Quote:
One of the main functions of parkland in a big city is to give people a place to get away from the bustle and noise of the city. In Chicago even the lakefront doesn't serve that function very well with LSD and the number of people using the bike paths. There is a real need to have large contiguous 20 acre blocks of park, so there is a real sense of peace and seclusion in the middle of that. Taking 20 acres and replacing it with 20 1 acre parks isn't the same thing. Not even close. |
Quote:
Appropriating functioning public land would be a slap in the face to the local community and a direct contradiction of Obama's origin story (i.e., empowering the disenfranchised, urban proletariat-- for whom the whole park system, it should be noted, was devised)-- especially when empty/non-functioning space abounds around it in the form of vacant, blighted lots. The Obamas are placing a great deal of emphasis on the possible transformative effects of the library. As such, the library should embrace the city as part of its mission and its form. It should operate more like an inviting storefront, less like a castle in a garden. Does that require bolder thinking? Yes, because the archetype for these institutions is suburban or even bucolic in nature. But if there were ever a project for bold thinking, this would be it. Which is why I have the exact same response as Sam: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
And its reasons like this why, despite the blowback they tend to get here, organizations like Friends of The Parks matter.
|
Quote:
|
Finally, someone else agrees that UIC should win the library. If UIC wins, their their plan will help benefit the entire West Side rather than the portion of the South Side surrounding Hyde Park. Heck, UIC would be building instead of destroying new parkland if they win. Sure, some of the new parks would be over an expressway, but it would certainly remove some of the expressways ungodly sights and we would also have a new "Bllomingdale Trail" where the former Sears Line was. In addition, we would have a new CTA station, a new BRT Line that connects OPL to Museum Campus, Circle Interchange being less horrid, new opportunities for Southwest Loop, renewed interests in North Lawndale, which will all lead to more developments on the West Side and even people starting to move back into the city. This is pretty much seen as a win, win, win, win for everybody in the city.
P.S. Seriously, you would finally be able to walk around the Circle Interchange! |
Long time reader, first time poster.
Attorney and lifelong South-sider. I am not trained in Architecture although it was truly my first love. In college it became apparent that my ability with complex math was suspect at best but that I was given an ability to think quick on my feet and lead and inspire with rhetoric - so I chose law. As for writing, it comes and goes depending upon what time of day it is :D I have played golf at Jackson Park many times over the years - drove the green for the first time in my life at Jackson Park - believe it was the 8th or 9th hole. I have also played softball in Washington Park and have also gone to a number of cookouts on the park grounds. As someone who has been intimately associated with the park, this issue of the Obama Presidential library location and its proposed attendant use of park grounds matters a great deal to me. THIS ISSUE... the Obama Library issue... was enough to get me off the sidelines and take a few moments out of my day to give my 2 cents. The question I have is WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? Who are those people who stand to gain the most by having this library in Washington/Jackson Park? Is it the people who care most about history and preservation? Those same people who rarely if ever have even bothered to set foot in either one of the parks in question? And if they did bother to come on the south-side and set foot in the park was it in passing or did they stay and continue to use the park on a consistent basis? Do those people live in the neighborhood surrounding the park? Do they even live on the south-side? See, it is easy to sit back and dictate what others should do while sitting in an ivory tower far removed from the day to day life that others live. The U of C proposal says that they will replace the park space that will be utilized for the library. As someone who has seen that neighborhood, I believe them. And I am sure friends of the park and neighborhood groups will ensure that they make good on their word - and it will, of course, all be in writing at the appropriate time. There are plenty of blank lots in that area and other lots with dilapidated homes on them where you will likely find the homeowner amenable to sell for the right price. I believe the new park space can be contiguous. Will a road run through that newly contiguous space? Probably but there are roads that run through parts of the park right now. As long as the ball fields are saved, areas to golf are saved, as long as areas to cookout and gather together are saved, and as long as the wide expanse of land is saved for parkland... helping to maintain the general character, essence and feel of the park, I think this can be a win/win for all involved. I would submit to you that the real stakeholders are the people who stand to benefit most from seeing the areas in question being reinvigorated, revitalized and gentrified. The