Plan Would Bring Championship Public Golf Course to Chicago's South Side

[Paul OConnor]

More community input...From the Sun Times Letters to the Editor.

 LETTERS: Stop making key Chicago decisions behind closed doors    Letters       11/07/2017, 10:54am 

   Letters to the Editor    As one of the hundred thousand or so South Side residents who will be affected by the proposed re-purposing of Jackson Park, I’m writing to beg for big change, change on a scale neither the Obama Presidential Center, the Park District nor the mayor have imagined.
I want the city to stop doing business as usual. I want an end to top-down decision-making that affects our lives in fundamental ways. I want an end to forcing us to pay for decisions that are made without our input.
I’ve lived in Chicago for 51 years and every decision, whether to close schools, sell street parking rights, give contracts to waste haulers, or close roads and turn half of Jackson Park’s acres over to private interests, has been done behind closed doors. “Trust us, you’ll love it,” is the mantra.
In the case of Jackson Park, my neighbors and I have been begging for over a year to see plans that show environmental impact, traffic flow changes, realistic community investment prospects, and a host of other matters. We’re accused, instead, of seeking to deny the South Side the golden opportunity to host the Obamas’ private foundation, of opposing change to the park that would give almost all of it south of 63rd street to a PGA golf course, and we’re told to trust the city because they will do the right thing.
We’re told that when they close two major roads, traffic in the neighborhood streets will increase by as much as 400 percent, but not to worry about congestion and pollution: we can trust them to deal with that.
We’re told that when they plow under the nature sanctuary to make room for a golf hole at 71st Street, they will create a better sanctuary elsewhere. Will it be on the lakefront? Who will pay for it? No answers, except, “Trust us.”
Chicagoans are Charlie Brown. The city, the Park District, and even, in this case, the Obama Presidential Center, are Lucy van Pelt. Trust us, trust us, this time, we really won’t take the football away. We won’t leave you flat in the mud while we help ourselves to your wallet to pay for what we’ve decided.
But I’m ready for real change. I’m ready for the neighborhoods to hold the football, and for the city to show up with full details of what they propose. When they’ve done that, and we have a chance to evaluate the plans and veto them if they don’t meet our needs, then we’ll give them a chance to kick.
Sara Paretsky, Hyde Park

[Howard Riefs]

The latest on this project...


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/golf/ct-spt-tiger-woods-jackson-park-20171216-story.html

[Paul OConnor]

 Teddy Greenstein will need a shower to get the residue of Mike Keiser’s derriere off his face after this shameless excuse for journalism.  There is so much puckering in this article that even a seasoned salad tosser like Greenstein should be embarrassed. 

The Top Six Toads in this Article.

6. “…the Lincoln Park resident is golf’s premier modern builder — and on the leaderboard among the game’s all-time visionaries.”
For god’s sake Teddy, this line may have elevated you to the all-time leaderboard of journalist sycophants.   



5.  “We’re all sort of on hold, waiting for some electricity,” Keiser told the Tribune. “It’s in bureaucrat land or politician land. … Bureaucracy and red tape in Wisconsin is nonexistent. They say: Build all the golf you want; it’s great for tourism.”
  No shit, maybe you could explain the difference between developing a piece of Wisconsin property 100 miles from nowhere that Mike Keiser OWNS, and a PUBLIC park on the lakefront of one of the biggest cities in the country.  So much red tape?  It’s not your property Mike, it is PUBLIC land.


 4.  “They (CPD) continue to seek community input on “potential course routing, programming and infrastructure options,” according to a statement released Friday,
The Tribune repeats the tripe that CPGA have sought community input, when they are doing so only to create the illusion that they give a shit what the community wants.  There has not been one substantive change from the original course layout as a result of any public input or expressed community concern. The course routing is unchanged from its private unveiling one year ago. 



3. “It is premature to present a project timeline or cost estimates.”
This is the issue that both CPD and CPGA most steadfastly refuse to address.   Almost unbelievably, one year after the unveiling of this project, there has not been one single official financial disclosure, construction cost estimate, any proposed operating budget, no disclosure on green fees schedule, or local accessibility hours or restrictions.  The absence of ANY official cost estimates for this boondoggle is astounding.  Is it possible that one year into this project it is still “premature” to provide some idea of how much this will cost and how it will all be funded?   



2. “Some community residents believe their concerns are being heard.  “It’s an open-discussion process, and they are listening to everything we say,” said Louise McCurry of the Jackson Park Advisory Council.”
Louise McCurry has been a bought and paid for part of the CPGA team from the beginning.  She was originally on the CPGA Board until they figured her presence there was so obviously a conflict that she was quietly removed.  She is now the go to “supportive community resident” whenever CPGA butt-boys like Greenstein need a favorable quote.


1.  “Friends of Obama’s say the former president has tremendous enthusiasm for the golf project, peppering associates with questions about the course design.”
More nonsense from Greenstein.  Who are the “friends” Teddy is quoting?  Does anyone seriously think that Obama is “peppering his associates with questions about the course design?”   The idea that somehow Obama is a driving force behind this golf proposal is a myth, created by Keiser and Ruemmler to lend it some credibility.  Without the Obama narrative, the project is exposed for what it really is:  a public land grab by private citizens. 
 
 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Wow...a week before Christmas and somebody appears to have received a lump of hot coal in their stocking.

If I may make a suggestion: Why dont YOU write the piece that YOU want to see published? You can be the anti-hero and the champion of the muni-golfer on our near south side.

Here, let me help: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-submit-a-letter-to-the-editor-htmlstory.html

At the end of your rant below, you say:

"Without the Obama narrative, the project is exposed for what it really is:  a public land grab by private citizens.  "

Paul, have you ever been to Millenium Park?
Or, have you parked (on the street) in the city in the past few years?
Have you taken the Illinois Skyway?
Have you seen what happened to Cabrini Green?

The city has been selling itself to the private sector for years due to the legacy of cronyism, corruption and insolvency left by the Daley family.

- How long did it take to get Harding Park approved?
- How long did it take Trump to build Ferry Point?

But, you need to also include this piece (from that article) that offers a real world reason why the project may be delayed.

•The biggest reason? Those in the know say the priority for the mayor’s office is the Obama Presidential Center, being constructed potentially within steps of the first tee at the yet-to-be-named golf course.
The proposal for the Obama Center’s 20-acre campus is under federal review because Jackson Park is on the National Register of Historic Places. While the mayor’s office considers the review standard procedure, others wonder if authorities will deem that elements are incompatible with the park.[/font][/size]

[Paul OConnor]

 Park District superintendent not giving up on golf course merger    Chicago       12/21/2017, 04:23pm  The Chicago Park District wants to merge the Jackson Park (shown) and South Shore golf courses. | Sun-Times file photo
          Fran Spielman @fspielman | email                              Sign-Up for our Newsletter  Sign-Up        Chicago Park District Superintendent Mike Kelly acknowledged Thursday he lacks both the money and support to merge the Jackson Park and South Shore golf courses into a championship-caliber course — but he won’t give up on the $30 million project.
“We’re still looking for community support. We’re still looking for financial support. The money still has to be raised. I don’t have it yet. But hopefully, I will — through transparency, hard work, and showing people the benefits of it,” Kelly said Thursday.
“The community wants to see the golf plans, the routing. I said we will commit to that. I also committed to publishing the plan during the first quarter [of 2018]. I’m gonna have to have some golf meetings in the first quarter to get that plan published.”
The Chicago Sun-Times reported in early March that the merger, which gained momentum when former President Barack Obama chose Jackson Park for his presidential center, had hit a fundraising snag, derailing Kelly’s plan to begin construction last spring.
The merger has since stirred even more controversy because the design — by a firm owned by Tiger Woods — would require closing Marquette Drive, building a pair of new underpasses, displacing tennis courts and relocating the South Shore Nature Sanctuary to make way for a new 12th hole.
On Thursday, Kelly acknowledged the cost of the underpasses alone — at 67th Street and South Shore Drive and at Jeffery Boulevard and 66th Street — is $30 million.
That would match the $30 million price tag for the new course, with $6 million of that coming from Chicago taxpayers. But the superintendent argued that the underpasses — and the closing of Marquette Drive between Cornell and Lake Shore Drive — are needed, with or without the merger.
“The traffic study says they do need to close Marquette. I love it because I get more green space back. And don’t you want people to get to the lakefront on the South Side as well as the North Side? I want the underpasses, regardless of golf. That’s good for the city and good for the South Side,” Kelly said.
“If not now, when? We’ve been talking about this since 1999. And the fact that we still have golf carts crossing Jeffrey is insane. That needs to be improved. That’s a transportation project.”
Ever since the golf course layout was unveiled, Jackson Park residents have demanded to know where the treasured bird and butterfly preserve will be relocated to make way for the new 12th hole and how that work would be paid for.
On Thursday, Kelly was asked that question yet again.
He would only say: “I absolutely believe we’ll have a better footprint for nature when we’re done than when we started. You have to remember all the land we own south of Rainbow Beach. We own hundreds of acres. I believe we’ll have more natural area on the site than when we started.”
Last year, the Park District signed a 10-year agreement with the non-profit Chicago Parks Golf Alliance to spearhead the controversial project.
The agreement called for the alliance to be the “sole fundraising entity” for the project and to “work in partnership with the Park District for the fundraising, implementation and construction of agreed upon master plans.”
The contract established anticipated timelines and fundraising goals, nearly all of which have not been met.
For restoration of the South Shore golf course, the anticipated timeline was May through September, 2018. The fundraising goal to be met by the non-profit alliance was $10 million.
For the Jackson Park course, the timeline was March 2018 through September 2020. The non-profit’s fundraising goal was $15 million.
All fundraising proceeds were to be deposited into an escrow account held by a title company agreeable to both parties.
Founding director Brian Hogan has said he “remains confident” that the fundraising goals outlined in the contract will be reached in time to complete construction in 2020.
Earlier this year, Hogan disclosed that shoreline conditions uncovered by civil engineers from SmithGroupJJR working in conjunction with golf course architects from Tiger Woods ‘ firm are worse than anticipated and more costly to repair.
Asked Thursday to pinpoint that cost, Kelly said, “I don’t have a number. But, I know it’s not a make-or-break situation.”
 

