HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #521  
Old Posted May 6, 2017, 12:47 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,528
Kriston Capps of Citylab bemoans the giveaway of historic parkland. His understanding of the issues, though, is curious:

Washington Park is considered one of Olmsted’s four complete masterpieces, along with Central Park and Prospect Park in New York and Franklin Park in Boston. Any presidential library would be glad to have one of them as a front yard. But to plant such a facility in Central Park, Prospect Park, or Franklin Park—to even propose it—would raise howls of protest. Washington Park is no less sacred, but it’s located on Chicago’s South Side, a place with less social and political power than the others.


This completely overlooks the fact that it was the South Side "Bring It Home" faction who would have no dissent from outsiders worried about historic parks, and told anyone who raised such a concern to get their white asses back to the North Side.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #522  
Old Posted May 6, 2017, 6:18 AM
Sequenza's Avatar
Sequenza Sequenza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Chicago
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
Kriston Capps of Citylab bemoans the giveaway of historic parkland. His understanding of the issues, though, is curious:

Washington Park is considered one of Olmsted’s four complete masterpieces, along with Central Park and Prospect Park in New York and Franklin Park in Boston. Any presidential library would be glad to have one of them as a front yard. But to plant such a facility in Central Park, Prospect Park, or Franklin Park—to even propose it—would raise howls of protest. Washington Park is no less sacred, but it’s located on Chicago’s South Side, a place with less social and political power than the others.


This completely overlooks the fact that it was the South Side "Bring It Home" faction who would have no dissent from outsiders worried about historic parks, and told anyone who raised such a concern to get their white asses back to the North Side.
But the library won't be in Washington Park. It'll be one mile east in Jackson Park.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #523  
Old Posted May 6, 2017, 6:25 AM
Domer2019's Avatar
Domer2019 Domer2019 is offline
Biased in a good way?
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sequenza View Post
But the library won't be in Washington Park. It'll be one mile east in Jackson Park.
Maybe look at the actual article linked above ^

https://www.citylab.com/design/2017/...ibrary/525447/

Bigger quote:

Quote:
The Obamas considered two options for siting the presidential library in Chicago: Jackson Park and another South Side gem, Washington Park. It’s for the best that they went with the former, not the latter, according to Charles A. Birnbaum, president and CEO of the Cultural Landscape Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy organization charged with preserving America’s historic landscapes. “Had the Obama Library gone [into Washington Park], it would have claimed some 23 acres along the park’s western edge, which would have been both devastating and irreparable,” he writes.

Washington Park is considered one of Olmsted’s four complete masterpieces, along with Central Park and Prospect Park in New York and Franklin Park in Boston. Any presidential library would be glad to have one of them as a front yard. But to plant such a facility in Central Park, Prospect Park, or Franklin Park—to even propose it—would raise howls of protest. Washington Park is no less sacred, but it’s located on Chicago’s South Side, a place with less social and political power than the others.

On the other hand, Chicago has already infringed on Jackson Park’s integrity. And as far as that goes, Olmsted and Vaux included in the original design an administrative building. It was never built, but it was planned quite close to where the Obama Presidential Center is slated to go. Between the two sites, the cultural cost to build in Jackson Park was lower. It was altogether too low: The July 2016 decision raised few howls of protests from critics. As Birnbaum lamented at the time, design journalists who cried over the dismantling of the Four Seasons restaurant in New York had nothing to say about the Obama Foundation dismantling an Olmsted park in Chicago.
Mr Downtown just wanted to bring up the community dynamic misrepresentation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #524  
Old Posted May 6, 2017, 8:03 PM
BrinChi BrinChi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 107
I always thought Jackson Park was Olmsted's greatest work in Chicago. Is it true that Washington Park is more highly regarded?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #525  
Old Posted May 6, 2017, 11:06 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,528
Washington Park was more realized—the enormous meadow, the lagoon—and has been less altered. Washington Park is intruded on by the DuSable Museum, the Armory, and Dyett HS, but the roadways are pretty much original. Jackson was much altered by the Museum of Science & Industry, Lake Shore and Cornell Drives, the golf course, and the yacht clubs and harbors.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #526  
Old Posted May 9, 2017, 5:10 PM
i_am_hydrogen i_am_hydrogen is offline
tilted & shifted
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,515
Blair Kamin just posted this quote on his Facebook page:

Quote:
From Paul Harding, FAIA: "President Obama was a great President and Great Leader. I have toured several of Todd Williams and Billie Tsien's superb buildings and they were in my opinion the absolute best choice for this important commission. In my opinion their work relies on countless iteration to become an amazing architectural work. This project just needs more iterations, which I am sure that it will receive. The tower is a fine idea, but it just needs more development and visual richness. It needs a lot more of both so that it can achieve the visual richness of their Neurosciences Institute. The tower is rather banal right now. I understand the hill idea, however the hill idea overwhelms the lagoon side of the design. The buildings would be so much more spectacular if the buildings took advantage of beautiful views of the Frederick Law Olmsted's beautiful park with its iconic lagoon. The hill idea is very idiosyncratic and really overwhelms the potential of the design. I suggest deleting it all together or at the very least dialing it down, because it really does not work here. If the complex of buildings had more views of the lagoon and park through large glazed openings and outdoor terraces it would be so much better. This would provide a wonderful respite for visitors, the community and staff. I am sure that as one of this generation's greatest architects, Todd Williams and Billie Tsien, will develop this important commission further so that it will be incredibly inspiring and reflect President Obama's great leadership and lasting contribution to our society."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #527  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 12:04 PM
bcp's Avatar
bcp bcp is offline
Urban Living
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 5,501
that guy is an awful writer.... and that first sentence is straight outta N Korea
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #528  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 12:33 PM
Skyguy_7's Avatar
Skyguy_7 Skyguy_7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,556
^Amen. North Korea LOL. I would have taken his comments more seriously if he didn't feel entitled to opine his partisan views at the beginning there. You're an architecture critic; be neutral.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #529  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 1:03 PM
KWILLSKYLINE's Avatar
KWILLSKYLINE KWILLSKYLINE is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chicago
Posts: 625
I know this is going to be the most amateur questions you guys have heard in awhile but bear with me. How much say does Obama have in the design, if any? For projects like this does the person it's going to be named after actually sit down with the design crews and give recommondations or is it basically like, "here's four different designs, point at the one you like." and then it goes to the city for approval? I'm sure alot of the times when some project comes up those people being dedicated dont even want to get involved either because they dont have the time or just dont have a certain passion for the actual architecture that the designers do. Just curious of the process if anyone knows.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #530  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 2:00 PM
sentinel's Avatar
sentinel sentinel is offline
Plenary pleasures.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,593
So, I was a college senior doing a part-time internship at Paul Harding's office, before moving for grad school. He was incomprehensible then, and not much has changed lol.

