HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #701  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 1:32 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 686
aaron38, ^ that's not the way the real world works now or ever in the past or will ever work in the future...

of course Lucas was serious, he was fighting the FotPL lawsuit, he had SCB working on construction documents and he had purchased a home in the city...

you have yet to really prove that all of the institutions in our parks throughout the city are in any way an actual detriment... they are all, almost without exception (not sure about the benefits of a NFL stadium to the park), rather a huge benefit to the city and to the activity in the parks in which they reside, which can be easily proved...

Last edited by pilsenarch; Jan 13, 2018 at 1:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #702  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2018, 5:29 PM
spyguy's Avatar
spyguy spyguy is offline
THAT Guy
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,700
Quote:
Column: An Obama tower in an Olmsted park? Yes, but design still needs refinement
By Blair Kamin

During his White House years, Barack Obama did not shy away from big, provocative political issues. The aesthetic instincts of the former president, who once wanted to be an architect, are proving no different.

Seven months after unveiling the design for his Obama Presidential Center, including a stone-sheathed museum tower that I panned as ponderous and Pharaonic, Obama was back last week, via video this time, to tout a revised design for the high-rise — taller, slimmer and even more monumental than the first edition.
Kamin doesn't seem bothered by the setting, just wants refinements to the tower (which I agree with).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #703  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 8:15 PM
JK47 JK47 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 258
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
The Museum of Contemporary Art is superior to the Art Institute.

The only reason, and I do mean the ONLY reason to put a building in a park is so it can snobbishly sneer down at others and say "Look at me, over here on the lawn all by myself, I'm so much better than you over there". Vanity and pride.

The Museum of Contemporary Art is located on public land that is leased for 99 years at a cost of $1. It was the location formerly of a National Guard Armory (106th Cavalry) which was relocated to a building near Soldier Field that needed to be renovated for use as an armory to the tune of $4.6 Million. The Armory was, as you may have noticed, directly adjacent to a public park in an area where there is little green space.

This Museum is therefore much worse than AIC by your own reasoning.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #704  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 9:30 PM
Chi-Sky21 Chi-Sky21 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 720
Well i guess even though i am wearing 4 year old jeans from kohls....i am vain and snobbish cause guess what, I like it there, it IS a better location, it is a better looking building and its collection of Art BLOWS AWAY the MCA...so mission accomplished it is better than you over there and i am completely ok with that... the Art Institute is on a level few museums achieve, MCA is not even on the scope
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #705  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 9:31 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is online now
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,415
I wasn't aware of that. I'm not going to defend any sweetheart deals the MCA got. But government land and public land are not the same thing. Armories, like most government buildings are not open to the public for recreational use.
Should the armory land have been turned into parkland? Maybe. But it wasn't a park yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
of course Lucas was serious, he was fighting the FotPL lawsuit, he had SCB working on construction documents and he had purchased a home in the city...

you have yet to really prove that all of the institutions in our parks throughout the city are in any way an actual detriment... they are all, almost without exception (not sure about the benefits of a NFL stadium to the park), rather a huge benefit to the city and to the activity in the parks in which they reside, which can be easily proved...
Suing for free parkland ($10 for 99 years) doesn't count as being serious.

I don't have to prove that buildings in parks are a detriment. Rather, those who want to seize parkland need to show that there is absolutely no other place those buildings could be built. And that these institutions that all charge admission are economically not viable if they have to pay for land like everyone else.

What if Amazon pulls a Lucas and says they'll bring 50,000 jobs to Chicago, but only if they can have a lakefront campus. In Lincoln Park. Wouldn't that be a benefit to the city and increase activity in the park?
This is a real question. Why should Lucas and Obama get Chicago parkland but not Jeff Bezos?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #706  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 9:56 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: 1,584
There really isn't a set precedent for a big corporation to move its HQ to parkland in the city. Besides, nothing of the sort was requested by Amazon of contender cities, unlike thinks like transit accessibility.

As for museums, there is decades of precedence of locating them in parks. Almost all of Chicago's most prestigious institutions are on parkland along the lakefront. I think their presence enhances our parks, much like a field house, statue or monument. Having the Lucas museum replace an asphalt parking lot would have been a major win, in my book. Much like the Obama library replacing Cornell Dr.

Now, forcing the city to remove the road and upgrade Stony Island Ave using taxpayer dollars is another argument entirely...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #707  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 11:16 PM
Khantilever Khantilever is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Chicago
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
This is a real question. Why should Lucas and Obama get Chicago parkland but not Jeff Bezos?
This sounds like the NIMBY reasoning one hears when arguing for why we ought to encourage more development. They always respond saying “why do you care so much about the developers?” It’s as if they can’t see past the first-order effects and recognize that it’s not about the developers’ interests (nor Obama’s or Bezos’ or Lucas’) but about the benefits society as a whole may enjoy. That our interests happen to align with their profit motive or vanity is irrelevant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #708  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2018, 3:49 PM
Chicagoguy Chicagoguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 589
I think Rahm should have taken a cue from Daley's playbook after losing the Lucas Museum, and bulldozed that parking lot in the middle of the night.

