HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #941  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 5:51 PM
chrisvfr800i chrisvfr800i is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rooster slayer View Post
This could be Chicago's New York Amazon moment...losing Lucas was bad, this would be completely jaw dropping.
I find it odd that the same voices that decried the Amazon/NYC deal don't also decry this deal. Honestly they should decry it much more, as while Amazon was just getting a break on future taxes, Obama is getting free land and infrastructure for a vanity project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #942  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 6:57 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,510
the whole "it has to go in a park" BS is such nonsense given all of the available vacant and relatively inexpensive land found all over the southside.

for example, take this 5 acre parcel at garfield and MLK: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.7942.../data=!3m1!1e3

it directly overlooks washington park and is only steps from a greenline stop.

it would make infinitely more sense to just tell the obama foundation to buy that land and put the museum and library there.

5 acres should be more than enough land to accommodate what they want to do.

and actually placing it in the community (as opposed to an isolated park site) would be an immensely more logical way to honor the former community organizer. i don't get how/why obama can't/won't see that.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #943  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 7:43 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i View Post
….Obama is getting free land and infrastructure for a vanity project.
That is just so stupid. A presidential library is not a "vanity project".
__________________
Trumpism is the road to ruin

Last edited by Steely Dan; Feb 20, 2019 at 8:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #944  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 8:16 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
That is just so stupid. A presidential library is not a "vanity project".
its not a library though. its essentially the HQ for the Obama Foundation, a private entity.


my feelings are mixed on the proposal itself, and the site in particular.

i still dont know why U of C ever felt this was "theirs" to offer up in the first place. pretty ironic they didnt offer any of their own private plots that have been landbanked.

Last edited by Steely Dan; Feb 21, 2019 at 3:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #945  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 8:50 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 Halsted & Villagio View Post
Various forum members appear to be taking way too much joy in this decision for my liking. The bottom line is putting up roadblocks to one of the most important developments to ever occur on the Southside is asinine. .
Nobody is taking joy here. I think everyone here wants to see the library built and all the more in quick fashion. I think most would love to see it on the south side for a variety of reasons.

Frankly what I consider assinine is that some expect projects they are personally in favor of to be rubber-stamped for expediency or because they want to poo-poo any legitimate real concerns about graft, public process, and tax expenditures. The $200 million to reorient streets is no small subsidy.

Quote:
Recognize that any joy you are feeling right now comes across as extremely short sighted and yes, partisan and is likely rooted in the "us" versus "them" mentality that is at the very heart of the problem with Chicago today. That "us" versus "them" mentality is deeply rooted within Chicago/rooted in racism (for some)... that mentality has led to racial redlining, disinvestment and the ridiculous segregation we still see today... and it is that very mentality that has stoked fires/raised resentment and hostilities, and yes, spurred violence.
I hate to be presumptuous but I think it far to say that on this forum that almost everyone here would much rather see an Obama Library on the south side than say a Trump Library. You are frankly way out of freaking bounds to claim that hesitation or objections to the Jackson Park locations are due to partisan let alone racial hostility. There are very valid reasons to be skeptical of setting the precedent of appropriating the heart of one of our few major public parks to the powerful well-connected, no matter how well liked that entity is in polls or by the majority.
Quote:
The choice -- keep an old run down park that is rarely used by Whites... a park that has already been changed and modified many times over... out of some archaic notion of preserving that which is already UNpreserved.
The park could use some love of course but since when is pouring cement and steel been confused with green space. The two are natural anthemic to each other. Don't tell us you are burning the village to save it and don't tell us you are improving the park by cutting into and making it a non-park.

And what demographic lives by or uses it is not really what the issue is or should be. You can try to make it about race if you want to dirty the issue up and polarize it away from principles and precedent but there completely valid reasons to be for/against the OBL in Jackson Park that aren't the least bit race related.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #946  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 9:56 PM
Halsted & Villagio Halsted & Villagio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Hyde Park
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
That is just so stupid. A presidential library is not a "vanity project".
Great post. The comment by the poster you addressed gives you a glimpse into whats really at the bottom of much of the pushback. For many, it is more about jealousy/resentment/envy towards Obama than it is about any else... and the comment that you adeptly addressed really illustrates that.

Obama -- his legacy is intact. With or without the Jackson Park location I am pretty sure that Barack Obama's life will be just fine. You are not getting him back or hurting him by denying him that location. The guy has lived a charmed life and this whole library thing is not going to change that one iota.

