CHICAGO | Lucas Museum of Narrative Art

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Areas aren't actual parkland unless they're covered with turf?

So intellectually dishonest. We very clearly aren't talking about artful hardscaping here. It's a parking lot. Its primary function is the storage of large, mobile pieces of private property.

Parking lots are antithetical to parkland.

[pilsenarch]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Areas aren't actual parkland unless they're covered with turf?

sorry, Mr. D., I couldn't help myself point out a little inconsistency in your arguments... weren't you just pointing out to me recently that the part of Grant Park that was developed into Millenium Park didn't count as a park prior to Millenium due to the fact that part of it was being used as a parking lot?

[Mr Downtown]

^No, I was pointing out that was the logical conclusion of Ch.G, Ch.G's argument that a parking lot is not parkland.

I'm not trying to defend the parking lot for some use of tailgating or boater parking. I'm defending the principle that parkland is to be protected, even if it's currently underused. In this case, although it's primarily a parking lot, it also serves as a cap for some kind of hazmat landfill (probably just asbestos panels from the General Exhibits Building of the Century of Progress) and more importantly, serves as a hard surface where circus tents can be set up, where mass starts for fun runs or recreational events involving wheels of various kinds can be held without tearing up the grass. That's why the Burnham Park Framework Plan calls for the parking lot to remain (though nothing precludes improving its aesthetics with nicer pavers or something).

My main point is that not every decision should be a mere balancing test between what's proposed and what's there now. We should have other values, including preservation of deserving historic buildings and a very great reluctance to part with parkland for buildings, no matter how popular or "public" they might be. A shortsighted balancing test is how we ended up with McCormick Place blocking the lakefront; putting schools in Garfield, Douglas, and Washington Parks; with half of Hanson Park lost to schools and teacher parking lots. Parks are not a land bank to be used to lure development.

[marothisu]

I think you might have a serious lapse in what this project actually entails. This isn't a building that is going to utilize the entire parcel of land. If that was the case, then I might be more on the fence (still for it, but still more on the fence).

Let's get this straight: 10 acres of land that's currently parking lot is going to be created into new actual green parkland that was not there before and is currently a parking lot. If this is not done now, then when the hell is this space going to be created into park land? As long as the Chicago Bears are playing there, that parking lot is always going to be there. There's no ifs, ands, ors, or buts about it. 5 acres will be the museum itself - that is 2/3 of the current land to be created as new green park space that's currently a bunch of asphalt. This isn't someone plopping a massive building there. Not only are they introducing another almost free to Chicago world class institution to the lineup of Museum Campus, but they are turning literally 2/3 of that parking lot into new green park space that wasn't there before, while creating hundreds (probably in the few thousands counting construction) of new jobs as well as millions probably into the billions in tax revenue for the city.

I seriously do not understand why people are so against this. It's creating new parkland and it's an absolute GIFT to the city. This seriously has to be one of the biggest gifts the city has ever seen and people just want to piss it away because they can't stand to see a parking lot that is essentially owned by the Bears turned into something else that's not park land. Oh but wait, 2/3 of the land in the proposal calls for new park land. So what are we against then, the building? Okay then the Field Museum, Shedd, Art Institute, etc shouldn't be there either.

I'm sorry, but as long as the Bears are playing there, you aren't going to see that parcel of land used for anything but a parking lot in your lifetime. If you think otherwise, then you're absolutely delusional. They may not own that land, but they have so much clout for it it's not even funny.

This is what I'm talking about when I say people are against the progress of the city. They'd rather keep a parking lot than see it turn into green space and a world class institution while giving people of the city a new opportunity to earn money that wasn't there before. People think this is going to set a precedent that all of a sudden the parkland is going to become public property and honestly, I think those people are absolutely and utterly delusional too. This is a very special case and IMO it's not anything different than Shedd, Art Institute, etc that's on the same land.

[the urban politician]

^ I think Mr. D made his argument, which you aren't really addressing here.

Frankly, I don't have the same reservation Mr. D has because the practice of occasionally using parkland as a land bank for a massive, transformative development that could benefit the city and is meant to be for the public, while reprehensible to Mr. D, doesn't quite bother me as much.

For sure, I'd be opposed to a completely private development on public parkland (ie a shopping center, a condo or apt tower, etc). But a building that serves in a public role (boathouse, museum, zoo, etc) I generally don't see the big issue.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

^ I think Mr. D made his argument, which you aren't really addressing here.

Frankly, I don't have the same reservation Mr. D has because the practice of occasionally using parkland as a land bank for a massive, transformative development that could benefit the city and is publicly accessible, while reprehensible to Mr. D, doesn't quite bother me as much.

For sure, I'd be opposed to a completely private development on public parkland (ie a shopping center, a condo or apt tower, etc). But a building that serves in a public role (boathouse, museum, zoo, etc) I generally don't see the big issue.

I generally agree with this however the argument for the utility of the parking lot is pretty damn thin with activities that can be accommodated on other park district/city land or closed streets inside Grant park.