real stakeholders are the people who actually use the park and live in neighborhoods around the park. And for the those people, most (not all, but most) would surely welcome the tremendous boost that this Library would bring to their long forgotten, long dilapidated, crime infested neighborhoods. And most (not all, but most) of those people would gladly give up a small portion of either of the parks in question if it served the greater good and improved the quality of life of the people in that neighborhood and of the people that actually use the parks in question. And finally, EVERY Chicagoan should have an interest in seeing the South-side come to life. As long as the south-side is viewed worldwide as a forgotten crime infested wasteland to be avoided and Chicago is viewed as a city of two cities - one for the haves and the other for the have-nots - one to be lived in the other to be avoided - as long as it is viewed like that, Chicago will never reach its truest potential and be as great as it can be. It wasn't until New York gentrified Harlem, the Bronx, Brooklyn, etc. and lowered crime did it reach the favorable world view/peak in popularity that it now enjoys. Chicago must do the same. If Chicago hopes to continue to thrive well into this century and the next, it must eliminate the negative stigma of the south-side because whether you like it or not it is a driver -- that perception drives the news media, drives the news coverage that Chicago gets, drives perception, drives away some potential businesses and drives away potential new residents. I submit to you that the South-side is our Bronx, Harlem, etc. And I see nothing on the horizon quite like the Obama Presidential Library proposal that has the potential of a 5/10 or even 15 year complete turnaround for that area. And if that area is turned around, it could spur a complete turnaround of Bronzeville, Woodlawn, and eventually Grand Crossing, etc. This is the gift horse. This is the potential catalyst. We would be fools to turn it away. . |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
@ ViaChicago^ ... I think you will see them eventually build on those lots... just not the primary structure. The primary structure has to be in park space for it to have the "wow" factor they are looking for in order to win the bid. If you situate the library into an old blank lot it would not have the same appeal aesthetically.
|
Quote:
Thanks:tup: |
Quote:
Looks like you're not the only local resident in favor of this http://www.chicagobusiness.com/artic...a-library-plan In a joint letter, the four—Aldermen Pat Dowell, 3rd; Will Burns, 4th; Leslie Hairston, 5th; and Willie Cochran, 20th—said they are "committed to doing all that is necessary" to bring the library to the South Side, where Obama lived during much of his professional career. "As elected officials with responsibility to represent the interests of our constituents, we are determined to make appropriate locations available in a timely manner," as the foundation planning the library has requested, the letter states. "The bid enjoys enormous support from civic leaders, community organizations and residents." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I am very confident that the powers that be will see the big picture here and get this thing done. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Would there be this much objection to a new pool facility or other recreational building built in the park which might have an even larger foot print? What if the roof of the library was landscaped and integrated into the park? As far as slippery slopes... yeah, before you know it, every president from Chicago will want to gobble up park land (1:1 though :) ) with their own presidential library... |
^^^ As if that weren't enough, if this and Lucas go through, we'll have people clamoring at the door trying to make $2 billion investments in all of our parks! Oh the horror!
As much as I'm a proponent of principals when it comes to planning and design in Chicago, when you cut through it all, the fact is that these museums are going to take up such a tiny portion of our total park land and create such a disproportionately large benefit, I can't see how anyone can be against them in the end. I suppose similar economic arguments have been used for evil as is the case with Prentice, but the fact is that no one is claiming these are the only spots we can build these museums, but rather that these are the best spots to build them. Regardless of how it all shakes out, I am excited that we have such an opportunity two add to world class institutions to our city virtually overnight. It almost makes up for the loss of the Olympics. Maybe we will still go for the Olympics down the road and have that much more to show off when we finally land that event. |
Quote:
Parkland was not established for any swinging dick with billions of dollars to do whatever they want with the land. The land is owned by the public as a reprieve from city life, and it dosent have a price tag on it for a reason. We dont have mountains in Chicago. We dont have endless ocean. We dont have pristine forests. This is it, this is what we as residents have as a salve to the insanity of living in a giant concrete jungle. Is nothing sacred to you as long as a dollar sign is attached? Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 3:33 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.