CHICAGO | Obama Presidential Library

[Via Chicago]

somehow i doubt ryanrule will be forthcoming with his "final solution"

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by BVictor1

Negro removal?

Sounds like that's what you're trying to beat around the bush about.

First, we build a wall...


Seriously dude, I hope he was just accidentally wording it that way without realizing what he was implying. I am hoping they were thinking something like "yeah guys, obviously it's road diets and TOD. Duh." But worded it so it sounds like they are literally Hitler.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Unfortunately, unlike Brooklyn, Harlem, and the Bronx Chicago's dimwitted leadership let so much of the south side's building stock disappear from the face of history.

The south side will simply never come back. It's gone. Whatever will be built will be pure suburban crap: grocery stores, strip malls, etc. The kind of garbage that nobody cares about. Everything else will be so heavily government subsidized that it will be few and far between.

Outside of Hyde Park and a few select areas, that is (and this is very different from the southwest side, which is a totally different animal).

Although I agree with your general sentiment with respect to the historical dearth in leadership on this issue, I must respectfully disagree with your post. Sure a lot of turn of the century stock is gone (save Hyde Park and Bronzeville), and sure there are pockets of blight, but as Ithakas pointed out in his post, there is still a lot of really good housing stock remaining on the southside.

The building blocks for a safe and vibrant southside are there. The challenge lies in tying it all together. As best we can lets try to do a quick and cursory dissection of the southside -- you have the near southside (motor row, McCormick, etc) - doing great, next comes the Bridgeport, Bronzeville, IIT areas - improving to doing great, next up Hype Park to the south east - doing great, next comes the Stony area/Pill Hill to the far south (doing good - teachers, lawyers and police officers abound) and the Chatham area (fantastic housing stock here, home to Ex.Major Gene Sawyer, historically a great area but an area that is slowly slipping backwards), and then the area I grew up in right at Halsted/Dan Ryan by 95th (holding strong - my parents are educators who still live there), east of there you have the Chicago State area and a number of communities that are not that far gone, and then you have area leading up to Beverly (still far south) which is doing well, and then there are pockets further down the far, far south side (the 115's, the 120's, etc) that are good neighborhoods taking their last stand in a negatively changing landscape - neighborhoods in need of a little "TLC" from the city.

I am sure that I am missing some areas but you get the idea -- the building blocks are there. Now they just need to be tied together and extended - eliminating the bad pockets. That's the hard part but the part that has to be done. As long as we avoid the heavy lifting and continue to sweep the southside under the rug, perceptions will grow that there is nothing that can be done for the southside -- which is simply not true. Moreover, perhaps worse, misconceptions will remain of Chicago being a "dangerous" city of crime and blight.

.

[10023]

I'm curious as to why people think a presidential library will do so much to spur development. They don't attract enormous crowds, and to fulfill the intended mission, they need to be in places that people will visit. The west side of Washington Park is a war zone and I don't think encouraging out of town tourists to take the L down there is a very good idea. Somewhere within the existing UofC campus, or perhaps across from it on the southern side of the plaisance, makes the most sense. There's a whole city block at 60th and Woodlawn that could be used if they razed a small office building and relocated the soccer field, right next to the school of Public Policy.

[LouisVanDerWright]

^^^ If we are being frank, the main redevelopment benefit of the library will be Federal level security for a multi block radius. The city doesn't really care about violence in most areas they only care when there is political capital at stake (i.e. violence in NE Little Village being shut down to protect Cinespace and Laguntias). Putting a library here that attracts people from out of the neighborhood will not only bring Federal security measures, but force the city to start caring about this area as they will actually have to do something if a tourist gets mugged or shot.

It's racist as hell, but I've become increasingly convinced that the city literally just writes off minority on minority crime in the neighborhoods as something that's going to happen that they can't do anything about. Part of it is the lack of a "no snitching" culture in "white America", but then again how do you get that culture of fear in a community in the first place?

Regardless, I don't think anyone is claiming this will redevelop the entire South Side, but hopefully it is placed in Washington Park and helps the bubble of development in Hyde Park bridge Washington Park and start pushing West. The main benefit will merely be that the area will never be unsafe to walk in again as I'm sure criminals will be immediately rounded up by the CPD or Park Service if they enter the immediate two or three block radius of this institution.