[Paul OConnor]

      Charles A. Birnbaum, ContributorPresident & CEO, The Cultural Landscape Foundation      Is Chicago about to ruin Jackson Park?   01/03/2018 08:10 pm ET           Courtesy The Cultural Landscape Foundation, photo © Steven Vance.   Jackson Park, Chicago, IL, 2017.       

• 120

       If you’re looking for a good example of poorly integrated site planning, look at what Chicago is and isn’t doing at historic Jackson Park. The city has already lopped off more than 20 acres of the park for the Obama Presidential Center (OPC), there’s a proposal to consolidate (and privatize) two golf courses, and road closures and re-alignments are also being planned, along with other changes.   This isn’t just any public open space; this is historic parkland originally designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., and Calvert Vaux (of New York’s Central Park fame). In fact, Jackson Park, the Midway Plaisance, and Washington Park – the South Park System – together comprise the only Olmsted & Vaux-designed park system outside of New York State. Moreover, all three parks are listed in the National Register of Historic Places – Jackson and the Midway in 1972, and Washington in 2004.     Chicago Park District.   Olmsted & Vaux 1871 South Park Plan. Washington Park (L), the Midway Plaisance (C) Jackson Park (R).    The OPC, originally sold to the public as a presidential library to be administered by the National Archives, a federal entity, will instead be a private facility occupying confiscated public parkland. And now the OPC’s proponents want more public parkland, up to five acres of the neighboring Midway Plaisance, for an above-ground parking garage.      Obama Foundation.   Proposed Obama Presidential Center in Jackson Park (R) and parking garage in the Midway Plaisance (top, L)    So how could this happen? [a] There’s no overarching comprehensive plan or vision for Jackson Park (not to mention the South Park System as a whole); and , the public review processes involved are complicated, which gives cover to the City of Chicago, OPC proponents, golf course consolidation proponents, and others. Consequently, all of the proposed projects are being looked at in isolation rather than as interdependent. To understand why that’s a problem, a quick historic overview is necessary.  Olmsted and Vaux designed the park system in 1871 on flat land Olmsted deemed “extremely bleak.” The site’s characteristic level topography was ultimately leveraged in the park’s design to provide sweeping views to what Olmsted considered the park’s most important attribute, Lake Michigan. Some two decades later, Jackson Park was chosen for the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. Olmsted, working with his associate Henry Codman and architects Daniel Burnham and John Welborn Root, designed the setting of the vaunted White City, a showcase of Beaux-Arts classicism whose formality was artfully juxtaposed with the rugged shorelines of naturalistic lagoons and islands. It was a massive success; nearly four-dozen nations were represented at the exposition and it attracted more than 25 million people (for context, the U.S. population was then approximately 63 million).      TCLF Files.   World’s Columbian Exposition site post-fire, Jackson Park, Chicago, IL, January 1894.    After the exposition closed, a series of fires ravaged the site, beginning in January 1894, leaving a landscape strewn with charred remains. After the remaining crippled structures were demolished, only five exhibition buildings were left standing. In 1895, Olmsted turned his attention to the site for a third time, resulting in a comprehensive plan that would heal Jackson Park. He and his firm, Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot, proposed  that “many of the features characteristic of the landscape design of the World’s Fair” would be retained while providing “all of the recreative facilities which the modern park should include for refined and enlightened recreation and exercise.” The 1895 plan occupies a special place in the history of landscape architecture as perhaps the nation’s earliest large-scale brownfield-remediation project.     Chicago Park District.   Jackson Park, Chicago, IL, 1938.    During the twentieth century, particularly from the post-War years to the 1980s, deferred maintenance and a lack of comprehensive planning led to the park’s decline.  Instead there were piecemeal projects, such as the widening of Cornell Drive and other intriguing chapters, notably the installation of a NIKE missile site in the park’s lawn tennis area, 1956-71.  Importantly, in 1972, just six years after the creation of the National Register of Historic Places, Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance were listed in the Register. However, the National Register’s 1972 statement of significance, a single typewritten page, needs to be updated to more completely reflect the totality of the park’s unique and unrivaled history (for context, the 2004 National Register designation for Washington Park is 61 pages in length). In 1995 the Chicago Park District (CPD) began the process for such an update, but it is unclear why the resulting 21-page historical assessment, found buried in the appendix to a 2013 study, was never advanced. Similar such research also underpins other important planning efforts over the past two decades and all of it should be daylit to inform the current reviews of the OPC. For example, during the city’s park renaissance under Mayor Richard M. Daley (who served five terms, 1989-2011), the CPD authorized the South Lakefront Framework Plan, which covered Jackson and Washington Parks and the South Shore Cultural Center. Undertaken in 1999, this comprehensive and holistic plan to renew the park was the first in more than a century.  According to CPD’s website: “The framework plan’s purpose was to define the changing needs of these parks, to provide a plan to enhance each of the park’s commitments to serving the neighboring communities and to preserve the intended historic character.”        Subscribe to The Morning Email. Wake up to the day's most important news.                The 1999 Plan has laudatory “overall objectives” and “guiding principles,” but most importantly, it identifies historic context as the key to managing change at Jackson Park: <blockquote>Historic Context is an important consideration as one looks at upgrading present conditions and weighing future improvements. The original Olmsted design has served the park well over time and should not be compromised by future plans (emphasis added).</blockquote> The 1999 Plan was never completed, though its website was amended to reflect the city’s position that the OPC is an inevitable addition.      Project 120 website homepage.    Separately, after commissioning a study by the Army Corps of Engineers, the CPD entered into an ambitious and innovative partnership with the not-for-profit Project 120, which embarked on a “historically based and integrated project of preservation and habitat restoration” in Jackson Park. After Jackson Park was selected as the site for the OPC, the multi-million-dollar federal-and-state-funded Project 120 suddenly  went dormant in October 2016.  The OPC is currently the subject of reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act, specifically Section 106 of the latter. The Section 106 compliance review will identify and assess the adverse effects posed by the OPC, and it will rely on The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes in that assessment. The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF) is an official consulting party to the Section 106 process and has submitted a detailed examination of the proposals for Jackson Park (which can be downloaded here), including the 21-page updated history for the park, as previously noted.     Obama Foundation.   Model of the Obama Presidential Center showing the proposed 220-foot-tall tower.    Finally, the OPC’s proponents claim the project respects Olmsted’s original vision.  That’s not true, and we know that because Olmsted said so. The 1895 plan to heal the park included treatment of the landscape surrounding the Museum of Science and Industry to highlight that building’s architecture. Here, Olmsted was unmistakably explicit, stating that the Museum was meant to be the only “dominating object of interest” in the park: <blockquote>All other buildings and structures to be within the park boundaries are to be placed and planned exclusively with a view to advancing the ruling purpose of the park. They are to be auxiliary to and subordinate to the scenery of the park (emphasis added). </blockquote> –Olmsted letter to South Park Board president Joseph Donnersberger, May 7, 1894     Courtesy The Cultural Landscape Foundation, photo © Abbie Lydon.   The Midway Plaisance, Chicago, IL, 2015.    Less than a decade after Olmsted’s death, Chicago began to take shape around another plan that eventually achieved a kind of legendary status. Daniel Burnham’s famous 1909 Plan of Chicago has been called “one of the most noted documents in the history of city planning.” That makes it all the more remarkable—and truly sad—that so much of what Frederick Law Olmsted achieved in Chicago might now be lost because of a lack of value for historic context and comprehensive planning—and all while invoking his name. 

[Paul OConnor]

The Cultural Landscape Foundation's Letter to the City of Chicago Planning Department.  Part 1.

January 3, 2018

Ms. Abby Monroe
Coordinating Planner
City of Chicago,
Department of Planning and Development

Dear Ms. Monroe,

As a designated consulting party to the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 compliance review and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review underway for Jackson Park, The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF) is pleased to add the following remarks, supporting images, and attachments to the public record. As the Section 106 review is now in the initial phase of identifying historic features that could be adversely affected by the Obama Presidential Center (OPC) and related road closures, we first ask that the Area of Potential Effects (APE) be expanded to include the following:

• The South Park System (to include the entirety of the Midway Plaisance and Washington Park)

It is also evident that other issues should be raised at this early stage because they are not only fundamental to the identification of historic features but to the review process itself. While TCLF will comment in greater detail throughout the Section 106 review, we regard the following as essential topics to be brought to your attention immediately:

• The manifest inadequacy of the 1972 National Register of Historic Places nomination for Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance; and the implications of the de facto nomination update produced in 1995 by the Chicago Park District (CPD);
• The historical precedence and design intent of the 1895 plan for Jackson Park by Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot;
• The need to apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes in the current review process;
• The overt incompatibility of the OPC and related road closures with overarching CPD plans and initiatives, as contrary to the framing language of the current review process.

