and off limits? And if any use closes, such as a golf course or a parking lot, that use is removed and the land goes back to open field.
If parks can't be landmarked and preserved, what's the point of preserving some old building? Either "highest best use" counts for all land, or none of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #980  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2019, 3:54 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,211
I was speaking today with a contractor involved and he feels 99% certain the project will go through as proposed. Apparently the property was transferred from state land to federal land, so the plaintiffs have no chance at winning the case.

It is widely believed among insiders that they're allowing the latest lawsuit to go through just so the FOTP circlejerk people drain all their money. The ol Chicago way.
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 9:26 PM.

     

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