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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 639
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: 5,612
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: 189
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 offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 637
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 offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,286
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?
__________________
All we ever see of stars are their old photographs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #706  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2018, 9:56 PM
left of center's Avatar
left of center left of center is online now
1st Ward
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Big Onion
Posts: 809
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
Posts: 112
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: 585
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: 13,586
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: 191
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: 69
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 offline
Team Alinghi
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 914
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: 840
^ 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: 2,813
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
     
     
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 10:17 PM.

     

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