Fun OT story: When I worked at his firm, the Chicago Grammy office was right next door. I remember it was maybe a couple of weeks before the Grammy awards, and I was looking for something at the front reception desk while the receptionist was at lunch. While I was there at the front of the office, Kid Rock walks by after leaving the Grammy office, with his entire entourage, looks at me from outside the office window wall and sticks his tongue out and gives me a 'hang ten' hand gesture, turns around and I see 'Kid Muthafuckin Rock' or some such white-trash nonsense bedazzled on his jacket LOL. I was amused but totally ignored him.

Regarding the Obamas input, I'm sure their considerations were at the forefront, and their thoughts are essentially what birthed this (hopefully) first iteration of the design. I have not hidden my disdain for the tower, which looks like a haughty and self-righteous imitation of a family mausoleum. Which is sad because I was a strong Obama supporter/voter and expected something a little more elegant...I guess high political acumen does not translate into appreciation of high design
__________________
Don't be shy. Step into the light.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #531  
Old Posted May 10, 2017, 2:01 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,528
^The client has total control over the design—within the bounds of the laws of physics, at least.

A few clients have thought enough about design matters to inquire of an architect why he made certain choices, or whether he thought about a different way of solving a problem. The majority will express certain broad themes, some of them a bit vague, like "openness" or "unobtrusive," and then choose among a few schematic alternatives and approve a final design, maybe with some final tweaks. And a few clients are so uninterested or not conversant with design that they need to see pretty worked-out sketches to choose among alternative approaches, or will leave the design almost entirely to the architect. I'd speculate that most institutional and corporate clients focus primarily on the program—what kinds of spaces need to be included—and less on the exterior design and cladding. With retail clients, of course, sometimes the opposite is true.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #532  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2017, 4:17 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is offline
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,528
At last, possibly, some planning before building

Announcement today from Friends of the Parks:
At our "Parks as Democracy?" conference this past week, Friends of the Parks Executive Director Juanita Irizarry reminded the audience and keynote panelist Michael Strautmanis of the Obama Foundation of our organizational position opposing the siting of the Obama Presidential Center (OPC) in a park. This was followed by a robust discussion among the panel and throughout the conference about what it means for communities and residents to be engaged in ensuring that parks are democratic spaces.

In this vein, Friends of the Parks' approach to the reality of President and Mrs. Obama's decision to locate the OPC in Jackson Park has been to raise our organizational voice and help mobilize others to raise concerns and critiques. As we have said repeatedly, at the very least there must be a true, transparent, comprehensive park planning process through which local residents and other Chicagoans can provide community input. The many proposed "revitalization" projects for Jackson Park and South Shore Park that have been floated by the City, the Chicago Park District, and the Obama Foundation must be considered as a whole, not in a piecemeal, uncoordinated fashion.

Therefore, we consider it a victory that yesterday the Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago announced a planning process to do an updated Framework Plan for Jackson Park, South Shore Park, and eventually, Washington Park!

The process will kick off immediately--with three "community conversations" coming up on June 21, June 24, and June 17. But we are assured that there will be many more meetings beyond that. Now it's time for us all to mobilize to ensure a true public participation process!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #533  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2017, 9:31 PM
Kumdogmillionaire's Avatar
Kumdogmillionaire Kumdogmillionaire is offline
Development Shill
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Chicago
Posts: 376
I like how they actually think people care about their opinion on the matter. The only reason they are even being talked to is so they will shut the fuck up.
__________________
For you - Bane
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #534  
Old Posted Jun 16, 2017, 10:03 PM
OrdoSeclorum OrdoSeclorum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumdogmillionaire View Post
I like how they actually think people care about their opinion on the matter. The only reason they are even being talked to is so they will shut the fuck up.
I get so upset any time I hear Friends of the Parks even mentioned. You know how in "Titanic" when Billie Zane grabbed a kid so he could get onto a lifeboat first? That's how I think of those people. Whenever I hear about something bad happening on the news I think, "I hope it happened to a Friends of the Parks board member and not someone who is caring or intelligent."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #535  
Old Posted Jun 17, 2017, 1:14 AM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,201
How about we just treat the parks like wetlands. Any park acres taken for development have to be replaced by equal park acrage elsewhere in the city?
__________________
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #536  
Old Posted Jun 21, 2017, 1:49 PM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 171
Apparently, the plan is to close Cornell drive in order to build a playground. That's just plain stupid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 9:25 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.