CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Chi-Sky21]

Sounds better to me this way, i bet it becomes a very active community site. You will still be able to see whatever you want to see from his archives...just digital copies. I am surprised they are doing this though because this almost definitely means the us gov is not picking up the tab to maintain the site.

[left of center]

I like the idea of the Obama Library (or I guess Center is the right word to use here?) to engage the community, but if it wont be an actual presidential library, that begs the question... where exactly will all the hard copies from Obama's presidency be held? Obama researchers and historians will still want direct access to that. Will that be in Chicago still? Another city? And if so, will that location then be considered the actual Obama presidential library?

The article doesn't really address this issue, only that "Digitalization allowed Obama to break away from the NARA; the agency will house the Obama records at another site."

Why not do both on this site? Have the community center with access to all the digitized files available to all, AND have a research center that is off limits to everyone but scholars and academics? Why does it need to be only one or the other?

[aaron38]

So we're taking up park land and building a big parking garage on park land for a branch library? Is there anything about this that isn't a scam?

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by aaron38

So we're taking up park land and building a big parking garage on park land for a branch library? Is there anything about this that isn't a scam?

Closing Cornell creates more parkland and when did a new library become bad? The hate for this project is bizarre.

[TimeAgain]

I just want this thing to start soon. The south side needs this so badly.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Closing Cornell creates more parkland and when did a new library become bad? The hate for this project is bizarre.

Cornell can be closed without building anything new.
Libraries aren't bad, but they don't belong in parks. The definition of parkland isn't "any and all government owned buildings and their lawns". Schools, Prisons, courthouses and DMV offices don't belong in parks either.

The only reason parkland was being surrendered for this was for the One and Only Obama Presidential Library. That would be a major tourist destination and therefore could at least justify a prime location that the folks from Iowa could easily find.

If this is just going to be the Woodlawn Community Center and Branch Library that just happens to be named in honor of Obama, then it should be built over on Cottage Grove or something to better serve the community. And be built on newly acquired land. Of which there is no shortage of.

[VKChaz]

Am not sure what to make of Sweet's column. Near as I can tell, this will be THE Presidential Library so I don't know that its importance needs to be questioned.

https://www.obamalibrary.gov/about-us

That said, I do wonder about any non-digital artifacts - whether they will ever be displayed, or if not, whether different archival decisions could or should have been made. But I don't think that should significantly lessen the importance of the location.
I also wonder about the placement of a public library (if Sweet is correct) in a park space vs. a well-trafficked location. But that is a question for the City to address.

[left of center]

It seems the site talks about the Presidential Library and the Obama Center as two different projects. It states that the Obama Center is going to be built in Jackson Park, and then nothing about the location of the library, other than the temporary warehousing of the documents up in Hoffman Estates. The Obama Center will be privately run & non-federal, while the library will be administered by NARA.

Not sure what to make of that.

[spyguy]

I don't get the complaints (has anyone here even been to a presidential library before?). This seems like a very logical move in 2017 and will have a lot of positive effects for the community. They are essentially building a giant civic center with a museum (which was always going to be the star attraction), public library, athletic center, forum, and various other facilities. As long as all the records are digitized and available to the public and serious academics, I don't see the need for them to be physically located on site for curious onlookers. I suspect this will become the new norm going forward (Comedy Central has already demonstrated this with 45).

From the Tribune:

As previously reported, the center, in a break with tradition, won’t house presidential papers. Instead, digitized versions of Obama’s unclassified records will be available online and the physical documents will be stored in an existing facility of the National Archives and Records Administration.

“There are very few people who go to those archives,” Williams said. If archives had been included in the center, he said, there would be a need for 40,000 square feet of “bombproof space” that would be of little use to residents of the surrounding neighborhoods.

[denizen467]

Originally Posted by spyguy

(Comedy Central has already demonstrated this with 45).

Please tell me this was (mostly) physically staged in an existing room and then video captured, as opposed to CG being so scarily realistic as of the current decade? E.g. the scuffs on the carpeting, random imperfections, sprinkler heads, etc. I'm sure many people here will know. Either way, it's an impressive outlay of funds for a tv show.

