CHICAGO | General Developments

[Busy Bee]

Because people need bathrooms and refreshment. You want people to spend time in your park? They won't stay there longer than a few minutes if they're hungry or need to go to the bathroom.

I pee on a tree. I have warm gummy bears I carry in my pocket. I stay for hours.

[Remy_Bork]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I pee on a tree. I have warm gummy bears I carry in my pocket. I stay for hours.

I think this is my favorite post that I've ever read on this forum.

[Swicago Swi Sox]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

The rôle of public parks in today's cities is something I've been scratching my head about for many years now. I notice that when I'm bicycling around Chicago in the summer, even in the best of neighborhoods on a beautiful day, I'll ride past many parks without a soul in them. On the other hand, if you'd have told me 25 years ago that Chicago's primary tourist attraction in the 21st century would be a public park, I'd have asked for a hit of whatever you were smoking.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that small public parks in urban areas 100 years ago are to give people a place to get out of their homes? Most large urban apartment buildings did not have balconies, or built-out rooftops, or (the biggest reason) Air Conditioning. On a hot summer day, people flocked to parks just to get out of the stench of their homes. Now, modern architecture and innovations have made it easier to Netflix and Chill. This leave small pocket parks for parents with young kids or dogs walkers.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

Friends of the Parks is acting out of principle, and nothing but principle. That's what makes it so incomprehensible to people who see everything as a balancing test (sparkly new museum or ugly parking lot).

People understand it, but also reasonable people who have real world experience and not just theoretical experience understand that sometimes to contribute to the common good, you have to stop being so rigid. There's a reason why, for example, the Constitution has the ability to be amended. The Founding Fathers weren't stupid enough to think that they knew how the world was going to be in 200+ years from now and they were not stupid enough to think that they knew and covered everything while forming the country.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

People understand it, but also reasonable people who have real world experience and not just theoretical experience understand that sometimes to contribute to the common good, you have to stop being so rigid. There's a reason why, for example, the Constitution has the ability to be amended. The Founding Fathers weren't stupid enough to think that they knew how the world was going to be in 200+ years from now and they were not stupid enough to think that they knew and covered everything while forming the country.

Correct, but the amending of the Constitution requires a very specific set of steps; Rahm is trying to use his clout to give away land he in theory may not have the right to give away. I'm not sure I see the parallels.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by Hayward

It's a dated declaration for public space. We don't use or program parks the same way they did over a century ago...so for the sake of better parks, this needs reevaluation

Just look at our open spaces in the middle of grant park or Lincoln park. They are typically empty except for say a handful of joggers. Key word --typically. But sport courts, restaurants, museums, pavilions and landforms should be established as acceptable obstructions within a modern interpretation of open space.

I get it, sure it erodes at the pure definition and vision for a space that can be seen from end to end with nothing but grass, flowers and trees but these parks are failures in a modern age. Look at the ultimate successful example of timeless ideas in Central Park where it's peppered with public buildings and attractions, but still very much distinguishable as open space. That's the way it should be.

I could not disagree with this more. Do we really want the middle of Lincoln Park to have large crowds? Lincoln Park is very far from perfect (there are way too many surface lots) but what I love about it is having very few people around, and little commercialization.

I think we need to make a distinction between a park like Lincoln Park and a park like Bryant Park, one should be mostly nature with not a lot of people, the other is more like a square which should be vibrant with Cafe's etc.

[SamInTheLoop]

I agree with Mr D in that I think FOTP is really, truly acting on principle. Sure, they have a strategy, and will employ tactics to try to ensure the principle they defend prevails, but I think the principle is their motivation.

Also, does Emanuel have anybody to blame but himself here (as with many things)? Why not talk to FOTP first and see if a compromise was possible? Was he counting on getting a favorable judge? Was it not arrogant of him to presumably assume that this definitely would, if challenged, all be found legal, and he and his allies in and outside of government could muscle it through, without really sitting down at the table with a/the major citizens park advocacy group?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Correct, but the amending of the Constitution requires a very specific set of steps; Rahm is trying to use his clout to give away land he in theory may not have the right to give away. I'm not sure I see the parallels.

My point is that sometimes you need to have a little bend in the real world and when you make something, you have to have a little humility about it for the future. We are talking about a big cultural institution - a museum. We aren't talking about a shopping mall here. And as far as adding a restaurant goes - well I definitely agree less with it than a museum and doesn't matter to me if it doesn't get built, but we spawned it into a general discussion about parks and what each of us think is personally acceptable in a park in an urban setting.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by SamInTheLoop

I agree with Mr D in that I think FOTP is really, truly acting on principle. Sure, they have a strategy, and will employ tactics to try to ensure the principle they defend prevails, but I think the principle is their motivation.