[ithakas]

It will also make developing Washington Park a central focus of UChicago, which has been dipping their toes in the neighborhood already with Theaster and their Arts + Public Life initiative: a recently opened art bookstore, an arts incubator, Currency Exchange, etc.

From the people I've spoken to in the UChicago community recently, it seems the perception of safety is improving in the green line-adjacent area.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by ithakas

It will also make developing Washington Park a central focus of UChicago, which has been dipping their toes in the neighborhood already with Theaster and their Arts + Public Life initiative: a recently opened art bookstore, an arts incubator, Currency Exchange, etc.

From the people I've spoken to in the UChicago community recently, it seems the perception of safety is improving in the green line-adjacent area.

Yeah, there's definitely some good stuff happening there. As well as that one former factory being converted into a data center or whatever. It seems as if crime is getting better there too, at least statistically. I think it's telling that real estate investors are publicly betting on WP instead of Woodlawn.

Assuming the populations are similar between 2008 and 2015 for Washington Park:

Assault
2008: 310
2015: 232

Homicide
2008: 8
2015: 4

Robbery
2008: 198
2015: 124

Burglary
2008: 228
2015: 204

Theft
2008: 537
2015: 403

Narcotics
2008: 407
2015: 141

[moorhosj]

Originally Posted by 10023

They don't attract enormous crowds, and to fulfill the intended mission, they need to be in places that people will visit.

Unless of course the mission of the library (and foundation) is to revitalize blighted inner city areas. In that case, Washington Park is the ideal location to invest in their mission.

[nomarandlee]

To say that Presedential Libraries need to be in places that people need to visit would be a first.

Because they have never really been put in a place where people often visit.

In fact even the Presidential libraries in Dallas, Atlanta, and Boston have been well outside well heeled or tourist zones. They are largely islands unto themselves.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by 10023

I'm curious as to why people think a presidential library will do so much to spur development. They don't attract enormous crowds, and to fulfill the intended mission, they need to be in places that people will visit. The west side of Washington Park is a war zone and I don't think encouraging out of town tourists to take the L down there is a very good idea. Somewhere within the existing UofC campus, or perhaps across from it on the southern side of the plaisance, makes the most sense. There's a whole city block at 60th and Woodlawn that could be used if they razed a small office building and relocated the soccer field, right next to the school of Public Policy.

The Washington Park site is on the west side of the park in the current Arboretum area (not really a managed arboretum, just an area with labels on the trees). Apart from the Jackson Park site, no other areas are under consideration.

As LVDW just noted, there are high security requirements for this building and a large secure perimeter is needed. That means either closing a bunch of streets, or locating in the park and hoping you don't have to tear down any baseball fields or tennis courts.

I was hoping for a building integrated with the neighborhood outside of the park boundaries, but I think the best we can hope for is a grand building at the end of the Garfield Blvd axis that is in dialogue with the neighborhood, sorta like the Brooklyn Museum on Eastern Parkway, and some kind of large mixed-income development between the Green Line and King Drive.

[Jim in Chicago]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I was hoping for a building integrated with the neighborhood outside of the park boundaries, but I think the best we can hope for is a grand building at the end of the Garfield Blvd axis that is in dialogue with the neighborhood, sorta like the Brooklyn Museum on Eastern Parkway, and some kind of large mixed-income development between the Green Line and King Drive.

If you're talking about putting a building directly at the Garfield Blvd axis just East of King Drive, that would mean closing Garfield there, and would poke a stick in the eyes of the thousands of commuters who use Garfield/55th as their path from the Ryan to the UofC campus. I'd expect opposition.

[Halsted & Villagio]

Originally Posted by 10023

I'm curious as to why people think a presidential library will do so much to spur development. They don't attract enormous crowds, and to fulfill the intended mission, they need to be in places that people will visit. The west side of Washington Park is a war zone and I don't think encouraging out of town tourists to take the L down there is a very good idea. Somewhere within the existing UofC campus, or perhaps across from it on the southern side of the plaisance, makes the most sense. There's a whole city block at 60th and Woodlawn that could be used if they razed a small office building and relocated the soccer field, right next to the school of Public Policy.