Meanwhile, I was hoping the Center would attract researchers from around the world. But if everything's digitized, it'll be more of a community center and general interest tourist attraction.

[10023]

Originally Posted by spyguy

I don't get the complaints (has anyone here even been to a presidential library before?). This seems like a very logical move in 2017 and will have a lot of positive effects for the community. They are essentially building a giant civic center with a museum (which was always going to be the star attraction), public library, athletic center, forum, and various other facilities. As long as all the records are digitized and available to the public and serious academics, I don't see the need for them to be physically located on site for curious onlookers. I suspect this will become the new norm going forward (Comedy Central has already demonstrated this with 45).

From the Tribune:

But that's what makes it a presidential library.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 in terms of reviving the neighborhood anyway. A "revived" Woodlawn would largely mean different people living there from whose who live there now (massive gentrification). So creating an expensive amenity on park land to "serve the community" is either going to have no effect whatsoever, or displace the people it's meant to serve.

[the urban politician]

^ 2+2=4 don’t it?

You’d figure more people would understand that

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by 10023

But that's what makes it a presidential library.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 in terms of reviving the neighborhood anyway. A "revived" Woodlawn would largely mean different people living there from whose who live there now (massive gentrification). So creating an expensive amenity on park land to "serve the community" is either going to have no effect whatsoever, or displace the people it's meant to serve.

I have never quite understood this sentiment... the sentiment that says gentrification and upward mobility is good for the West Loop and the Northside but it is somehow a bad thing for the Southside. Like residents of the Southside don't want good things... that they can't afford to pay for where they live... and that if their housing values go up it is a bad thing for them... and that residents don't exist who would be more than happy to stay in a home that is rising in value and/or that residents won't exist who will happy to sell their homes at a substantial profit.

So why yes... yes, yes... lets not improve Southside neighborhoods and lets continue to overlook them while the rest of Chicago prospers because rising home values, livable neighborhoods, good schools, etc., vis-a-vis the things that are the norm in the West Loop and Northside... will not be good for residents of the Southside.

Some sit in little ivory towers of their own minds and do not dare make these type of judgments about residents of the West Loop and the Northside but consistently make them about residents of the Southside. Why some people are so vacuous and out of touch as to continually make this kind of argument I will never know.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by 10023

But that's what makes it a presidential library.

It's a bit of a Catch-22 in terms of reviving the neighborhood anyway. A "revived" Woodlawn would largely mean different people living there from whose who live there now (massive gentrification). So creating an expensive amenity on park land to "serve the community" is either going to have no effect whatsoever, or displace the people it's meant to serve.

We ought to avoid perpetuating misconceptions about gentrification. Actual studies of the phenomenon have pretty conclusively shown that residents being “pushed out” of their neighborhoods is rare. Rather, their rents go up but they generally seem to tolerate it, since they also value the new amenities brought by the change. Note that I’m referring to gentrification in general, as opposed to the most extreme examples.

What incumbent residents do lose, however, is perhaps the old identity of the neighborhood and their political control. And if new developments are blocked, they may actually begin to be pushed out as existing homes are rehabbed to accommodate the new, higher-income residents. (This May be why gentrification in some places, like the Bay Area and Seattle, does seem to involve pushing out some residents and even causing homelessness)

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by 10023

It's a bit of a Catch-22 in terms of reviving the neighborhood anyway. A "revived" Woodlawn would largely mean different people living there from whose who live there now (massive gentrification). So creating an expensive amenity on park land to "serve the community" is either going to have no effect whatsoever, or displace the people it's meant to serve.

Except the local economy (or housing market) is not a zero sum game. It is possible for both things to happen.

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Except the local economy (or housing market) is not a zero sum game. It is possible for both things to happen.

Woodlawn is going to take decades to gentrify to even Uptown levels. Any talk about displacing residents is premature. I'm sure most would leave if they had the means.