I will say that the Woodlawn real estate market is hot with development in anticipation of the library. Per Steely's argument, I don't believe changing the location will effect that very much. The area is hot and as long there is not a complete pullout things should still be ok regardless of where it goes on the Southeast side.

I just think we should be honest about the whole thing. Many here don't give a flying flip about Jackson Park, have rarely set foot in that park and can't help but recognize that Olmsted's vision was modified and butchered many times over long ago. For many, this is about somehow trying to get back at Obama... trying to stick it to him somehow (ridiculous!)... as evidenced by the poster who preposterously called a Presidential Library a "vanity project".

There is an unspoken undercurrent to whats going on here. Not by all, but by many. For instance, I know Steely's comment was a comment that was fair and should be taken at face value. In fact, his post makes a lot of sense... except that I believe Jackson Park offers the library the best possible location for maximum impact -- something I am in favor of. Reasonable minds can differ on this. But I know his comment came from a good place. Others have made good points too... but sadly, with quite a few.... there is that ugly undercurrent.

Either way, as long as it goes in the general vicinity of the Southeast side, I am a happy camper. I have multiple investments in that general area and I plan to invest even more in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #947  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 10:39 PM
Buckman821's Avatar
Buckman821 Buckman821 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 484
^Good grief. Get off your high horse.

To assume that opposition to this project can only be due to Obama resentment is nothing short of insane.

This entire concept was flawed from the beginning.

Oh - and I've been to Jackson Park many times and I would hate to see it gifted over to a private entity where it won't ever engage with what will hopefully one day be vibrant urban fabric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #948  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 11:47 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,134
This city is maddening at times. I bet we lose this too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #949  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 2:07 AM
feynman feynman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Troy, MI
Posts: 14
I agree, put this anywhere but in a lakeside park. I like Obama. I want the library on the Southside. I think it will do a lot of good for the city. But there are rules for a reason. If they get thrown out for a something you like, they may get thrown out for something you hate. There are plenty of good places, many of them closer to the L. And after the lawsuits with the Lucas project, why press for this in a park when it would without question would be litigated? This could get tied up for years if they really want to press it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #950  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 2:14 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,095
Umm, Obama had very little to do with the site selection, other than nodding his assent afterwards. I'm not even sure he was in the room when Jackson Park was chosen. He certainly wasn't in the room when the city and U of C decided to offer the park, and I don't think he was there when Oprah Winfrey stood up and told the site selection committee that major Chicago institutions go in parks on the lakefront; nowhere else.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #951  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 2:23 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Umm, Obama had very little to do with the site selection, other than nodding his assent afterwards.

I find that hard to believe, but if true, than it's no one's fault except his own.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #952  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 3:09 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,510
* moderator note *

just a reminder folks, if you can't talk about the obama presdiential library without referencing the current president, then your posts will be summarily deleted.

if you want to talk about the current POTUS, we have a entire thread dedicated to that: https://forum.skyscraperpage.com/sho...6876&page=1687

please stay on topic.
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #953  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 4:06 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,095
Actually. . .

While searching for Judge Blakey’s order online, I found this amicus brief by noted legal scholar Richard Epstein, who argues that it is Pres. Obama’s connection to Mayor Emanuel that creates a potential conflict of interest, thus requiring heightened scrutiny under the public trust doctrine rather than a mere recitation of public purpose as given in Paepcke.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #954  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 12:45 PM
cityofneighborhoods cityofneighborhoods is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 12
I'm still surprised that anyone who really knows Jackson Park well would argue that placing the OBC in that part of the park would do anything other than greatly enhance the park. Cornell Drive essentially ruins what could be Chicago's best lakefront park. I think Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates will do a great job of bringing back some of Olmsted's vision to that stretch along with creating engaging landscape design people will actually be excited about. The truly beautiful sections of the park like Wooded Island, Bobolink Meadow, etc. will either be untouched or eventually get more resources for improvements. It really is an opportunity in investing to make Jackson Park Chicago's greatest park - a great catalyst for improving the South Side. If park groups were actually out there advocating and raising money to make improvements to our parks, I would fully support them. It's baffling to me how much energy they instead spend protecting concrete.

