HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > General Development


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2015, 11:12 PM
The Lurker The Lurker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Great Lakes
Posts: 576
Yes. your first post was meaningful and intelligent. the following tantric racism bullshit was not. how you could have drawn prejudice from the swing dick joke is far beyond me. It's 2015 and were crying racism in architecture forums.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2015, 8:03 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
And, to be absolutely clear, I've yet to hear any direct criticism of Millenium Park for all its buildings and attractions. Maybe your ideological objections to "BUILDINGS IN OUR PARKS!!!" can not stand up to the success of that particular park?
I was trying to not drag this thread too far off topic, but since you insist...

I already made an exception for Millenium Park, as it's mostly recliamed land. But to go point by point:
The Bean could just as easily have been put in Daley Plaza.
Ice Skating could have remained on State, along with fountains, attractions, etc in an urban plaza setting, instead of Block 37 which everyone seems to hate anyway.
The Gardens are too formal and claustrophobic.
And Grant Park already had the Petrillo, why did it need two bandshells? Certainly didn't need a massive structure and a whole bunch of fixed seats that most people in the city can't afford to ever sit in.
The city did legal gymnastics to classify the bandshell as a "work of art" rather than a building to get around hight restrictions for buildings in Grant Park. And the acoustics are designed to simulate an indoor concert hall.
An indoor hall in a building on private land, not in a park, is exactly what it should have been from the start.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2015, 2:13 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
I'm sorry, but I guess I missed the actual criticism of Millenium Park?? (If that ^ was criticism, you figuratively stand alone...)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2015, 2:56 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,095
^I'm not following your argument, pilsenarch. Only the Harris Theater (and the de minimis Exelon Pavilions) are buildings that occupy what would otherwise be open space the public could enjoy. And I did severely criticize the Harris Theater, not only for violating the Montgomery Ward decision injunction (as it turns out, the city got property owner consents) but for the absurdity of spending a fortune to build a new theater for music and dance at the same time we were allowing the destruction of the acoustical masterpiece Medinah Temple.

What's becoming a disturbing pattern here is Mayor Emanuel using parks as a personal land bank: for the British School, for a new North Side (not named for Obama) College Prep High School, for the Lucas Museum, and now for the Obama Library. Chicago has plenty of vacant and underused land; hands off the parks!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted Jan 12, 2015, 8:34 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
I'm sorry, but I guess I missed the actual criticism of Millenium Park?? (If that ^ was criticism, you figuratively stand alone...)
The criticism is that none of the things that are in Millennium Park actually needed to be put there. And their success with residents and tourists isn't tied to being in a park setting. Yes it's successful, but it's also a waste of space when urban zoned land could have been used for all of those things instead of Grant Park.

To bring it back to Obama's library, the suburbs are masters at wasting land by surrounding buildings with wide manicured lawns. Frankly, building a library in a park in this day and age is something I'd expect of Schaumburg, not Chicago. At least the suburbs can get away with wasting land, being low density and surrounded by large wide open forest preserves.
Chicago can't afford to do that. All it has left are the parks. And one day it won't even have those anymore. Just a string of amusements surrounded by lawns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2015, 1:21 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is online now
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,888
Is it too glib to point out that Jackson Park was originally a series of amusements surrounded by lawns?
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2015, 2:20 AM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,095
That's overly simplistic. It was originally sand flats, but nonetheless set aside as a park. Its temporary use for the World's Columbian Exposition offered an opportunity to get an Olmsted landscape that would be the main legacy of the fair. The attractions would be there less than 12 months.

But once you have one of the world's great Olmsted landscapes, it doesn't need a lot of further improvement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2015, 3:57 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,490
The meeting for Washington Park will be at noon Jan. 14 at the park field house, 5531 S. Martin Luther King Drive.

The park district will host a meeting about Jackson Park at 6 p.m. Jan. 13 at Hyde Park High School, 6220 S. Stony Island Ave.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2015, 2:22 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
Mr. D., Just because a 'building' in the park doesn't violate the height restrictions in Grant Park, doesn't mean it's not a building... the whole dang park is a multi-level building.. design has made it appear otherwise

My point is, as far as I can tell, the criticism of Millennium Park essentially comes down to it's too successful, too many people. These are problems that I think the majority of south side neighbors would love to have...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #130  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2015, 4:19 PM
Via Chicago Via Chicago is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch View Post
Mr. D., Just because a 'building' in the park doesn't violate the height restrictions in Grant Park, doesn't mean it's not a building... the whole dang park is a multi-level building.. design has made it appear otherwise

My point is, as far as I can tell, the criticism of Millennium Park essentially comes down to it's too successful, too many people. These are problems that I think the majority of south side neighbors would love to have...
But of course the rules exist entirely for appearance. If the sub-structure allows it to function as a park/gathering space and blend into the surrounding cityscape: great. If the green roof instead were on top of a 10 story building...thats obviously a wholly different appearance fronting Michigan Ave.