Expanding the APE to Include the Entire South Park System

As currently conceived in the Section 106 review, the APE includes the following areas: a portion of the Midway Plaisance near its eastern terminus; an area between the western perimeter of Jackson Park and the Metra Viaduct; several blocks in the Hyde Park and Woodlawn neighborhoods west of the viaduct; and the whole of Jackson Park. What the current APE thus fails to recognize is the essential unity of the three tracts of land today known as Washington Park, the Midway Plaisance, and Jackson Park. The three tracts were conceived and designed as a single park: the report to the South Park Commission by Olmsted, Vaux & Co., submitted in March 1871, refers, in fact, to the whole of the bounded area as “The Chicago South Park,” which it then describes as comprising an “Upper Division,” a “Midway Division,” and a “Lower or Lagoon Division.”1 As such, Chicago’s South Park System is today the only intact park system designed by Olmsted and Vaux outside the State of New York. The two men regarded as a major advantage of their plan that it “locks the three divisions of the Park into one obvious system, so that their really disjointed character will be much less impressed on the minds of observers passing through them…” To do so, the plan relied heavily on water to lace the three tracts together.2  The need to fully recognize the unity of the South Parks is now brought into greater relief by the current proposal to impose a parking garage at the eastern terminus and hinge point of the Midway Plaisance, effectively placing a further barrier to the connection that Olmsted and Vaux first envisioned while simultaneously reducing the likelihood that any future initiative could restore that connection. Moreover, the OPC tower, as currently conceived, would adversely affect viewsheds from the full expanse of the Midway Plaisance, not just from the portion of it now included in the APE.

The Inadequacy of the 1972 National Register Nomination; and the De Facto 1995 Update

The Inadequacy of the 1972 National Register Nomination

The City of Chicago website that hosts information on the Section 106 review refers and links to the listing of the Jackson Park Historic Landscape District and Midway Plaisance in the National Register of Historic Places, added on December 15, 1972. Notably, that nearly 40-year-old nomination attempts to document the history and significance of both Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance in one typewritten page—an extremely meager record by even the laxest of standards. The 1972 nomination is clearly an artifact of a bygone era that had yet to develop a full appreciation for the preservation of historic designed landscapes (the NPS did not offer relevant guidance in the form of a National Register Bulletin until 1989). As much is evident in the nomination’s “Statement of Significance,” which mentions four architectural firms before coming to Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., the celebrated presence behind the design of the historic landscape district itself. We can be sure that the CPD agrees that the 1972 nomination is today woefully inadequate for use in a documentary capacity, because when the CPD commissioned the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to conduct a Section 506 Great Lakes Fishery & Ecosystem Restoration Study for Jackson Park in 2013 (resulting in the GLFER Project; see below), it provided a 21-page historical assessment of the park, complete with bibliographic citations, as an addendum to the study.3 Prepared by the CPD’s own Department of Research and Planning in September 1995 (hereafter the ‘1995 assessment’; attached), that historical assessment constitutes a de facto update to the 1972 nomination, and it should therefore be recognized in the current review as an important statement of significance for the park and its history.

The Implications of the 1995 Update: A Threefold Landscape Legacy

As the 1995 assessment outlines in detail, Jackson Park is today the product of not one, but three historic Olmsted designs—a fact that makes the already significant work by the “Father of American Landscape Architecture” a unique national asset. Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr., and Calvert Vaux submitted the first design to the South Park Commission in 1871. The devastation of the Great Chicago Fire delayed any improvement to the parkland until the late 1870s, when the northernmost section of what was then called Lake Park was improved by grading, seeded lawns, new trees, and the creation of two artificial lakes (one of which survives in the form of what would become the Columbia Basin). When Jackson Park was selected as the setting for the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, it was once more Olmsted, working with his associate Henry Codman and architects Daniel Burnham and John Welborn Root, who designed the setting of the vaunted White City, a showcase of Beaux-Arts classicism whose formality was artfully juxtaposed with the rugged shorelines of naturalistic lagoons and islands. After the closing of the international exposition, a series of fires ravaged the site, beginning in January 1894, leaving a landscape strewn with charred remains (fig. 1). The Chicago Wrecking and Salvage Company was hired to demolish what was left of the crippled structures, with only five exhibition buildings left standing in the end. In 1895, Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot presented a sweeping redesign of Jackson Park that retained “many of the features characteristic of the landscape design of the World's Fair” while providing “all of the recreative facilities which the modern park should include for refined and enlightened recreation and exercise" (fig. 2). 4

Fig. 1: Photograph of Jackson Park taken after a series of fires at the site in 1894

The Historical Precedence and Design Intent of the 1895 Plan

The 1895 redesign of Jackson Park by Olmsted, Olmsted & Eliot occupies a special place in the history of landscape architecture as perhaps the nation’s earliest large-scale brownfield-remediation project. This innovative aspect of the 1895 plan has been recognized in very recent scholarship. As part of the GLFER Project (see below), the CPD, along with a public-private partnership known as Project 120 Chicago and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, tasked the firm Heritage Landscapes, LLC, to develop a plan for Jackson Park that would integrate efforts to restore the park’s ecology and preserve its Olmsted-era design. In the fall of 2015, Patricia O’Donnell and Gregory De Vries, both of Heritage Landscapes, LLC, published a scholarly article in the peer-reviewed journal Change Over Time outlining the framework and implementation of that plan.5 As the article makes clear, the 1895 redesign of Jackson Park was an ingenious response—much ahead of its time—to what was in essence an immense brownfield site:

Faced with a massive demolition site, the Olmsted firm innovated to address the brownfield conditions. For example, the firm created soils plans specifying considerable depth of good topsoil in specific areas of trees and shrub planting. As modern-day professionals on the forefront of best practices, we found it astounding to discover that one-hundred-twenty-year-old soils plans, which note two-foot-deep planting areas, guided rebuilding in this brownfield demolition site.6

Although features in Jackson Park have since been modified, the most important aspects of the 1895 plan have endured. Its primary compositional elements—the lake, the fields, and the lagoons—knitted together by a circulation system that affords extended views over relatively level terrain, continue to communicate Olmsted’s vision for how the park is experienced visually and spatially. That assessment was shared by the 2013 GLFER study, which recognized that “for the most part, Jackson Park today looks similar to Olmsted’s 1895 plan in terms of the placement of lagoons, open fields, and areas heavily planted with trees and shrubs.” And while Olmsted’s plan was updated in 1905, two years after his death, the new iteration “was based on Olmsted’s previous plans and vision for the park."7

In addition to the aspects of Olmsted’s design that the park itself evinces, we are fortunate to have the landscape architect’s own thoughts about the 1895 plan. In a letter to South Park Board president Joseph Donnersberger dated May 7, 1894, Olmsted outlined his approach to the redesign:

In this design every part of all the park must be planned subordinately to and dependently upon every other part…In this interdependence of parts lies the difference between landscape gardening and gardening. It is as designers, not of scenes but of scenery, that you employ us, and we are not to be expected to serve you otherwise than as designers of scenery (emphasis added).8

Another salient aspect of the 1895 plan that can readily be seen today is the prevailing geometry of the landscape surrounding the campus of the Museum of Science and Industry (then called the Field Columbian Museum) in the park’s northern sector. Notably, the landscape treatment in that part of the park alone was designed to highlight built architecture. Here, Olmsted was unmistakably explicit, stating that the Field Columbian Museum was meant to be the only “dominating object of interest” in the park:

All other buildings and structures to be within the park boundaries are to be placed and planned exclusively with a view to advancing the ruling purpose of the park. They are to be auxiliary to and subordinate to the scenery of the park (emphasis added).
–Olmsted to Donnersberger, May 7, 1894

Fig. 2: The Revised General Plan for Jackson Park, 1895

In addition to the masterful use of the lakeshore, open fields, and interior waterways, Olmsted designed two large, open-air gymnasia along the park’s western perimeter just south of its junction with the Midway Plaisance. The two oval gymnasia, one for men and the other for women, were separated by a children’s playground (fig. 2), and both were encircled by running tracks that were also used by bicyclists. With the initial groundwork completed at the beginning of 1896,9 the outdoor gymnasia in Jackson Park were a reform-era response to the condition of the city’s working-class neighborhoods and were relatively new in the United States.10 Olmsted specifically touted these elements of the overall design, reporting that “similar gymnasia proved very successful in Europe and in Boston.”11 The outline of the north gymnasium is still expressed in the footprint of the oval football field along the park’s western perimeter (fig. 3), which serves in a recreational capacity while echoing the form of the Olmsted-designed gymnasium.

Fig. 3: North gymnasium, 1895 Revised General Plan for Jackson Park (l.); present football field in Jackson park (r.)

Applying the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes

The National Park Service’s Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, with Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes has a direct bearing on the Section 106 review currently underway. These Guidelines outline the proper treatment of cultural resources that are listed in or are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Landscapes, unlike buildings, are dynamic systems. Assessing the potential impacts of alterations to landscapes thus requires a holistic approach, as is reflected in the Guidelines, which are organized in two primary areas: [1] Organizational Elements of the Landscape and [2] Character-Defining Features of the Landscape. As the author of the Guidelines, I can confirm that the road closures and the construction of the OPC would have obvious adverse effects in both primary areas. While TCLF will comment more fully on adverse effects during the appropriate stage of the Section 106 review (when, perhaps, the exact proposed locations and footprints of the OPC and its dependent structures will be known to the public), several preliminary points can be made at this time.