If you want your "park" so badly, fine, we will make it into a landscaped park!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #709  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2018, 4:25 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is online now
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 14,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicagoguy View Post
I think Rahm should have taken a cue from Daley's playbook after losing the Lucas Museum, and bulldozed that parking lot in the middle of the night.

If you want your "park" so badly, fine, we will make it into a landscaped park!
Judge order prevented that
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #710  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2018, 4:56 AM
TimeAgain TimeAgain is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 193
Hopefully this thing actually gets started this year. Needs to be built ASAP. New designs are a major improvement, as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #711  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2018, 5:01 AM
Fvn Fvn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimeAgain View Post
Hopefully this thing actually gets started this year. Needs to be built ASAP. New designs are a major improvement, as well.
Groundbreaking should be at the end of this year if I recall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #712  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2018, 3:02 PM
r18tdi's Avatar
r18tdi r18tdi is online now
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,048
Crain's provided a link to the PD application, if anyone is interested.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #713  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2018, 5:00 PM
Randomguy34's Avatar
Randomguy34 Randomguy34 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Chicago & Philly
Posts: 925
^ Nice! If anyone still wants the City Clerk link, here it is: https://chicago.legistar.com/Legisla...vanced&Search=
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #714  
Old Posted Jan 17, 2018, 11:38 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,885
Quote:
https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2018...-design-tweaks

Blair Kamin on Obama Presidential Center Design Tweaks
Alexandra Silets | January 16, 2018
..

Quote:
https://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2018...ease-activists

CULTURE
Will Changes to the Obama Presidential Center Appease Activists?
Alexandra Silets | January 15, 2018


......But concerns run deeper than drive time. It will cost an estimated $100 million to expand Lake Shore Drive to accommodate the shift and increase in traffic, a cost that could be shouldered by taxpayers.

“I asked a Department of Transportation official how much it would cost and I was told that it would be a minimum of $100 million for just for Lake Shore Drive,” said W.J.T Mitchell, a University of Chicago professor who co-authored a letter of opposition to the plan signed by nearly 200 members of the university’s faculty.

“You can figure another $100 million for reconfiguring Stoney Island,” Mitchell said.
“The foundation is being disingenuous about the road improvements – they want to maintain status quo of traffic, not make it better.” .........
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #715  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2018, 11:24 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,790
Richard Epstein criticizes the giveaway of parkland in Newsweek
Obama Library Plans Run Into Trouble On Chicago’s South Side

It is an open secret the Obama forces are doing what’s best for themselves by trying to locate the facility in a posh neighborhood without regard to the negative consequences on the rest of the community.

In making its demands for the new facility, the OPC notes correctly that Jackson Park is not held in “public trust” and thus is ripe for development. But beware of hidden technicalities.

The public trust doctrine dates back to the famous, if Delphic, 1892 Supreme Court decision in Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois. It provides that public trust lands, like Lake Michigan and its adjoining beach, cannot be sold or given away by the state. This restrictive principle is in practice quite perverse, insofar as it blocks perfectly sensible transactions between the state and private parties that work to the mutual benefit of both sides.

The correct approach, therefore, should scrutinize the transaction to ensure that the state receives cash and in-kind benefits that exceed the value of the property it surrenders. (The private party, like the Obama Foundation, can take care of its own interest.)

The just compensation requirement operates in the same way as in ordinary takings cases, only in reverse, because the government is disposing of the land and not acquiring it.

First, it preserves fairness by making sure that both sides come out ahead. Second, it imposes a price constraint on the private party to incentivize it not to take deals that make no sense in the first place. The OPC is not exempt from these rules because of its lofty ambitions.

Since Jackson Park is not held in public trust, Chicago can make a deal with any private party. But that added freedom does not remove from it the obligation to receive a fair value for what it transfers—including valuable building rights on public lands. Some years ago, I described this public trust doctrine as the inverse of the takings clause: “nor shall public property be given to private use, without just compensation,” in order to make sure there is no sweetheart deal in either direction.

There is no way that this Jackson Park transaction passes that fair-value test. Chicago receives no direct compensation in cash or kind from the transaction. Instead, it suffers three kinds of losses.

The first is the financial obligation to retrofit the park to accommodate this oversized project. The second is the loss of amenities in Jackson Park and its surroundings. The third is the long-term inconvenience and delay to the many commuters and visitors who today use the park’s roads and other facilities.

The deal would fall apart if the Obama team were required to compensate the City for these losses. Yet the balance is far different with virtually all the other sites on the South Side, like Washington Park.

There, the new center could act as a magnet that would increase the value of nearby parcels of land, which would benefit greatly from the increased commercial and tourist traffic generated by the project. And the close access to Chicago’s expressway system would reduce the cost and inconvenience of reconfiguring city streets.

The above analysis offers a clear blueprint by which to evaluate the transfer of public lands to private parties. Unfortunately, the relatively clear tests for major land use decisions has been aggravated by the so-called “exaction problem.”