While I find a principled stand on the preservation of parkland commendable I don't think it should be at the expense of once in a generation civic gifts if the siting is appropriate just to maintain the strictest interpretation of said principle. There have been definitely more sketchy uses of park land than what is proposed here.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

^No, I was pointing out that was the logical conclusion of Ch.G, Ch.G's argument that a parking lot is not parkland.

I'm not trying to defend the parking lot for some use of tailgating or boater parking. I'm defending the principle that parkland is to be protected, even if it's currently underused. In this case, although it's primarily a parking lot, it also serves as a cap for some kind of hazmat landfill (probably just asbestos panels from the General Exhibits Building of the Century of Progress) and more importantly, serves as a hard surface where circus tents can be set up, where mass starts for fun runs or recreational events involving wheels of various kinds can be held without tearing up the grass. That's why the Burnham Park Framework Plan calls for the parking lot to remain (though nothing precludes improving its aesthetics with nicer pavers or something).

My main point is that not every decision should be a mere balancing test between what's proposed and what's there now. We should have other values, including preservation of deserving historic buildings and a very great reluctance to part with parkland for buildings, no matter how popular or "public" they might be. A shortsighted balancing test is how we ended up with McCormick Place blocking the lakefront; putting schools in Garfield, Douglas, and Washington Parks; with half of Hanson Park lost to schools and teacher parking lots. Parks are not a land bank to be used to lure development.

It sounds like you consider the parking lot to be "parkland" simply because it is owned by the park district. If that's indeed the case, your argument hinges on a kind of literalism I think most people would agree to be unreasonable if not absurd.

For my part, I reject that premise. A parking lot, regardless of whose purview it falls under, whether a private entity or a commission of the local government, is not a park/parkland. (And it should tell you all you need to know if you can't use those two words interchangeably when describing the site in question.)

[Mr Downtown]

Yes, all land designated as a park is parkland. To argue otherwise would be like claiming Burnham Harbor is not a waterfront site during the weeks each year when it's ice rather than water.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yes, all land designated as a park is parkland. To argue otherwise would be like claiming Burnham Harbor is not a waterfront site during the weeks each year when it's ice rather than water.

^ Not a good analogy, since Burnham Harbor goes back and forth naturally between being ice and water.

The Soldier Field parking lot remains a parking lot, functions as one, and will forever be one. It will never be turned into a park.

It's a parking lot. Not a park. It's owned by a district that owns parks, and that is the only thing it has in common with the concept of a "park".

[HowardL]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yes, all land designated as a park is parkland. To argue otherwise would be like claiming Burnham Harbor is not a waterfront site during the weeks each year when it's ice rather than water.

Outstanding! Now that we have identified that auto storage is not a proper fit for parkland, I will support you in leading the charge to have this site returned to parklike, park appropriate usage.

When should one expect your public rally on this point?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Yes, all land designated as a park is parkland. To argue otherwise would be like claiming Burnham Harbor is not a waterfront site during the weeks each year when it's ice rather than water.

Reductio ad absurdum.

This isn't an issue of principle for you; it's an issue of semantics.

[Ryanrule]

who is paying you mr?
sanfran slip yo ua few bills to astroturf this?

[marothisu]

LOL a parking lot is a park because it's in park land and owned by parks district. WTF? Absolutely absurd.

[intrepidDesign]

I highly encourage everyone to go to the Friends of Parking Lots facebook page and let them know how you feel. Don't forget to rate them!! https://www.facebook.com/friendsoftheparks I seriously can't stress enough how important it is to bombard these institutionalized NIMBYs with your opinions.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by marothisu

LOL a parking lot is a park because it's in park land and owned by parks district. WTF? Absolutely absurd.

By his logic if a museum were to be in a park and owned by the parks district, then it would be a park... Hmm...

[sentinel]

I was actually thinking of starting a page myself, but someone beat me to it. 'Like' it to show your support.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Frien...16516405052102

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

By his logic if a museum were to be in a park and owned by the parks district, then it would be a park... Hmm...

And perhaps a foreclosed condo is a bank because it's owned by a bank?? Or maybe a computer is a restaurant because it's owned by restaurant and is contained within a restaurant?

[jcchii]

I support the museum idea but it's not difficult to see that it is parkland that's not currently being used as a park.

it's open but paved and could be made green space quickly. Not so if it were, say, underneath a museum building.

that's not really the point of the argument

[jcchii]

and for the record I would in fact build it there, but I'm just saying...

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by jcchii

I support the museum idea but it's not difficult to see that it is parkland that's not currently being used as a park.

it's open but paved and could be made green space quickly. Not so if it were, say, underneath a museum building.

that's not really the point of the argument

The museum is going to create 10 new acres of greenspace/parkland that's currently a parking lot. I don't understand why people are so against this. What's so different about this than something like the Field Museum? Honestly. As long as Soldier Field is there, they will have a monopology on this thing and it will remain a private events/tailgating parking lot. Mark my words on that.


The only reason why the city gave this land away is because of the absolute fucking GIFT it is to the city economically. Absolute fucking gift. The fact that 2/3 of this project is going to be new parkland that frankly will not be real parkland in our lifetimes is both great and the happy medium. I don't know why people overlook the fact that 2/3 of the current acreage will be new parkland that is currently a sad parking lot.