Jackson Park’s natural features include the flat topography of its fields and open spaces, its interior waterways, and the backdrop of Lake Michigan—all elements that contribute to the harmony of the overarching design. The flatness of the ground plane is indeed a character-defining feature of the park, as it was the chief characteristic that Olmsted’s design was meant to overcome by linking a system of lagoons to Lake Michigan.12 The imposition of a massive high-rise tower, hundreds of feet tall, would introduce a dominant vertical axis that would reorient the visual and spatial experience of the landscape to focus on a single architectural element, one whose stark facades, reminiscent of a Brutalist idiom, would strongly contrast with its natural setting. This is directly contrary to the overall concept of the park, which was designed, as Olmsted stated, such that its scenery constituted the dominant interest. The tower would also cast a reflection in the water of the nearby lagoons, which were meant to evoke a natural setting by reflecting only the vegetation that surrounds them. As scholar Daniel Bluestone has noted about Jackson Park, “lagoons and lakes that would reflect the foliage provided intricacy and picturesque variety—elements often tamed in other Olmsted designs.”13 Moreover, the waterways were meant to “provide a sense of indirection, subtlety, and leisure; they fostered a sense of time and motion that contrasted dramatically with the experience of the city’s street grid.”14 The monolithic OPC tower would also, of course, loom large over the Wooded Island, destroying its quality as a place of refuge and its “secluded, natural sylvan” character, as Olmsted described it.15

Yet another adverse effect of such a tower and its related dependencies stems from their inevitable propensity to cast shadows onto the public parkland that surrounds them. The detrimental effects of shadow on public parkland are increasingly well documented16 and are the frequent subject of litigation. Notably, the “Development Manual for Chicago Plan Commission Projects (2012)” outlines the responsibility of any applicant proposing a planned development to conduct a “Sunlight Access and Shadow Impact Study.” The manual further mandates (p. 13):

Applicants should ensure that the proposed Planned Development does not impose significant shadows on publicly accessible parks, plazas, playgrounds, benches, or inland waterways. Accordingly, the Applicant may be requested to provide a shadow impact study which would contain the following elements: Existing shadows and new shadows created by the development; Shadow impacts for build and non-build conditions for the hours: 9 a.m., 12 p.m. and 3 p.m., conducted for four periods of the year at the vernal equinox, autumnal equinox, winter solstice and summer solstice; and a description of how the building design ensures solar access on public spaces (emphasis added).

How, exactly, the OPC, with its monolithic, stone-clad tower, will avoid imposing significant shadows on publicly accessible parkland is difficult to imagine. And given that the OPC project falls within the Lake Michigan and Chicago Lakefront District and is therefore governed by the Lakefront Protection District Ordinance (Sec.16-4-030),17 whose purpose is to “insure that the lakefront parks and the lake itself are devoted only to public purposes and to insure the integrity of and expand the quantity and quality of the lakefront parks” (emphasis added), one would expect that the OPC will be subject to particularly stringent scrutiny.

Furthermore, Jackson Park’s western perimeter was designed to be visually permeable, lined with trees that define the landscape’s edge while allowing lightly veiled views into it. The OPC tower and associated buildings would obstruct views into the park and beyond to Lake Michigan from both the Hyde Park and Woodlawn neighborhoods, altering the skyline in the process. As currently conceived, the OPC complex would also entirely supplant the football field whose footprint echoes the original outdoor gymnasium, an historic feature of the 1895-designed landscape.

Finally, the proposed road closures related to the construction of the OPC would alter the park’s circulation network, an important aspect of Olmsted’s design that was intended to lead visitors on a choreographed journey through “passages” of landscape scenery (fig. 4). Neither the location nor the disposition of the roads were accidental, their curvilinear form intended to contrast with the right-angled streets of the urban grid. In a preliminary report on the nearby designed community of Riverside, Olmsted wrote, in 1868, “as the ordinary directness of line in town-streets, with its resultant regularity of plan, would suggest eagerness to press forward, without looking to the right hand or the left, we should recommend the general adoption, in the design of your roads, of gracefully-curved lines, generous spaces, and the absence of sharp corners, the idea being to suggest and imply leisure, contemplativeness and happy tranquility.”18

As with Olmsted and Vaux’s Riverside, the curvilinear flow of the roads in Jackson Park was conceived as a key element in organizing access to the planned scenic narrative.

Fig.4: Horse-drawn carriages and motorcars share the curvilinear roads of Jackson Park, early 1900s

[Paul OConnor]

Part 2.

Incompatibility of the OPC and Road Closures with Overarching CPD Plans and Initiatives

The South Lakefront Framework Plan (1999)

Given the framing language of the Section 106 review, another fundamental question is the extent to which the OPC and the related road closures align with the CPD’s long-term initiatives and plans for Jackson Park, which have been developed with considerable federal, state, and local funding and resources in consultation with the public and numerous groups. The City of Chicago website that hosts information on the Section 106 review purports to speak to that question, stating the following: “The Chicago Park District’s South Lakefront Framework Plan (1999) outlined many of the proposed improvements now under consideration.” Yet even a cursory review of the 1999 South Lakefront Framework Plan reveals that the proposals now under consideration are plainly at odds with that plan on several of its most salient points. First, of the 1999 plan’s “Seven Overall Objectives,” the fourth is to “recognize and respect the historic significance of these parks” (p. 1). Likewise, the 1999 plan outlined “Seven Guiding Principles,” the fourth of which is to “maintain open space character” (p.2). The plan goes on to clarify, in bullet points, that this will include efforts to “Promote open space as the primary land use in the park by seeking opportunities to decrease inappropriate structures, uses and paved areas” and to “Maximize the attractiveness of views and long vistas into and within the parks.” The seventh “Guiding Principle” is to “Enhance Historic Features” (p. 3), which includes efforts to “Respect and enhance each park's historic character, and consider the park's historic significance as a key factor when evaluating changes to the park,” and to “Consider each park's historic precedents for landscape form, landscape design, planting, circulation, and views when evaluating or designing changes to the park.” The 1999 plan also clearly identifies historic context as a key consideration for evaluating any changes to Jackson Park:

Historic Context is an important consideration as one looks at upgrading present conditions and weighing future improvements. The original Olmsted design has served the park well over time and should not be compromised by future plans (emphasis added, p. 13).

Suffice it to add that, with its repeated emphasis on the historicity of the South Parks and the Olmsted design, the 1999 plan does not call for the closing of Cornell Drive in Jackson Park, nor does it envision a 220-foot-high tower on the park’s western flank, or a parking garage at the eastern terminus of the Midway Plaisance, all of which are related to the current Section 106 review.

Project 120 Chicago: the GLFER Project

On June 10, 2014, the CPD and the not-for-profit Project 120 Chicago entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)19 in order to “memorialize the progress of their collaborative work to date, and provide greater structure to more efficiently and effectively partner on projects to revitalize Jackson Park.” As the MOU states, a founding precept for the partnership is that Jackson Park is “one of the most significant and complex historic landscapes in Chicago and the nation.” A primary undertaking of the partnership is known as the GLFER Project, a “historically based and integrated project of preservation and habitat restoration” in Jackson Park. The MOU goes on to say that in February 2014, “in consultation with Park District and USACE, Project 120 hired award-wining and internationally recognized preservation landscape architect and planner, Patricia M. O’Donnell, FASLA, AICP, and her firm Heritage Landscapes LLC, to work with Park District, USACE, and other members of the Project 120 Team.” As previously mentioned, in late 2015 O’Donnell and her associate published their findings in a peer-reviewed academic journal. It bears repeating that this scholarship is the direct result of work supported by the CPD, Project 120 Chicago, and the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. Part of the published research addressed the GLFER Project’s role in reducing the local impact of climate change:

Noting the important position of this park between the lake and dense urban areas to the north, east, and west, the [GLFER] project has the potential to positively impact the climate of the South Side of Chicago… As summer temperatures increase, air quality can degrade, and heat waves can challenge both human health and economic activity. As proposed by the GLFER project, improvements in air and water quality and the increased density of park vegetation will act to counterinfluence these projected effects. What is the relationship between these potential changes in Midwestern climate and the work currently underway at Jackson Park? The rebuilding of ecosystems with native terrestrial and aquatic plantings improves water quality and reduces the urban heat island effect. The park will be a cool refuge that will aid in moderating temperatures in the dense surrounding neighborhoods (emphasis added).20

The MOU estimated the total cost of the GLFER Project to be $7 million, with $4,550,000 coming from a federal contribution and the remaining $2,450,000 as a local match from the CPD and “private parties.” 

With its dual mandate of ecological restoration and historic preservation and its potential to address issues related to climate change, the GLFER Project would seem to be at odds with more recent plans to install the OPC in Jackson Park, given that the imposition of massive buildings within the park would likely negate any gains of the ecosystem restoration in reducing the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

It is also notable that Project 120 Chicago’s Jackson Park Framework Plan21 did not envision the closing of Cornell Drive or Marquette Drive, but rather sought to see that “connectivity to and through Jackson Park is reestablished.” The organization had also undertaken “The Great Lawn Project,”22 an initiative to “restore over 40 acres of historic and graceful open space on Chicago's lakefront” by relocating the current driving range in Jackson Park to an area south of Hayes Drive. The Project 120 Chicago website states the following in that regard:

In 1978, a driving range was introduced, which is still utilized today, after considerable objection from the Hyde Park and Kenwood communities. There is a chain link fence which surrounds the perimeter of the driving range, and creates a visual, as well as physical barrier to the vision and purpose intended by Frederick Law Olmsted (emphasis added).

The more recent endeavor of the CPD to consolidate the South Shore and Jackson Park golf courses includes the expansion of the driving range that Project 120 Chicago had hoped to relocate. Given that several of the objectives of its long-term initiatives conflict with current proposals related to the OPC, it is notable that in August 2016, just days after Jackson Park was announced as the site of the OPC, Project 120 Chicago changed its “focus,” adding the following statement to its website:

What is the focus of Project 120 Chicago? Today, the South Parks are once again a place for grand vision and innovation, and an influential component of Chicago's South Side cultural renaissance and resurgence, and with the addition of SKY LANDING by Yoko Ono and the Obama Presidential Library, a marker for peace among all people and all nations (emphasis added).

It is also worth noting that the Project 120 Chicago website now appears to be defunct, with the most recent information having been posted in October 2016.