As far as the success/failure of MP..this can be debated ad naseum and has been. Its one of a kind and should remain that way. I dont think it should serve as a future model for what a city park should be however. Beside MP's restrictive uses and quasai-private status, I maintain that people need escapes from throngs of people/noise/commercialization and the ability to get in touch with nature, such as it is. We as a city do not have the luxury of being settled in the midst of mountains or forests. We've obliterated any and all traces. Compared to any other major US city we are at a massive disadvantage here. The meager man made approximations are the best we've got.

Also, its entirely possible for parks to be popular and still provide an escape from the city without overt commercialization or attractions. Central Park demonstrates this...the landscaping and seclusion is the attraction in itself. As cities continue to grow these escapes are going to become ever more valuable, and ever more targeted for outside interests. Which is why its imperative to not allow intrusions into them, today or in the future.

Last edited by Via Chicago; Jan 13, 2015 at 4:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #131  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2015, 6:48 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
Central Park has dozens of buildings and and at least two vast major institutions.... it is a perfect example of how a park can have both seclusion and a major tourist attraction...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #132  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2015, 6:58 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
and, I don't think the Obama Library will be a 10-story building...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #133  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2015, 2:23 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,095
I keep hoping to hear from BVic about what the actual residents of the Washington Park neighborhood feel regarding the use of parkland. I've talked to 4th ward aldermanic candidates who say the neighborhood is up in arms about it, but this morning's Tribune reports that Friends of the Parks "drew little support" when a representative spoke against using parkland.

I also recently heard it claimed that U of C is not considering all the land it already owns along Garfield. Apparently part of the problem is that the university is holding back the choice sites for its own future plans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #134  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2015, 2:36 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
I don't think that aldermanic candidates would be the most objective source on the opinions of local residents...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #135  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 9:31 AM
BVictor1's Avatar
BVictor1 BVictor1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Downtown View Post
I keep hoping to hear from BVic about what the actual residents of the Washington Park neighborhood feel regarding the use of parkland. I've talked to 4th ward aldermanic candidates who say the neighborhood is up in arms about it, but this morning's Tribune reports that Friends of the Parks "drew little support" when a representative spoke against using parkland.

I also recently heard it claimed that U of C is not considering all the land it already owns along Garfield. Apparently part of the problem is that the university is holding back the choice sites for its own future plans.

Mr. D, it's a pretty mixed bag. I'll tell you that all the residents want the library, that's first and foremost.

I will tell you that seemingly the majority of people would like to see the library in the Washington Park neighborhood.

The big problem is that no one trusts the U of C. So many people think that they're seeking some sort of land grab. And I understand peoples distrust. Universities such as U of C and others have become so corporatized and business like that they've seemingly forgotten about the neighborhood and are all business.

People are very divided about whether parkland should be used. Some people are okay and others are very concerned and feel that there's too much VACANT land around the park not to utilize instead. The U of C owns 11 acres of property at the NW corner of 55th and King Drive.

It's been stated that 20 acres of land are needed and for an "urban" library that amount of land sounds ridiculous.

Personally, as a resident of Woodlawn, I'd honestly don't want to see the structure in the park at all. It's not like there are surface parking lots and asphalt that would be replaced as in the Lucas Museum proposal. I'd like those 11 acres that the U of C own utilized and there are other large parcels of land that I think could also be used. The land between 55th and 53rd, the green line and Prairie is vacant land, partially a parking lot for park & ride. This acreage could be used for a parking structure for transit and museum purposes.

This whole process has been 1/2 Assed.
__________________
titanic1
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #136  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 3:02 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,095
^Thanks for your perspective.

One thing that's been really striking here is the incredible clumsiness shown by the U of C, which I always thought of as having a pretty sophisticated community relations office and history, going all the way back to painful lessons they learned 40 years ago with The Woodlawn Organization. I have to wonder if somehow their hand was forced (by the committee leak implying Chicago's bids were weak) with some key piece of the plan missing, and now they're in the no-win situation of having to publicly defend a half-assed library/redevelopment plan that wasn't what they had in mind at all. It reminds me a bit of the fiasco 18 months ago when MPEA prematurely announced a huge hotel on the McHugh land they didn't yet control.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #137  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 3:14 PM
pilsenarch pilsenarch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 779
I agree with the sentiment that UC totally mishandled this. Without a proposed specific design, or even a suggestion of one, the diagrams depicting the 21-22 acre 'land grab' would make it appear that those entire chunks of the park will disappear into the library, when in fact, I'm sure it would be just a few acres at most... most observers could not be blamed for not understanding this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #138  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 3:16 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 3,817
I follow Openlands because of the work I do with Forest Preserve restorations, and they've released a statement on the Presidential Library plan. It's generally supportive, but guarded, as we all are. Bolding is mine.
Quote:
Statement by Jerry Adelmann, President and CEO of Openlands, to the Chicago Park District on the Proposed Obama Presidential Library

Opportunity to Inspire a 21st Century Plan for Chicago’s Olmsted Parks

Openlands believes that the proposal by the University of Chicago to locate the Obama Presidential library in or adjacent to Jackson or Washington Parks on Chicago’s South Side is an opportunity for the City of Chicago, the Park District, and the University to honor, restore, and reinvigorate both the legacy and the future vision for Chicago’s historic parks and their surrounding neighborhoods. Chicago can give the Library a spectacular setting, and the Library can provide a catalyst for enduring benefits for the citizens of Chicago.