And Friends of the Parks' executive director in Crain's
Obama Presidential Center controversy about parks, not race

Just recently, a white man who is very involved with Jackson Park scolded me in response to an email to Friends of the Parks' supporters. We were celebrating the fact that the Chicago Park District filed a plan to replace the track and field that would be displaced by the Obama Presidential Center. He was mad that we claimed any part in that victory. He wanted all the credit.

Later that same day, an African-American woman who lives on the South Side gave it to me for celebrating any victory at all. She said that the only victory is keeping the OPC out of Jackson Park altogether.

So, here's the thing.

Opinions about the Obama Presidential Center do not break down neatly along racial lines.

Friends of the Parks has gladly accepted invitations to participate at a handful of tables over the last year or so, to provide perspective and consider strategy as local residents analyze the various Jackson Park "revitalization" issues. ...

And we are participating in, and coordinating with others around, the Section 106/National Environmental Protection Act review that is taking place right now for Jackson Park, as we do all the time on projects that impact parks all over Chicago.

Plus, we have attended a number of invite-only meetings with the Obama Foundation alongside a diverse set of community stakeholders, park advocates and historic preservationists.

This stuff is being analyzed six ways to Sunday.

And people don't agree with each other. People who are white don't all agree with each other, and people who are black don't all agree with each other.
Meanwhile, of course, right-wing anti-Obama ugliness in the social media and fake news sphere is definitely spiking as those elements celebrate any bumps that Obama faces along the way to actualizing the OPC. That mess is awful and has no place in this conversation.

The conversation should be about whether parks-lakefront or not, historic or not-should be seen as prime parcels for real estate development in a city that is ranked No. 13 on the list of amount of parkland per 1,000 residents in high-density cities, according to the Trust for Public Land's 2017 City Parks Facts. We are the third-largest city by population. We should be at least No. 3 on the list. We don't have enough parkland as it is.

And the conversation should be about who's going to pay for all the road closures. But that's a story for another day.

We've said it before, and we'll say it again. All of the benefits of recently proposed museums on parkland in Chicago are possible without building them in parks. Since the beginning, and as recently as this month, Friends of the Parks has repeatedly encouraged the Obama Foundation to utilize vacant land across the street from Washington Park. We, and many others who oppose real estate development in parks, would love to see community-benefiting economic development and Obama's legacy honored on Chicago's South Side, where he got his start. Just not in a park.

Let's not again stoop to the racialized tactics. When that's what is really happening, it's appropriate to call it out. But that's not what this is.

In this city in which false dichotomies are often promoted by leadership in an effort to gain support for a particular public policy outcome, and, as we're reeling from the impact of such leadership in Washington, D.C., wouldn't it be nice if our hometown former president would call for a different kind of discourse? We at Friends of the Parks choose to believe that's who Obama is.

At a recent invite-only meeting held by the Obama Foundation to discuss the parking garage, a supporter of the OPC identified himself in affiliation with the nonprofit group he represents and suggested that those who ask any questions at all about pretty much any element of the Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park must be white and must not care about black people.

That comment broke the Obama Foundation's own stated rules around civic engagement.

This needs to stop.

Maybe Obama can be the change.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #716  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2018, 5:35 PM
XIII's Avatar
XIII XIII is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
And Friends of the Parks' executive director in Crain's

No way. Friends of the Parking Lots is jumping on a controversy bandwagon?! Juanita has come out of seclusion to try to get her name and grade school writing published in any rag that will accept it? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.

__________________
"Chicago would do big things. Any fool could see that." - Ernest Hemingway
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #717  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2018, 7:08 PM
davytudope davytudope is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by XIII View Post
No way. Friends of the Parking Lots is jumping on a controversy bandwagon?! Juanita has come out of seclusion to try to get her name and grade school writing published in any rag that will accept it? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.

I'm shocked too. it's not like they've been commenting on this since the site selection process. And I don't know why they think people care about their opinion on this. It's not like people have been wondering what they have to say about this to the point of bringing them up dozens of times on just one thread on some architecture forum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #718  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 9:24 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,790
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #719  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 9:40 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: 1,584
^ I'm all for removing Cornell Dr (and most other roads that bisect our parks) but Jesus, 175 MILLION? To widen Stony Island and remove a few stretches of roadway? How much of that is lining the pockets of politicians/unions/developers?

Also, underpasses? Didn't these idiots whine and whine about having an above ground parking garage on the damn Midway so that museum patrons can *interact* with the neighborhood? Now that the parking is underground, they are going to keep those patrons underground so they don't even set foot in the neighborhood at all?

Seriously?

SMDH
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #720  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2018, 10:06 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Spaceship Earth
Posts: 5,075
That Sun-Times article is loaded with typos and grammatical errors. Did they lay off all the editors over there?
__________________
You slip me the cash and I'll slip you the wiener. <><><><><><>IMPEACHMENT NOW!

For me it can be reduced to this: For every personal freedom we gained from the automobile, we lost in social cohesion.
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 2:00 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.