The Obama Library alone isn't going to change the face of the area anytime soon. UChicago & lively Hyde Park are across the Midway. That wasn't enough to keep Woodlawn and surrounding areas from severe decline. Only now are we seeing a trickling in of campus-related construction going on on the south side of the Midway and the west side of Washington Park.

[LouisVanDerWright]

I've said this a million times, but anyone who thinks Chicago has an affordability crisis is either a liar or ignorant. I think it's usually the latter. Anyone who spends any significant time travelling around this city can see the huge number of disused buildings and huuuuugggggeeee tracts of vacant land just sitting there doing nothing. You could develop all that land suburban style with SFHs on two three or four lots and still end up creating thousands of units of housing. Woodlawn is very much in this category of neighborhood, there will be no shortage of space should new residents start moving into the area.

Originally Posted by Khantilever

We ought to avoid perpetuating misconceptions about gentrification. Actual studies of the phenomenon have pretty conclusively shown that residents being “pushed out” of their neighborhoods is rare. Rather, their rents go up but they generally seem to tolerate it, since they also value the new amenities brought by the change. Note that I’m referring to gentrification in general, as opposed to the most extreme examples.

What incumbent residents do lose, however, is perhaps the old identity of the neighborhood and their political control. And if new developments are blocked, they may actually begin to be pushed out as existing homes are rehabbed to accommodate the new, higher-income residents. (This May be why gentrification in some places, like the Bay Area and Seattle, does seem to involve pushing out some residents and even causing homelessness)

Woodlawn is less likely to see the racist dogwhistle for white people migrating to an area "gentrification" than it is to see large numbers of some other immigrant group that's overflowing their current enclave or being pushed out of another area by "gentrification". There are already significant examples of Chicago's Latino community on the move into new neighborhoods as they leave areas like Pilsen or Little Village or McKinnley Park or the rest of the SW side. Already there is a massive Southern and Eastern movement like a wave from areas along Archer into Gage Park, Marquette Park, Back of the Yards, and even starting to encroach on West Englewood. The residents of Pilsen and Little Village are being pushed by yuppies and hipsters, the residents of Bridgeport or McKinnley Park are being pushed by Chinatown's relentless expansion. Chinatown is even expanding into Bronzeville. It is FAR more conceivable that the migration of Chicago's Latino community or Chinese community will become an issue in Woodlawn over the next 20 years than that "white trust fund babies from the suburbs" (as Carlos Rosa's staff calls us) will start encroaching on this area.

I actually know many SW side aldermen who tell their constituents to cool it on the rhetoric against hipsters moving in because their brothers or cousins or uncles are doing the exact same thing to black families in Back of the Yards or Englewood and that they don't want the same racially charged accusations to become the latest fashion to hurl against their own in places like that. Very interesting times in American inner cities to be sure. At least this whole process is shaking things up and hopefully breaking up a little of the hardcore segregation that has persisted for nearly a century in many of these areas.

[Via Chicago]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

There are already significant examples of Chicago's Latino community on the move into new neighborhoods as they leave areas like Pilsen or Little Village or McKinnley Park or the rest of the SW side. Already there is a massive Southern and Eastern movement like a wave from areas along Archer into Gage Park, Marquette Park, Back of the Yards, and even starting to encroach on West Englewood.

these are pretty sweeping anecdotal statements, but i also dont think its saying anything particuarly new to claim that Hispanics are moving to places like Back of the Yards...theyve been the dominant demographic there for a long time. i also dont see hispanic residents "leaving" little village, if anything its simply a slowdown in immigration due to a number of factors combined with the residual effects of the housing crash which has slowed growth. virtually every single business in the neighborhood still treats english as a second language and all of the housing stock needs an incredible amount of work...not seeing the massive change that you are (obviously eastern portion of pilsen is already over and done but that was in motion for 15+ years if not longer. but thats a long way from Pulaski or Central Park. you might as well be talking about Cicero).

also, as much as we talk about the breaking down of old borders, the extreme segregation between places like North and South lawndale is still incredibly stark

2020 census should be interesting in any case

[emathias]

Originally Posted by spyguy

I don't get the complaints (has anyone here even been to a presidential library before?).
...