In closing, we reiterate that the current APE in the Section 106 review should be expanded to include the entirety of the South Park System, because Washington Park, the Midway Plaisance, and Jackson Park were indeed conceived, planned, and executed as a single system, one that as a practical and cultural resource continues to be greater than the sum of its parts. We also urge that the fuller assessment of Jackson Park’s design integrity and significance, and the implications that follow from it, be recognized, as well as the duty to apply the highest standards in evaluating any impact on what is universally agreed to be the irreplaceable inheritance of the citizens of Chicago and the nation. We thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and trust that they will be taken into consideration.

Sincerely,

Charles A. Birnbaum, FASLA, FAAR
Founder, President, and CEO, The Cultural Landscape Foundation

[Jud_T]

Teddy Greenstein will need a shower to get the residue of Mike Keiser’s derriere off his face after this shameless excuse for journalism.  There is so much puckering in this article that even a seasoned salad tosser like Greenstein should be embarrassed. 

The Top Six Toads in this Article.

6. “…the Lincoln Park resident is golf’s premier modern builder — and on the leaderboard among the game’s all-time visionaries.”
For god’s sake Teddy, this line may have elevated you to the all-time leaderboard of journalist sycophants.   

Let's see...Current Golf Magazine World Top 100 Rankings...


#96. Cabot Links
#90. Barnbougle Lost Farm
#65. Bandon Dunes
#50. Cabot Cliffs
#38. Barnbougle Dunes
#26. Pacific Dunes


This doesn't include Old Mac (Golfweek #5 Modern) or Bandon Trails (#17 Modern) or The Dunes Club (#46 Modern) or Sand Valley (#61 Modern).  So essentially every course he's been involved with is very highly considered.  Not to mention the fact that he's probably been the key guy responsible for championing what we now consider to be the guiding aesthetic of our time and a return to the traditional values of the game.  Doesn't sound like such a huge yarn on Teddy's part to me.  We get it, you're against the course and you've got a Paul Bunyonesque axe to grind.   

[Paul OConnor]

Let's see if you can find one of these things that is not like the other.

#96. Cabot Links - $295.00*
#90. Barnbougle Lost Farm - $145.00*
#65. Bandon Dunes - $325.00*
#50. Cabot Cliffs - $295.00*
#38. Barnbougle Dunes - $145.00*
#26. Pacific Dunes - $325.00*
#??. Jackson Park - $33.00**

*Plus airfare, rental car, housing, and caddy.
**Maybe includes free caddy, courtesy of WGA largesse.

[Jud_T]

What’s your point?  He builds high end golf courses.  I understand the current plan will grandfather hardcore current players around current rates.   I suppose you’re for rent control of all buildings near downtown as well.  If your argument is that this is public space for all to enjoy right by the lake, then I’d argue that you should plow the existing courses under and just put in soccer fields, basketball courts, baseball diamonds, football fields and bbq pits and tables. 

[Ian Mackenzie]

Jud, there is no point.
Chicago has been selling its soul to private enterprise for the past 20years.
It’s the legacy of the Daley family and this is just a continuation.


If you want an analogy, then look at Harding Park in SF.
Yes, green fees increased, but so did city revenues.


Besides, he does not live in the city, he’s a “630” guy. Does not apply to him...   his tax dollars are not being spent.
If I had 36 holes of freshly restorated suburban private golf at my disposal, I would not be grinding an axe....

[Paul OConnor]

 Letter from Faculty Concerning the Obama Center
 We members of the University of Chicago faculty who sign this letter support the idea of establishing the Obama Center in our neighborhood, in the South Side. However, as details of the plans have become public we share concerns expressed by neighborhood groups throughout the South Side. The neighborhood groups are diverse. They include the Community Benefits Agreement Coalition whose active members include the Black Youth Project 100, the Bronzeville Regional Collective -- which itself includes Blacks in Green -- the Kenwood Oakland Community Organization, the Poor People's Campaign, the Southside Together Organizing for Power, UChicago for a CBA, the Westside Health Authority and Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights; and whose allied members include the Chicago Teachers Union, Chicago Women in Trades, Friends of the Park, Metropolitan Tenants Association, Woodlawn East Community and Neighbors, Chicago Jobs Council, Chicago Rehab Council, Brighton Park Neighborhood Council and many others.  Other groups opposed to the current plans include the Midway Plaisance Park Advisory Committee, Save the Midway, Jackson Park Watch, and South Shore Nature Sanctuary.  The concerns of these groups are different.  But taken together they form an intelligible whole.
 
 First, there are concerns that the Obama Center as currently planned will not provide the promised development or economic benefits to the neighborhoods.  Because the current plans place the Center next to the Museum of Science and Industry and across the street from the University of Chicago campus, there is no available adjacent land in which to start a new business, set up a new café or restaurant, bring another cultural center to the neighborhood.  It looks to many neighbors that the only new jobs created will be as staff to the Obama Center, hence the widespread support for a Community Benefits Agreement. 
 
 Second, the current plan calls for taking a large section of an historic public park and giving it to a private entity for development.  Jackson Park, designed by Frederick Law Olmsted, is on the National Register of Historic Places and is one of the most important urban parks in the nation.  Construction of a permanent architectural monument violates Olmsted's vision of a democratic urban park.  On the current plans the intrusion into the park is huge: twenty-one acres, the size of two large city blocks.  At a time of increasing complexity and pressure in urban life, Chicago should be dedicated to preserving our public parks as open areas for relaxation and play for all its citizens.  We also note that the Obama Center has abandoned its original plans to be a Presidential Library.  It will be a private entity with no official connection to the National Archives. 
 
 Third, because of the planned location of the Obama Center, the Obama Foundation plans to take over a section of another historic, public park -- Midway Plaisance, also designed by Olmsted -- and turn it into an above-ground parking garage.  They have to date rejected many pleas of neighborhood groups to place the garage underground. The planners say they need the parking lot there so that visitors can walk directly across the street to the Obama Center, but that raises problems of its own.  (1) The planners also intend to close Cornell Avenue to traffic, thus making Stony Island Avenue the only major north-south thoroughfare on the South Side, other than the Interstate Highway.  So every visitor who comes by car or by Metra will have to cross the busiest street on the South Side.  And those of our neighbors who depend on driving north or south for their livelihoods will inevitably be significantly held up. This is a traffic-jam in the making. (2) Those who can walk straight across the street to the Obama Center can also walk straight back to their cars and go home.  Given the location, if they do any visiting at all it is overwhelmingly likely they will visit those areas that are already well developed, the Museum of Science and Industry and the University of Chicago campus.  (3) A parking lot, of course, privileges cars and those who can afford them.  Parking is expensive, and though public lands are being given away, all the profits from this parking lot will go to the Obama Foundation.  None of the funds will go back to the City to improve train lines and public transportation infrastructure. Overall, this is a socially regressive plan (4) Again, this is a precious, historic urban park that ought to be preserved for future generations not given to a private entity for development into a parking lot. 
 
 Finally, it is the taxpayers of Chicago who are going to be forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for this project, according to estimates by the Chicago Department of Transportation.  The required widening of Lake Shore Drive alone is estimated to be over $100 million. Not only are public lands being given to a private entity but the public will pay to have Cornell Drive closed and Stony Island Avenue and Lake Shore Drive widened.  We are concerned that these are not the best ways to use public funds to invest in the future of Chicago. 
 
 We University of Chicago faculty who sign this letter are ourselves a diverse group and different issues will matter more to some of us than to others.  But we share with so many of our neighbors the belief that the current plans need significant revision.  We are concerned that rather than becoming a bold vision for urban living in the future it will soon become an object-lesson in the mistakes of the past.  We urge the Obama Foundation to explore alternative sites on the South Side that could be developed with more economic benefits, better public transportation, and less cost to taxpayers.  We would be pleased to support the Obama Center if the plan genuinely promoted economic development in our neighborhoods and respected our precious public urban parks. 
 
 (Please sign below. The list of signatures will be updated each day.)
 