I don't think anybody would disagree that they're acting on Principle if they understand what the issue they have is.

[prelude91]

Originally Posted by marothisu

My point is that sometimes you need to have a little bend in the real world and when you make something, you have to have a little humility about it for the future. We are talking about a big cultural institution - a museum. We aren't talking about a shopping mall here. And as far as adding a restaurant goes - well I definitely agree less with it than a museum and doesn't matter to me if it doesn't get built, but we spawned it into a general discussion about parks and what each of us think is personally acceptable in a park in an urban setting.

Sure, and under normal circumstances, most people would have a little bend.

Maybe I missed something, but when was the Lucas site put to a vote or any sort of public poll taken? Who are you asking to "have a little bend"?

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by prelude91

Maybe I missed something, but when was the Lucas site put to a vote or any sort of public poll taken?

When the democratically elected officials of the city council and mayors office voted to approve the plan. This isn't a direct democracy.

[spyguy]

Orleans & Chestnut
Retail + office

[emathias]

Originally Posted by spyguy

Orleans & Chestnut
Retail + office
...

Nice. Does that take up the whole block, or just the currently open lots?

[msu2001la]

Originally Posted by prelude91

I could not disagree with this more. Do we really want the middle of Lincoln Park to have large crowds? Lincoln Park is very far from perfect (there are way too many surface lots) but what I love about it is having very few people around, and little commercialization.

I think we need to make a distinction between a park like Lincoln Park and a park like Bryant Park, one should be mostly nature with not a lot of people, the other is more like a square which should be vibrant with Cafe's etc.

If you look at an aerial of Lincoln Park, there is actually very little unprogrammed open space now, and most of it is East of LSD and north of the golf course.

The area south of Belmont Harbor is heavily used and has the zoo, Diversey Harbor, sport fields, N. Ave Boathouse, several museums, Brauer Cafe, etc.

There is rarely a time when any remaining open space isn't filled with people and dogs.

The same can be said for Grant Park. I keep reading on here how there is vast open space, but Hutchinson Field is full of baseball fields that are permitted from sunrise to sunset every weekend during the summer. The areas around Buckingham Fountain are all planted with formal gardens + paths (not to mention 4 concession stands with restrooms). Patrillo Band shell has a large open lawn, but that isn't exactly "unprogrammed" space. Then you have Millenium Park + Maggie Daley Park. The only unprogrammed natural spaces in Grant Park are really just at the edges and/or slivers of green between LSD and the harbor.

Northerly Island is probably the most prominent unprogrammed natural space we have, and half of it is occupied by a concert venue/surface parking lot.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by emathias

Nice. Does that take up the whole block, or just the currently open lots?

Not bad. The rendering looks like it would take up the vacant lots but not tear down the two other buildings to the north which I'm fine with

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by emathias

Nice. Does that take up the whole block, or just the currently open lots?

From the looks of it, just the current open lot at Chestnut and Orleans. Despite being 6 stories, the higher ceiling height for offices will make it imposing compared to the smaller buildings nearby. The design and addition of retail will certainly make this building a great addition to Orleans St.

[J_M_Tungsten]

Re: Orleans/Chestnut

[ithakas]

Originally Posted by msu2001la

The same can be said for Grant Park. I keep reading on here how there is vast open space, but Hutchinson Field is full of baseball fields that are permitted from sunrise to sunset every weekend during the summer.

Right. There's no better use for the front lawn of our city than a dozen empty softball fields that stay empty save corporate softball leagues and Lollapalooza/Taste of Chicago.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

From the looks of it, just the current open lot at Chestnut and Orleans. Despite being 6 stories, the higher ceiling height for offices will make it imposing compared to the smaller buildings nearby. The design and addition of retail will certainly make this building a great addition to Orleans St.

I think it will be OK, though who knows if it'll become out of scale. NeXT is being built on the same intersection and Circa 922 is on the intersection right north of there. Both are high rises

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by ithakas

Right. There's no better use for the front lawn of our city than a dozen empty softball fields that stay empty save corporate softball leagues and Lollapalooza/Taste of Chicago.

youre exaggerating, but whats your idea for something "better"?

having softball leagues on the front lawn of our city I think perfectly embodies what makes this a great, and democratic place to live.

im not sure what exactly it is you want. you say you want "programming", then when its demonstrated theres plenty of it (and heavily used in fair weather), somehow thats not good enough for you?