Openlands recommends creating a 21st Century Plan for the Olmsted parks in Chicago that sets out a bold vision for restoration and future needs for our diverse population.

In the late 1800s, Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux, the designers of the parks, believed that urban parks provided refuge from the stresses of city life but also were democratic places for all classes of people to interact. This is still true today. Washington Park and Jackson Park can once again be vibrant community amenities for the neighbors as well as for people from all over the city and the world who will visit the Presidential Library.

Olmsted's gift was his ability to see the potential of a site and imagine a future suited for the residents of a given place. In Chicago that vision is vested in Washington and Jackson parks and the Midway Plaisance, the only Olmsted parks in Chicago. The cultural value of these great park landscapes should not be underestimated nor should the value of the presidential library in providing the spark necessary for their restoration, rediscovery, and reinvigoration.

To celebrate its centennial, the Forest Preserves of Cook County adopted their “Next Century Conservation Plan.” This plan sets out an inspired set of goals to restore nature, engage people, and reap the economic benefits of public open space. Openlands believes the Obama library can be the catalyst for a “next century plan” for our Olmsted Parks. The library is an unprecedented opportunity to celebrate the value of these great parks by honoring the power of the original design. This can be achieved by engaging the community in developing a plan for their restoration that embraces Chicago’s diverse population, shares economic value inherent in public open space with the neighborhood, and guarantees long-term stewardship.

Openlands supports the five principles clearly articulated by Vicky and George Ranney (“5 ideas: How the Obama library could enhance Chicago's historic parks,” Chicago Tribune, January 9, 2015).

Principle 1: Minimize building in the parks

The Library building footprint should be minimal and in the case of Jackson Park, be placed where the design indicated a structure could be built or in the case of Washington Park, should be constructed outside the parkland on acreage owned by the University.

Principle 2: Replace any land used for buildings with new or reclaimed park acreage

Any taking of park land for building construction needs to be replaced with additional acreage of new park space and where appropriate the removal of service structures and underutilized buildings that populate both parks.

Principle 3: Provide convenient public access and transportation

Seize the opportunity to create a regional transportation hub to serve multiple cultural and neighborhood amenities. All automobile parking for the Library must be outside the parks or underground. The road system should be improved for walkability and access to trail systems.

Principle 4: Exploit synergies with existing community and cultural institutions

The Library should integrate plans and enhance connections with nearby institutions. There is a unique opportunity to illustrate sustainability principles and practices (green infrastructure, native landscaping, energy efficiency, etc.) in partnership with the Museum of Science and Industry.

Principle 5: Restore and revitalize the parks

Chicago must renew its commitment to restoring and revitalizing Washington and Jackson Parks and the Midway Plaisance. If carefully considered and constructed, the Library could enhance prime features of these treasured public parks which in turn can provide amenities for local communities and spaces for people to connect to nature.

Openlands opposes the transfer of parkland to the City. Openlands supports the Park District maintaining control of the land in both Washington Park and Jackson Park to ensure that, as plans for the library move forward, the park uses and intended purposes are maintained as a comprehensive park system. Park land used for the library at either location should NOT be transferred to the City. The potential transfer of parkland to the City sets up a dangerous precedent of opportunistic planning, violation of public trust, and lack of engagement of local residents and stakeholders in community decisions.

The park system was created in order to provide the residents of Chicago with beautiful and inviting spaces for people to recreate, for wildlife to thrive, and communities to gather. The plan to build the presidential library should honor the legacy which both protected open spaces and made them accessible to people. A visionary plan guided by clear principles must lay the foundation for this ambitious plan.
http://www.openlands.org/openlands-r...ential-library
The comments on replacing lost parkland are the first details I've seen on that. What are the existing structures and buildings that could be removed, for the 1:1 replacement?

And does anyone have a map of Jackson park showing where "the design indicated a structure could be built"? Is that the big lawn just north of Science and Industry?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #139  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 3:42 PM
Ryanrule Ryanrule is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 772
def thing it should be in west washington park. that hole neighborhood is trash, it needs something to fix it.


Reply With Quote
     
     
  #140  
Old Posted Jan 15, 2015, 6:26 PM
Mr Downtown's Avatar
Mr Downtown Mr Downtown is online now
Urbane observer
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
And does anyone have a map of Jackson park showing where "the design indicated a structure could be built"?
Apparently Olmsted's 1895 (post Exposition) plan for the South Parks anticipated a headquarters building at 62nd & Stony Island—bottom dead center on this map. Instead, in 1910 the South Parks Commission headquarters was put in Washington Park, and today is the DuSable Museum. The thin red outlines are the footprints of the Exposition buildings, gone by 1895.



Olmsted Papers, credited to National Park Service.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 5:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.