^The Last Four Miles project refers to dedicating additional lakefront parkland in South Chicago, and creating additional lakefill in Rogers Park, Edgewater, and South Shore so that the entire Chicago lakefront would be public parkland, as called for in the 1973 Lakefront Protection Ordinance. The extension of Lake Shore Drive is emphatically not part of the FotP proposal (though I personally wouldn't mind that if done sensitively).

http://www.bauerlatozastudio.com/wp-...ur-Miles-1.jpg

The alderman in Edgewater should create a TIF on everything east of the red line and then use the money to eminent domain everyone's riparian rights to build the last four miles in Edgewater and Rogers Park.

Very few of those properties, at least south of Devon, still have their riparian rights. They sold them to the Lincoln Park Commission back in the 1920s.

It's more of a political problem, when you have condo owners going to meetings to demand "have there been any studies about how much property values go down from being next to a park?"

^ It's too bad Loyola was prevented from their lakefill plan back in the 1980s, I think there would be a lot more momentum to complete the missing segments of lakefront park.

A Robert Moses style leader could potentially get the project done by adding back in the LSD extension and relying on the support of drivers... the problem is that there's really no good outlet for the traffic once you hit city limits. Howard or Touhy would be overwhelmed if they extended six lanes up to city limits. Maybe the extension just ends up being a 2-lane urban parkway with a few pulloffs and passing lanes, like Rock Creek Parkway in DC. All pedestrian crossings would be on underpasses. After that, put in a bus lane on Sheridan so everyone benefits.

Also, just to play devil's advocate: CDOT and the Park District could absolutely remove Cornell with or without the Obama Library. That traffic really should be on Stony Island and calmed aggressively, as the city's plan now calls for, or detour east to Lake Shore Drive where pedestrians can cross over/under. It looks like taxpayers will be on the hook for this work anyway, so even if Obama decides to take his ball and go home, this would be a worthy investment in a historically dense, lakefront community.

Not to nitpick; but hasn't most of the US throughout it's history involved basically selling public trust land to private entity that excludes the public?

In anycase, I find it odd that the opposition to the Library is really this steadfast in opposition to it. After all, it's not like it's going to demolish over people's homes like what the last presidential library did xD

"Public trust land" is land that has specifically had a restriction placed on it during transfer. That's not the same as land owned by the government being sold off for homesteading and settlement as contemplated.

The state of Illinois deeded the site of Jackson Park to the South Park Commission with the express restriction that the land “be held, managed and controlled by them and their successors, for the recreation, health and benefit of the public, and free to all.”

Call me elitist, but that seems like a silly thing to be honest. Considering the fact that the center will only occupy a small parcel of land in the North western portion of the park, I think the brewhaha is a bit hyperbolic.

It also doesn't help that Protect our Parks, the main party behind the lawsuit, reeks like it's sister organization Friends of the Park of being elitist nimbyism that don't want development just, because.

It's not "just, because". And it's not anti-development. It's anti taking of open public land, that is not themed, programmed, dedicated to a single use. And making it, for the next 99 years at least, off limits to any other use.

This is much different than constructing say a field house of equal footage in a park. A field house at least can be used by any organization for any purpose. It does not belong to one organization, one theme, one use, and that use only. (Note, I'm not a fan of field houses in parks either, when they are better sited elsewhere).

Now on the subject of roads and parking lots, to be consistent, no, those are not parkland either, they are plazas. Were you aware that the United Center is surrounded by acres of open green fields?
http://i63.tinypic.com/6fcvna.jpg

Plazas are not parks. Daley Plaza is not a park. But it is non-themed open space, and I bet everyone here would reject losing Daley Plaza for a building. A parking lot, a street can be closed at any time. Used for any other use like any field.
Columbus Drive is closed and used for street festivals, races, etc. Same with the tailgating lot at Soldier Field. They are closed to cars, and nothing says they have to have cars for the next 99 years. Nothing dedicates them to one sole use. And they are easily converted to parkland open space if that's what a future public decides.

There is a real legal distinction between putting a private organization's private building in a park that is not at all comparable to existing public buildings, roads and parking lots.

Like the Shedd, Field and Adler?

Like I said, once that land is gone, it is gone forever. If the next generation decides that they don't like museums in parks, too bad, stuck with it. I see no reason to continue the assault.

I was responding to the argument that since Cornell Drive cuts through Jackson Park, and MSI is there, the rest of the land is fair game for development because every acre of Jackson Park isn't pristine wilderness.
Bad past decisions don't justify future bad decisions.

How about we just consider the parks landmarked at this point and off limits? And if any use closes, such as a golf course or a parking lot, that use is removed and the land goes back to open field.
If parks can't be landmarked and preserved, what's the point of preserving some old building? Either "highest best use" counts for all land, or none of it.

I was speaking today with a contractor involved and he feels 99% certain the project will go through as proposed. Apparently the property was transferred from state land to federal land, so the plaintiffs have no chance at winning the case.

It is widely believed among insiders that they're allowing the latest lawsuit to go through just so the FOTP circlejerk people drain all their money. The ol Chicago way.

I think LSD could end at Sheridan Rd. at the bend by Calvary cemetery. With new lakefill there's plenty of open space there to make a good outlet to a busy 4 lane road.
There's not alot of traffic on LSD north of Foster now anyway, I don't think it would have to be as wide, maybe 2 lanes each direction as a parkway.

I always thought the lake-fill, road ext would be a boon for the RP. Increase and connect usable beach front. Protect beach from erosion. Create estuary for bird and fish habitat. Increase parkland and recreation. Remove NS through traffic from Sheridan. Decrease express bus times from Evanston and NS. And the big bonus, allow for a pedestiran/bike friendly road diet on Sheridan with better local and express service to loop. And more pleasant dining experiences with less traffic.

By that logic, if I want to redevelop a beloved historic landmark, I can buy the building, sell it to some federal agency, let them tear it down, and sell the land back to me. That's fine right?

Great, let's have more loopholes around preservation.

You act as if what you described is somehow easy to do.

A lot seems to have gotten lost in translation somewhere. There's no state or federal land involved.

The Chicago Park District transferred the land to the city, which plans to transfer it to the Obama Foundation. This is apparently an attempt to circumvent state statute, namely 70 ILCS 1205/10-7:

Any park district owning or holding any real estate is authorized to convey such property to a nongovernmental entity in exchange for other real property of substantially equal or greater value as determined by 2 appraisals of the property and of substantially the same or greater suitability for park purposes without additional cost to such district.

Of course, if the plaintiffs truly had no chance at winning the case, the judge wouldn't have last week allowed it to proceed.

It doesn't have to be easy. It just has to be profitable.

Lawsuit ruling expected next week. A good summary of the legal situation:

https://www.chicagoreporter.com/ever...enter-lawsuit/

Judge rules against park advocacy group.

Free at last........