Another argument that I’m having trouble understanding is that putting this cultural institution in a public park while simultaneously increasing the actualized and useable park space is worse than having essentially glorified lawns with all non native vegetation intersected by a 4-6 way road with cars driving by at 50 mph. City parks are human made for human engagement and are meant to be improved and evolve over time. No one is arguing a museum should be built on a forest preserve.

I think it would also be transformational to put the OBC on Garfield Blvd. across from everything happening on the Arts Block. That stretch could become a pretty unique cultural destination. The only reason I prefer the Jackson Park site is the opportunity to create a really special continuous gathering space in Jackson Park. We are truly lacking in those in Chicago. Just off the top of my head, some of favorite urban spots in the U.S. combine structures with landscape design like the rooftop of the Met overlooking Central Park, the concourse between the De Young and the Cal Academy of Sciences in Golden Gate Park, etc. For comparison, both the MOMAs in NYC and SF are great museums both are not really place makers. You just go in and leave.

Last edited by cityofneighborhoods; Feb 22, 2019 at 1:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #955  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 2:00 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 875
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. Cornell Drive essentially ruins what could be Chicago's best lakefront park. I think Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates will do a great job of bringing back some of Olmsted's vision to that stretch along with creating engaging landscape design people will actually be excited about. The truly beautiful sections of the park like Wooded Island, Bobolink Meadow, etc. will either be untouched or eventually get more resources for improvements. It really is an opportunity in investing to make Jackson Park Chicago's greatest park - a great catalyst for improving the South Side. If park groups were actually out there advocating and raising money to make improvements to our parks, I would fully support them. It's baffling to me how much energy they instead spend protecting concrete.

Another argument that I’m having trouble understanding is that putting this cultural institution in a public park while simultaneously increasing the actualized and useable park space is worse than having essentially glorified lawns with all non native vegetation intersected by a 4-6 way road with cars driving by at 50 mph. City parks are human made for human engagement and are meant to be improved and evolve over time. No one is arguing a museum should be built on a forest preserve.
EXACTLY. Plus i think you get more people going there if it is next to MSI than you would someplace else. Also, with them redoing the golf course and removing Cornell they can really transform the south end into a much better park. I have no problem with them using the park land, my issue is more that tax payers are going to be on the hook for Cornell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #956  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 2:55 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,095
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #957  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 3:22 PM
cityofneighborhoods cityofneighborhoods is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 12
^Right, I’m not saying there may not be some sort of legal hiccup that postpones groundbreaking long enough to change sites. I think even with the Lucas museum you had commented that if carried out until the end, FOP probably would have lost their case. I also understand the opposition to spending tax payer money. I’m more just trying to wrap my head around the commentary that somehow the OBC would ruin Jackson Park when from everything I’ve seen and read, it would usher in huge improvements.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #958  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 3:45 PM
woodrow woodrow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 746
^^^This. Why aren't the many butthurt fanboys of the Lucas Museum in the Soldier Field parking lot also upset by this? Just as the Lucas Museum would have VASTLY improved the part of the lakefront, this museum / library community center / GARDEN / increased parkland will VASTLY improve that part of Jackson Park.

At least those that were anti-Lucas in the park and are anti-Obama in the park are consistent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #959  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 3:51 PM
Vlajos Vlajos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodrow View Post
^^^This. Why aren't the many butthurt fanboys of the Lucas Museum in the Soldier Field parking lot also upset by this? Just as the Lucas Museum would have VASTLY improved the part of the lakefront, this museum / library community center / GARDEN / increased parkland will VASTLY improve that part of Jackson Park.

At least those that were anti-Lucas in the park and are anti-Obama in the park are consistent.
I wanted both Lucas and this. I'm not a fanboy though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #960  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2019, 8:15 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
That is just so stupid. A presidential library is not a "vanity project".
i get the sense that part of the issue is that this actually wont be a presidential library. obama isnt even calling it one anymore. hes dubbed it a presidential "center". the fact there wont be physical archives means it wont be managed by the National Archives. that decision alone has been catching a lot of flack among historians and researchers. i remember one of the big points of excitement initially was the notion that all these researchers/authors/intellectuals would be coming from around the world to gain access to first hand documents, but it definitely seems like that wont be the case.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/20/a...istration.html

i wonder had it actually been managed by the National Archives if it would have potentially avoided some of these issues around privatization of parkland since itd be a public institution overseeing operations.

that said, they are intending to include a CPL branch inside, which further confuses things.
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 5:35 AM.

     

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