Indeed, there are no easy fixes. To expect the Obama Library to completely revamp the southside is unrealistic. That said, short of a major initiative by the city and/or private business, it is next best thing we have.

At the moment my career has taken me away from Chicago but for me Chicago is always home. When in Chicago I used to live south, north and eventually downtown. I can say from experience that the southside is not a lost cause. It just needs a little more industry and attention... some of which will undoubtedly be spurred by the library.

Go back and look at old photos of Harlem, the Bronx and even Brooklyn. Those pictures will be some of worst imaginable... viscerally they are hard to look at... worse than anything Chicago currently is dealing with. And yet NY managed to get save and reinvigorate those boroughs. I am confident that Chicago can and will (in time) eventually do the same to the southside.

.

[nomarandlee]

I agree. Those thst ate skeptical that this will have any residual effects on the neighborhood I would ask, well then what development will? I don't forsee any major businesses lining up to drop their headquarters in the neighborhood. I don't imagine a sudden demand of condo buildings for the area in which to spur business.

The fact is if the central-east South side is gonna stand a chance it needs to start a major seed. And it isn't likely to come from the private sector and I can't imagine many better public initiative s to be that seed. Oh yea, and a seed that is mostly gonna be free from taxpayer expense.

And like others said along with the library their will surely be security and land/street-scapping improvements measures well beyond the confines of the actual library be it 1/8 or 1/4 mile. Even stabilizing that size area would be a major achievement in itself and I think that can be a minimum expectation. That is a large perimeter from which other private investors can lay take their chances with adjacent development. How far it can radiate outward remains to be seen but I am optimistic even if I am not pinning miracles on it.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by moorhosj

Unless of course the mission of the library (and foundation) is to revitalize blighted inner city areas.

According to the Barack and Michelle, as of a few weeks ago, that is not the mission of the library.

[Kenchiku desu]

Even if Washington Park is really a "war zone" as alleged, Chicago should think twice for giving up any of its park land -- for even as worthy a land use as the Obama Presidential Library. Building it near UofC is a better idea.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Kenchiku desu

Even if Washington Park is really a "war zone" as alleged, Chicago should think twice for giving up any of its park land -- for even as worthy a land use as the Obama Presidential Library. Building it near UofC is a better idea.

Both of the proposed sites are on park land, I don't see what your point is. Washington Park is also not a "war zone" right now. The area does have its vacant lots, but it is safer now for sure than it once was. Is it still a really safe area? No, but it's better than it was. The neighborhood has also already spoken after Friends of the Park (ing lots) tried to block it. The neighborhood essentially told them to get lost and they know what's best for their own neighborhood.

The Washington Park site is superior because of its access to routine public transportation.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by marothisu

.

The Washington Park site is superior because of its access to routine public transportation.

Agreed. Now if only there was some kind of transit line going straight to Jackson Park...

It's amazing how bad the city that has pretty much invented the last couple of revolutions in urban planning is at urban planning.

[aaron38]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

The main benefit will merely be that the area will never be unsafe to walk in again as I'm sure criminals will be immediately rounded up by the CPD or Park Service if they enter the immediate two or three block radius of this institution.

That sounds like NYC's Stop n Frisk, which has been attacked as unconstitutional and discriminatory, though it's still being practiced. By what mechanism are criminals immediately identified on sight? Too simple an answer.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by aaron38

That sounds like NYC's Stop n Frisk, which has been attacked as unconstitutional and discriminatory, though it's still being practiced. By what mechanism are criminals immediately identified on sight? Too simple an answer.

Chicago employs stop and frisk too, actually. It just doesn't get as much attention as NYC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/us...ored.html?_r=0

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by aaron38

That sounds like NYC's Stop n Frisk, which has been attacked as unconstitutional and discriminatory, though it's still being practiced. By what mechanism are criminals immediately identified on sight? Too simple an answer.

No, there are other ways of shutting down violence and crime, they are just too expensive to deploy across an entire city. In fact, it is so easy to do that even private institutions like universities can do it. If you have enough security just patrolling an area, crimes don't happen. Why would they? Most criminals will simply move to an area more friendly to their business. They don't want security guards or park service police loitering on their corner when they are trying to sell drugs. That's how Loyola and University of Chicago both keep their enclaves relatively safe.