 Jonathan Lear, Professor, Social Thought and Philosophy
 W. J. T. Mitchell, Professor, English, Art History, and Visual Arts
 Tara   Zahra, Professor, History
 Richard Strier, Sulzberger Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, English
 Martha Feldman, Professor, Music and Romance Languages
 Mark Siegler, Professor, Medicine
 William Mazzarella, Professor, Anthropology
 Bruce Lincoln, Caroline E. Haskell Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Divinity School
 Michael Geyer, Samuel N. Harper Professor Emeritus, History
 Jessica Stockholder, Professor, Visual Arts
 Rosanna Warren, Professor, Social Thought
 Matthew Jesse Jackson, Associate Professor, Art History and Visual Arts
 Emilio Kourí, Professor, History
 Marshall Sahlins, Charles F. Grey Distinguished Professor of Anthropology Emeritus
 Frances Ferguson, Professor, English
 Linda Zerilli, Charles E. Merriam Distinguished Professor, Political Science
 Elizabeth Helsinger, John Matthews Manly Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, English
 Gabriel Lear, Professor, Philosophy and Social Thought
 Robert Pippin, Evelyn Steffanson Nef Distinguished Service Professor, Social Thought
 Susan Gal, Professor, Anthropology and Linguistics
 Susan Goldin-Meadow, Beardsley Ruml Distinguished Service Professor, Psychology
 Jonathan Levy, Professor, History
 Dipesh Chakrabarty, Professor, History
 Daniel Brudney, Professor, Philosophy
 Robert Richards, Morris Fishbein Distinguished Service Professor, History
 Catherine Sullivan, Associate Professor, Visual Arts
 David Wellbery, LeRoy T. and Margaret Deffenbaugh Carlson University Professor, Germanic Studies and Social Thought
 Wendy Doniger, Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions, Divinity School
 David Levin, Professor, Theater & Performance Studies and Germanic Studies
 Haun Saussy, University Professor, Comparative Literature
 Eric Santner, Philip and Ida Romberg Distinguished Service Professor, Germanic Studies
 Nathan Tarcov, Professor, Social Thought
 Elaine Hadley, Professor, English
 Annie Dorsen, Visiting Assistant Professor of Practice, Theater and Performing Studies
 John Muse, Assistant Professor, English and Theater & Performance Studies
 Steven Rings, Associate Professor, Music
 Heidi Coleman, Senior Lecturer, Theater and Performance Studies
 Thomas Pavel, Professor, Romance Languages
 Florian Klinger, Associate Professor, Germanic Studies
 Anne Robertson, Claire Dux Swift Distinguished Service Professor of Music; Dean, Division of the Humanities
 Françoise Meltzer, Professor, Comparative Literature (Chair) and Divinity School
 Philip Bohlman, Ludwig Rosenberger Distinguished Service Professor in Jewish History, Music
 Danielle Roper, Provost’s Career Enhancement Postdoctoral Scholar, Romance Languages
 Nicholas Rudall, Professor Emeritus, Classics
 Richard Neer, William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Professor, Art History
 James Conant, Chester D. Tripp Professor of Humanities, Philosophy
 Catherine   Baumann, Director, Chicago Language Center
 Margareta Christian, Assistant Professor, Germanic Studies
 Andrew  Abbott, Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Service Professor, Sociology
 Kimberly Kenny, Senior Lecturer, Norwegian Studies
 Michael LaBarbera, Emeritus Professor, Organismal Biology & Anatomy
 Andrei Pop, Associate Professor, Social Thought
 Salikoko Mufwene, Frank J. McLoraine Distinguished Service Professor, Linguistics
 Agnes Lugo-Ortiz, Associate Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures, HLBS
 Ben Laurence, Lecturer, Philosophy
 David Finkelstein, Associate Professor, Philosophy
 Itamar Francez, Assistant Professor, Linguistics
 James Wilson, Assistant Professor, Political Science
 Daisy Delogu, Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures
 Lauren Berlant, George M. Pullman Distinguished Service Professor, English
 Patrick Jagoda, Associate Professor, English and Cinema & Media Studies
 Charles Lipson, Peter B. Ritzma Professor, Political Science
 Loren Kruger, Professor, English
 James Chandler, Barbara E. and Richard J. Franke Professor, English
 Aaron Turkewitz, Professor, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology
 Mark Berger, Collegiate Assistant Professor, Humanities
 Adom Getachew, Assistant Professor, Political Science
 Amy Dru Stanley, Associate Professor, History
 Mario Santana, Associate Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures
 Kristen Schilt, Associate Professor, Sociology
 Spencer Bloch, R.M. Hutchins D.S. Professor Emeritus, Mathematics
 Adrian Johns, Maclear Professor, History
 Bozena Shallcross, Professor, Slavic Languages and Literatures
 Francois Richard, Associate Professor, Anthropology
 Petra Goedegebuure, Associate Professor, Oriental Institute
 Norma Field, Robert Ingersoll Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, East Asian Languages and Civilizations
 Elena Bashir, Senior Lecturer, South Asian Languages & Civilizations
 Veronica Vegna, Senior Lecturer and Coordinator, Romance Languages and Literatures
 Lucia B. Rothman-Denes, A. J. Carlson Professor, Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology
 Choudhri   Naim, Professor Emeritus, South Asian Languages & Civilizations
 Christopher Skelly, Associate Professor, Surgery
 William Sites, Associate Professor, School of Social Service Administration
 Joel Isaac, Associate Professor, Social Thought
 Na’ama Rokem, Associate Professor, Comparative Literature and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
 Howard Stein, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy
 Daniel Yohanna, Associate Professor and Interim Chair, Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience
 William Sewell, Frank P. Hixon Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus, Political Science and History
 Laura Letinsky, Professor, Visual Arts
 Leora Auslander, Arthur and Joann Rasmussen Professor of Western Civilization, History
 Paola Iovene, Associate Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations
 David Orlinsky, Professor Emeritus, Comparative Human Development
 Moishe Postone, Professor, History
 Michael Bourdaghs, Robert S. Ingersoll Professor, East Asian Languages and Civilizations
 William Tait, Professor Emeritus, Philosophy
 Anna Mueller, Assistant Professor, Comparative Human Development
 Hans Schreiber, Professor, Pathology
 Michael Silverstein, C. F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor of Anthropology, Linguistics, and Psychology
 Fred Donner, Peter B. Ritzma Professor, Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations and Oriental Institute
 Matthew Boyle, Professor, Philosophy
 James Hopson, Emeritus Professor, Organismal Biology & Anatomy
 Allan Rechtschaffen, Professor Emeritus, Psychiatry and Psychology
 Jim Lastra, Associate Professor, Cinema and Media Studies
 Joshua Scodel, Helen A. Regenstein Professor, English
 Janet Johnson, Hull Professor of Egyptology, Oriental Institute and Near Eastern Languages & Civilizations
 Jennifer Cole, Professor, Comparative Human Development
 Godfrey Getz, Emeritus Professor, Pathology
 Seth Brodsky, Associate Professor, Music
 Elizabeth Asmis, Professor, Classics
 Nicole Marwell, Associate Professor, School of Social Service Administration
 Salomé Aguilera Skvirsky, Assistant Professor, Cinema and Media Studies
 Daniel Morgan, Associate Professor, Cinema and Media Studies
 Robert L. Kendrick, Professor, Music
 Jason Grunebaum, Senior Lecturer, South Asian Languages and Civilizations
 Janel   Mueller, Dean of Humanities Emerita, William Rainey Harper Distinguished Service Professor Emerita, College
 Daniel Johnson, Professor, Pediatics
 John Woods, Professor, History
 Rachel DeWoskin, Lecturer, Creative Writing
 Anna Di Rienzo, Professor, Human Genetics
 Michael I.   Allen, Associate Professor, Classics
 John McCormick, Professor, Political Science
 Ralph Austen, Emeritus Professor, History
 Neil Harris, Preston and Sterling Morton Professor Emeritus, History
 Joel Snyder, Professor, Art History
 Kenneth Warren, Fairfax M. Cone Distinguished Service Professor, English
 Eve Ewing, Provost's Postdoctoral Scholar & Assistant Professor, School of Social Service Administration
 Catherine Kearns, Assistant Professor, Classics
 James Shapiro, Professor, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
 Travis A. Jackson, Associate Professor, Music
 Mark Bradley, Bernadotte E. Schmitt Distinguished Service Professor, History
 Jessica Baker, Assistant Professor, Music
 Christian Wedemeyer, Associate Professor, Divinity School
 Patchen Markell, Associate Professor, Political Science
 Hussein Ali Agrama, Associate Professor, Anthropology
 Andreas Glaeser, Professor, Sociology
 Alida Bouris, Associate Professor, School of Social Service Administration
 Joseph Masco, Professor, Anthropology
 Wadad Kadi, The Avalon Foundation Distinguished Service Professor Emerita, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
 Miguel Martinez, Assistant Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures
 Julie Orlemanski, Assistant Professor, English
 Darryl Li, Assistant Professor, Anthropology
 Cornell Fleischer, Kanuni Süleyman Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies, History and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations
 Yali Amit, Professor, Statistics
 Maria Anna Mariani, Assistant Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures
 Jennifer Scappettone, Associate Professor, English, Creative Writing, Romance Languages and Literatures
 Elissa Weaver, Professor Emerita, Romance Languages & Literatures
 Gary   Herrigel, Paul Klapper Professor, Political Science
 Larissa Brewer-García, Assistant Professor, Romance Languages and Literatures
 Colm O'Muircheartaigh, Professor, Harris School of Public Policy
 Jenny Trinitapoli, Associate Professor, Sociology
 Chad Broughton, Senior Lecturer, College
 George Tolley, Emeritus Professor, Economics, and Former Director, Center for Urban Studies
 Ross Stolzenberg, Professor, Sociology
 Kaushik Sunder Rajan, Professor, Anthropology
 Jason Bridges, Professor, Philosophy
 Christopher Taylor, Assistant Professor, English
 Elay Annamalai, Visting Professor, South Asian Languages and Civilizations
 Lawrence Zbikowski, Professor, Music
 Kathleen Cagney, Professor, Sociology
 Jennifer Wild, Associate Professor, Cinema and Media Studies
 Kathleen Beavis, Professor, Pathology
 Mamam Murthy, Professor Emeritus, Mathematics
 Emily Talen, Professor of Urbanism, Social Sciences Division
 Carolyn Johnson, Lecturer, Social Sciences Collegiate Division
 Jan Goldstein, Norman and Edna Freehling Professor, History

[Paul OConnor]

And, from Crain's, Obama Foundation backs off....

Obama Center picks up another opponent, drops above-ground garage   Comments    Email    Print      By  Steven R. Strahler       SHARE 

• Facebook
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Google +0

        Rendering of the proposed Obama Center.     UPDATED
Barack Obama may be the pride of University of Chicago, but a lot of heavy hitters there are strongly opposing current plans for his library.
More than 100 U of C faculty members who say they support the location of an Obama Center near the campus nevertheless are opposing plans for it on economic and preservation grounds.
They say the center's proposed location lacks room to jump-start economic development, and its footprint will consume parts of historic Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance. "Not only are public lands being given to a private entity but the public will pay to have Cornell Drive closed and Stony Island Avenue and Lake Shore Drive widened," at an estimated cost to taxpayers of more than $100 million, the faculty wrote in a letter.
​
The signers include such luminaries as Neil Harris, a history professor emeritus, divinity professor Wendy Doniger and political scientist Charles Lipson.
​
 "We are concerned that rather than becoming a bold vision for urban living in the future it will soon become an object-lesson in the mistakes of the past," the group wrote. "We urge the Obama Foundation to explore alternative sites on the South Side that could be developed with more economic benefits, better public transportation, and less cost to taxpayers. We would be pleased to support the Obama Center if the plan genuinely promoted economic development in our neighborhoods and respected our precious public urban parks."
Shortly after the faculty statement was circulated, the foundation announced it has called off plans to locate the center's parking garage on the east end of the Midway. The plan, for an above-ground parking structure, drew opposition from groups including Jackson Park Watch and Save the Midway, both of which include South Side residences and businesses.
 