I've been to at least two - JFK's in Boston and Ronald Reagan's in SoCal. I think I've been to a third but I'm blanking on who/where it was. At least those two are nice facilities, as you would expect for two of the most popular presidents (JFK gets the "benefit" of having been assassinated, limiting how much negative opinion gets aimed at him - I think if he'd lived, he might have a lot more controversial memory, sort of a politically inverse of the decidedly mixed opinions there are of Reagan).

Originally Posted by Halsted & Villagio

I have never quite understood this sentiment... the sentiment that says gentrification and upward mobility is good for the West Loop and the Northside but it is somehow a bad thing for the Southside. Like residents of the Southside don't want good things... that they can't afford to pay for where they live... and that if their housing values go up it is a bad thing for them... and that residents don't exist who would be more than happy to stay in a home that is rising in value and/or that residents won't exist who will happy to sell their homes at a substantial profit.

So why yes... yes, yes... lets not improve Southside neighborhoods and lets continue to overlook them while the rest of Chicago prospers because rising home values, livable neighborhoods, good schools, etc., vis-a-vis the things that are the norm in the West Loop and Northside... will not be good for residents of the Southside.

Some sit in little ivory towers of their own minds and do not dare make these type of judgments about residents of the West Loop and the Northside but consistently make them about residents of the Southside. Why some people are so vacuous and out of touch as to continually make this kind of argument I will never know.

I'm generally in favor of gentrification - I think the benefits far outweigh the negatives, and cities could and should use some of the improved tax base to fund ways to soften the blow to long-time residents. For example, anyone who's lived in a home for a decade or more should be able to freeze their property taxes until the owner and the owner's minor children or spouse either die or sell, at which time any profit from the sale would be recovered via a lien on the value of the taxes deferred plus prime rate interest. They do something similar for senior citizens - it seems like they could create a similar program for any long-time resident and not just the elderly.

That way the city still gets some property taxes on-going even if they no longer rise while frozen, and in the long run the city gets made whole while the occupants continue to be able to afford to stay and not pushed out due to rising taxes. They could be given the options to repay deferred taxes in part of in whole at any time to save on the accumulating interest, or to pay the interest as they go to avoid compounding. That wouldn't be terribly difficult to implement and would solve most of the issues affecting property owners. An extra $250 per month in property taxes is a lot of money for many people living in pre-gentrification ethnic neighborhoods, but it's not uncommon for the property taxes in gentrifying neighborhoods in Chicago to go from, say, $1,500 annually to $4,500 annually with the span of a decade in areas that reach a tipping point where gentrification that had been slowly taking hold hits a certain inflection point and a trickle of outsiders turns into a mad rush of people trying to get in before prices rise to parity with post-gentrification areas.

Cities could offer a similar program to owners of rentals as long as they pass through their savings directly to renters who have some sort of income qualification criteria. That would be more complex, but it seems it could still be done in this day of automation and computation.

It wouldn't completely stop gentrification and loss of ethnic neighborhoods, but it would slow the process enough for long-time residents to be better positioned to benefit from the changes both in regard to benefiting from an economically better neighborhood and also from improved property values when they do eventually sell. Putting the decade-minimum residency requirement prevents short-term residents from taking un-intended advantage of the program. If a city wanted to be even more inclusive, it could count as residency any home located within the boundaries of the district/neighborhood, even if they moved around within the neighborhood - that would especially benefit renters who are much more likely to move around even just within the same jurisdiction.

[Halsted & Villagio]

We should steer clear of viewing one area or one race of people as monolithic. Just because you may see small vocal minority against this (in the news) does not mean that there is not a large silent majority in favor of it. The Southsiders that I have talked to... the silent ones who just work and avoid the politics of this... want their housing values to go up... they want safer neighborhoods... and they want better schools. They love what the Obama library can potentially do for their communities. They essentially want what anyone else in this city wants.