“After numerous meetings with the community and other valued stakeholders over the past months, the Foundation understands that many of those voices feel strongly that the parking for the OPC should be located within the OPC campus in Jackson Park,” the foundation said in a statement regarding the location of the garage. “The Foundation has heard those voices, and has decided to locate the OPC's parking underground in Jackson Park.”
 
The parking garage will now be located underground in Jackson Park, between the proposed library building and athletic center. According to a press release from the Obama Foundation, entry and exit from the garage will be on the east side of Stony Island Avenue and aligned with 61st St., and will hold 400 to 450 cars.
W.J.T. Mitchell, a professor of English and art history at the University of Chicago, said he and Jonathan Lear, a philosophy professor, initiated the letter. Mitchell, author of a book, "Landscape and Power," attended community meetings hosted by backers of the Obama Center and found them patronizing, he said. Compared with long presentations, he said, there was little time for questions from the audience.
   “More and more I heard these murmurs of discontent, which were getting louder and louder,” he says, recalling his conclusion: “Well . . . this is one of those Chicago power plays.”
   Lipson says locating the center on the west side of Washington Park, west of the campus and near the CTA's Green Line would have been “an unambiguous boon to the community and to Chicago. Instead, the former president chose a much fancier, high-profile site on the lake, one with virtually no public transportation.”
 Mitchell said plans are in the works for a symposium next month he hopes includes Obama Foundation representatives. “I would love to hear them actually engage with people who understand the issues in some depth,” he says.
 In a statement, Jeremy Manier, a spokesman for the university, says, “The Obama Presidential Center has the potential to be a powerful catalyst for economic development, civic engagement, and cultural opportunities across the Chicago region, especially in the South Side neighborhoods.  As with all issues, University of Chicago faculty members are free to express their individual views and engage in discussions in any format they wish.
Lisa Bertagnoli contributed.

[MCirba]

Paul,

Are you opposed to the Obama Center or the golf course renovation or both, and why?

Where should the Presidential Library be located if not on public land in Chicago's south side?

Just trying to better understand your point, thanks.

[Paul OConnor]

 Another Section 106 Submittal, this one from Preservation Chicago



January 04, 2018
Ms. Eleanor Gorski, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Planning and
Development, Historic Preservation Division
Mr. John Sadler, Chicago Department of Transportation
Ms. Abby Monroe, Coordinating Planner, Department of Planning and
Development
City of Chicago
121 N. LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60602
 
Re: Obama Presidential Center -Jackson Park/Midway Plaisance-Section 106
Hearings and Comments, addressing the Area of Potential Effect-APE, Roadway
Improvements and SLFP-South Lakefront Plans.
 
Dear Ms. Gorski, Mr. Sadler and Ms. Monroe,
 
Thank you for the opportunity to both participate and address issues and on the
Area of Potential Effect-APE and road changes impacting Frederick Law Olmsted’s
historic Jackson Park, the Midway Plaisance and nearby Washington Park, all part
of Chicago’s legacy Olmsted Parks.
 
As Preservation Chicago is a Consulting Party to the project, and part of the
Section 106 Hearings on these National Register Resources, we share many of the
concerns and impacts stated in the December 1, 2017 meeting. These public
comments were also reflected in prior public meetings, relating to the proposed
plans and the impact of the Obama Presidential Center and the proposed merger
of the two golf courses into one at Jackson Park and South Shore Cultural Center.
We are also in agreement with many of the letters received on this topic from other
organizations. Specifically, these include letters from Openlands, Jackson Park
Watch, Landmarks Illinois and Friends of the Parks to name several, on the
inclusion of additional lands added to the APE-Area of Potential Effect, additions
to historic features, concerns about the framework plans and variations between
1999 documents, and the absence of actual plans.
 
While recent Section 106 Meetings, began in December 2017, have initially focused
on the APE, roadway plans for Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance, and the
potential negative and adverse impact on these important parklands, we wanted to take
this opportunity to express a variety of concerns relating to these proposed plans and
concepts. We also would like to address the larger impact of the Obama Presidential
Center on historic Jackson Park and the adjacent Midway, in addition to other
roadways, which will experience an adverse impact, most notably, South Lake Shore
Drive and Cornell Drive.
 
We are of the opinion that these plans are all interrelated and therefore wanted to
express our concerns in a direct letter to help understand some of the reasons we have
arrived at various conclusions. It is our hope that this will be the most helpful way of
expressing concerns about perspective changes to these legacy parks as proposed, and to
encourage a more sensitive approach and therefore better outcomes.
 
We are very concerned about the potential destruction of cultural treasures, impacting
cultural, architectural, historical and natural resources, some of which are listed in the
National Register of Historic Places documents. Below are listed a wide range of critical
features of the park, which may be severely impacted and may or may not have been
sensitively considered, prior to the planning of the Obama Presidential Center-OPC and
the adjacent buildings and roadways.
 
1.) Potential negative impact on the Frederick Law Olmsted and Olmsted, Olmsted &
Eliot Design: The preliminary proposed plan as presented, appears to radically change
both the historic design and impact of both Jackson Park and the Midway Plaisance, in
both the renderings and maps, and appears to reflect a certain insensitivity to the work
of Olmsted and his firm. If this project were to proceed forward, as reflected in the
preliminary plans relating to road reconfigurations, historic roadway closures and the
overall concept to remove 20-plus-acres of parkland for the Obama Presidential Center,
this would perhaps represent the most disastrous destruction of one of the most seminal
landscapes of Frederick Law Olmsted.
 
Olmsted and his firm are recognized as one of the world’s most important Landscape
Architects. The designs of the firm are considered “public works of art,” of the highest
artistic standards and quality, and employing the “restorative power of landscape for
ordinary people,” in the words of Olmsted. The South Parks System of Jackson Park, the
Midway Plaisance and Washington Park, designed by Olmsted, is one of the firm’s most
important commissions, alongside with Central Park and Riverside Park in New York
City. The Olmsted parks of Chicago represent the very best-of-the-best, and are truly
world treasures. Any type of major impact and heavy-handed changes, would be
considered adverse changes to these delicate park designs and landscapes, and would
result in a major loss of these parks as an Olmsted design and together this would be
considered tragic. The two combined proposals for the Jackson Park will most likely
modify, impact and change almost every portion and corner of this historic park.
 
2.) Proposed changes to the Midway Plaisance and adjoining gateway into Jackson Park
in the OPC plans may result in the potential loss and irreparable damage of the nexus
and the important and delicate link, connecting Jackson Park to the Midway, and
extending to Washington Park to the west. This is one of the most important features of
these richly composed and articulated parks, along with the relationships and
connections between these various components, which are very much a part of these
Olmsted world treasures.
 
3.) The proposed removal of the May McAdams Perennial Garden, dating from the
1930s, designed by a woman and perhaps the Chicago Park District’s first female
Landscape architect. This is also the site of the 1893 Women’s Building, by Sophia
Hayden, one of the first large exposition buildings, designed exclusively to showcase
Women’s achievements, and the only building at the Chicago World’s Fair designed by
a woman. This is an amazing legacy and so many issues relevant to the Woman’s
Movement, and the great achievements of Women, including Suffrage efforts, were
linked to this building and site. The building hosted the likes of Susan B. Anthony, Dr.
Caroline Winslow and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, in addition to Jane Addams and Bertha
Palmer and with works of art and murals by Mary Cassatt. This potential loss of this
garden, along with the permanent foundations of the Women’s building, located below
the soil line, along with other features and memorials, would be a great loss to these
many feats and this wonderful story. This is to all be replaced in the OPC plans with a
water-retention and drainage pond, as the entire site will be clear-cut and re-graded
with excavating equipment in the existing proposed schemes for this site.
 
4.) The removal of Cornell Drive, which is an original Frederick Law Olmsted feature of
the park, noted as “West Drive” in historical plans and documents. This was drastically
widened and expanded in the 1960s, with the loss of hundreds of trees and once marked
by citizen protests to protect them--all to add additional lanes and to express traffic
through the park, which would be considered a misstep today. However, this was a
former carriage drive and still retains its historic path, which could be again narrowed to
the proportions of a carriage drive and to further calm speeding traffic. It is also thought
that removing this drive in the proposed OPC plans would greatly enhance the park and
free portions from automobile traffic. However, the experience of driving through a
beautiful tree-lined park is also very pleasant for many drivers and the Chicago Parks
are really for everyone and much like Lake Shore Drive is a beautiful experience, even if
you’re in an automobile. Certainly improvements and restoration of the roadway can
occur, which would also greatly improve the experience of the park from a vehicle.
However, this roadway should remain as a historic and critical Olmsted feature of
Jackson Park.
 
5.) The potential negative impacts on other adjacent and nearby Olmsted roadways and
pastoral drives in Jackson Park. This would include a major expansion of South Lake
Shore Drive to accommodate the closing of Cornell Drive (formerly West Drive in the
Olmsted Plans for Jackson Park) and a reconstruction of that road to new Federal and
modern highway standards and regulations, further destroying the character of that
amazing roadway, which has “a pastoral boulevard character” as it meets Jackson Park
and the Lake Michigan Shoreline. This expansion could negatively impact, modify and
destroy a very significant feature of the park, while also potentially further decreasing
pedestrian access to Lake Michigan and 57th Street Beach, with this widening and
additional traffic now diverted to this roadway. This area of the park is one of
Olmsted’s most significant relationships, between the park and lagoons and the
Lakefront and should not be further modified. There is also the possibility with these
changes, that the 57th Street Beach may be physically impacted and reduced in size by
proposed modifications and a widening of Lake Shore Drive.
 
6.) Impact of a large incongruous and awkward parking garage squeezed into the
middle of the Midway, at the gateway entry to Jackson Park, with the rearranging of
existing streets, and access to the proposed above-ground facility. This is all paired with
the visual discourse of an above-ground parking facility, which will upset the integrity
of the Midway, which connects both Jackson Park and Washington Parks.
7.) The impact on Promontory Point, with possible changes and modifications to South
Lake Shore Drive, and its possible widening to accommodate automobile traffic from the
proposed closing of Cornell Drive and other streets and former carriage drives
throughout the park.
 
8.) Removal of sacred greenspaces, small meadows, and gardens, which are also a vital
part of the Olmstead legacy of trees, which often help to form these spaces. Olmsted
cited that the trees are very important and among his favorite things, and this site has
many old growth trees, some predating the park and reflecting the wetlands that existed
where the Lakefront met the marshy soils of Chicago. He also advocated for “the respect
of the genius of a place…noting every site has ecologically and spiritually unique qualities” and
“…to create an unconscious process that produced relaxation” to the viewer and the
experience of the parks. These parks and this park were for everyone, without
distraction or “distracting elements”, which Olmsted fought continuously, until perfect.
The proposed modifications and OPC tower in Jackson Park will certainly be a
“distracting element”. The idea of an Olmsted park as a place to regenerate oneself in
nature, especially in a large industrial city like Chicago, is reflected in his quotation--“It
is one great purpose of the Park to supply to the hundreds of thousands of tired workers, who have
no opportunity to spend their summers in the country, a specimen of God’s handiwork that shall
be to them, inexpensively, what a month or two in the White Mountains or in the Adirondacks is,
at great cost, to those in easier circumstances.”
 
9.) The impact on the historical and very important view-sheds and vistas throughout
Jackson Park, and on the Midway with this proposal and larger development of the
OPC. This project will impact many perspectives and view-sheds from most every
direction, and becoming a predominant feature of the park. Olmsted is said to have
redesigned the park to accommodate the Palace of Fine Arts, later known as the Field
Museum of Natural History until 1922, and then becoming the (Rosenwald) Museum of
Science and Industry to present day, as the primary feature of the park. The Museum
building, with its symmetrical plan is also visually centered at the park’s north end and
framed by 57th Street and Cornell Drive, which is proposed to be removed, further
unbalancing the original vision, centered within these perimeters by historic
carriageways and drives. The proposed tower and OPC would further adversely impact
that vision and of course is off-center and off-alignment with Jackson Park, the Midway
and would by an asymmetrical feature within a delicately balanced park.
 
10.) Possible impact of both the Obama Presidential Center Tower, plaza, outbuildings
and garage, on the migratory-fly-zone of birds and other wildlife, which use the parks
and specifically the long Midway Plaisance expanse, as it has direct access to Lake
Michigan from Washington Park and others areas to the west. The area of the Midway
proposed for the garage is also a place for waterfowl, which further encourages wildlife
and nature in the parks and the Midway.
 
11.) A tree-cut or loss of approximately 500 trees for just the 20 plus acres of space for the Obama Presidential Center.

An additional 2,500 trees, some old-growth trees are to be
lost for a reconfiguration of the proposed golf courses and fairways at Jackson Park and
South Shore Cultural Center. This may not even include the cutting of trees and the loss
of greenspace to further widen South Lake Shore Drive, if Cornell Drive is to be closed
and the potential widening of South Stony Island Avenue and both park loss and
potential tree cut for this widening and expansion.
 
It also seems a bit peculiar for a large city like Chicago, that such a proposal would reduce two separate golf courses, with 27 holes and greens, and make one golf course of 18 holes and greens from two. Instead, we should be restoring the two golf courses—the Jackson Park course said to the oldest course, west of the Allegany’s, and instead increase the number of golf courses to three available facilities, with a professional-grade Tiger Woods course elsewhere. Perhaps this could be located on the old South Works Steel Site, along the Lakefront, which would extend the Lakefront park system along the newest section of Lake Shore Drive, South of 79th Street-Rainbow Beach. This would help to both preserve and activate recreation and additional greenspaces to the South and have a series of courses for all levels of golfing, from beginners, to intermediate and to a professional level. Such an idea may also positively impact the South Chicago community.  (Emphasis Added)

 
12.) Potential loss and damage to the Nature Sanctuary at the South Shore Cultural
Center, which may greatly impact the habitat of many plant and animal species.
 
13.) In addition to the points above, the disturbance and possible destruction of
archeological material comprised of the World’s Columbian Exposition/Chicago
World’s Fair, including foundations of many exhibition halls, by a who’s-who of
architects that designed these structures. These include the permanent masonry
foundations of the Women’s Building and the Children’s Building, a first of its kind and
designed by architect, Sophia Hayden—a woman architect for a Women’s Building and
dating from 1892-1893. This was a most important event for both Chicago and
American, celebrating the 400th anniversary of the discovery of America, by Christopher
Columbus. It was an event that was on the world stage and was as important to
America, as its European counterparts in London in 1851 and Paris in 1889. This cannot
be understated as to its importance, relating to architecture, urban cities, planning, in
addition to the technologies that appeared in the many large-scale and voluminous
exhibition halls of the Fair.
 
14.) Addressing the existing neglect and deferred maintenance to crumbling pedestrian
paths, numerous park buildings, shelters and features, including the
Columbia/Clarence Darrow Bridge, the “Golf Shelter” and Comfort Station, near 67th
and Lake Shore Drive, the Iowa Building and other features, which have long ago
deserved the attention of the Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago. These
should still be restored and addressed, in addition to the many buildings of the South
Shore Cultural Center, some which are in better shape than others, like the stables and
connecting gatehouse. This reexamination of the parks, is an opportunity to address
these issues with or without the addition of the OPC and the proposed changes to the
golf courses.
 
Therefore we at Preservation Chicago feel the impact on the world-renowned legacy
parks, of Jackson Park, the Midway, Washington Park and the Chicago Lakefront,
would experience a tremendous adverse impact to these very important National
Register sites.
 
We would therefore recommend at this time that the Obama Presidential Center, which
we graciously welcome as another great Chicago institution and museum, consider a
relocation to another nearby site, which would have a lesser impact on these amazing
legacy parks. Perhaps there are equally close sites in proximity to the existing University
of Chicago Campus, with its many resources, libraries and museums. This institution
would thereby build upon and contribute to those existing resources.
 
We have also identified several of these potential sites, owned by the University of
Chicago, and extending from the Washington Park Neighborhood at the Green Line,
which would be most beneficial to the community, to the University of Chicago
Campus. Other sites, fronting, but not on, the Midway Plaisance, at both 60th and
Cottage Grove Avenue (which is currently a paved parking lot), and to a site just west of
and adjacent to The Reva and David Logan Center for the Arts (another paved parking
lot), which would also place these buildings, also by the same architect, next to one
another and fronting the Midway. This would allow for a cohesive architectural vision
by the same architectural firm, while grouping resources close together. These alternate
sites also have ample parking facilities nearby, so a new garage structure would not be
required. Perhaps such a site, with the aid of the University of Chicago, could also
sponsor the return of the “Obama Presidential Library and Archives concept,” which
would set a very high standard and level of research, which could further this as a
destination for both scholars, researchers and tourists alike.
 
We hope that these suggestions are helpful and that they may positively impact future
plans and decisions relating to the sacred qualities and features of these Olmsted
Parks—a true work of art, by one of the great masters of Landscape Architecture.
Sincerely,
Ward Miller
Ward Miller, Executive Director
Preservation Chicago
 
 

[PCCraig]

Paul,


We get it.


Thanks,


Pat

[Peter Flory]

I actually think that the old South Works Steel site would be a much better spot to put a golf course.  Better space, better access, less disruption to neighbors, etc.  In a pure fantasy world, it looks sort of like the original Lido site...  surrounded by water, dead flat. 
https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20170801/bush/us-steel-finds-buyer-for-440-acre-south-works-site#


Looks like they have plans to build 20,000 homes there though.

[MCirba]

I guess he missed my question?

[Jim Nugent]

Where should the Presidential Library be located if not on public land in Chicago's south side?

Mike, it's not a library, or at least not a presidential library.  The concept has morphed into a presidential center, that includes a branch of the Chicago public library. 

   

[BHoover]

This is all so very fascinating. 😴

[Buck Wolter]

I lived in Eastern Europe for a while and this thing has nothing on Soviet Era Monuments.

[Kalen Braley]

I may be wrong, but there sure looks to be a whole lotta open space in that proposed model. 

[MCirba]

I lived in Eastern Europe for a while and this thing has nothing on Soviet Era Monuments.

Really? 


I can't see the barbed wire of the gulags and reeducation camps but that Obama is a sneaky one so perhaps they are camoflauged with techniques superior to even Dr. Mackenzie.


I'm starting to understand some of the reasons for the opposition, methinks.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Paul,


We get it.


Thanks,


Pat

Exactly.
No one reads posts that long. Cutting and pasting articles is lazy. State your position and debate/defend from there.


Otherwise, "go home and get your shine box..."