Clark Park Boathouse Discussion
Clark Park is a pristine river front park which contains acres of green space and a half mile river front trail, soccer fields, native gardens and a state-of-the-art BMX trail. Also, it has a public canoe/kayak launch and is a recognized butterfly sanctuary and bird watching habitat.
We oppose constructing a 2 acre sized boat warehouse/crewing facility which will negatively impact the park - it will be too large for Clark Park and introduce a 3 story building, surrounded by concrete, increased vehicle traffic, and will interrupt existing activities at the park. The public demands a period of public review to investigate moving the facility to a larger park or a different location.
A much smaller boathouse facility could be constructed at Clark Park, containing canoes/kayak, badly needed washrooms and a public water source, concessios and possible bike rental. Green Space is the most valuable resource in the parks, especially in this one-of-a-kind riverfront park - it must be protected for future generations.
http://www.change.org/petitions/chicago-park-district-and-the-city-...
Views: 8455
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C on -
You do understand that you are going to present the Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago with a petition bearing the signatures of 500 people that oppose the construction of:
1. "a 2 acre sized boat warehouse/crewing facility;" [it's not] and
2. "introduce a 3 story building (into Clark Park)." [it's not]
Don't you?
Kevin T. said:Petition is up to 486, go team!
-
Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on -
The footprint of the building is 20,000SF +, clearly delineated by the drawing posted. Then the Pad site of the overall development is about three times the size of the footprint. If you look at the drawing you will see the driveway to the center of the first floor from Rockwell, the sidewalks inside the park connected to the building, and the river - side improvements which constitute a patio and the apron related to boating. This accounts for approximately 2 acres. Keep in mind, we had to figure this out on our own, with no help from anyone at the city, just a cursory presentation and pretty unclear and imprecise drawings of the concept.
We are volunteers and have tried to stay as factual as the information we have has directed us,much of it was not presented to us in an precise or organized fashion. The building has improvements on the roof, which led to the description of 3 stories, which we can correct as we submit our petition.
We are trying to be as positive as possible, to tell the City of Chicago, that this type of structure is not something that is that suitable for our park, and it conflicts directly with the planning that we have done for quite some time on the design of the park, which is not written in stone, but it has dealt with broad concepts which the introduction of this building makes it come from left field completely. Who would have ever thought that a rowing center would take over the "heart" of the park, and by its construction would make a ped/bike bridge impossible to build? It will displace the native gardens, introduce vehicle traffic within the park, and "shrink" the open green space which park users love so much about Clark Park.
NIMBY? There was no disclosure or democratic process whatsoever, no public hearings. There is alot of historical precedent to bring the advisory council in at the planning stages of these major developments. That did not happen. We were presented with a fait accompli, a done deal. There is a lack of respect for the citizenry at work here, the idea that downtown can dictate what happens at a community park should be anathema to all of us, since it will happen again in a different context. Being labeled as NIMBYs implies that we have to show cause why we are not wrong, and this is really an innaccurate description of what we have been doing at Clark Park for years. What we have been doing is right, volunteering in our neighborhood park and crafting a vision for it, in conjunction with the CPD and the City of Chicago. They are the ones who have violated the spirit of the relationship. We have nothing to apologize for.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on
-
Kevin, I would like to keep this plan as simple as possible. I really don't understand, and I don't expect a clear answer, why you really care what goes on in this park? Do you live in the neighborhood? Bill doesn't represent any "bad guy" group, he only wants what was originally proposed. This is an issue immediately affects many current users of Clark park mostly residents of the surrounding area. Everyone is treating this as though it were going to be on the next edition of 60 minutes.
I Kevin C said:You do understand that you are going to present the Chicago Park District and the City of Chicago with a petition bearing the signatures of 500 people that oppose the construction of:
1. "a 2 acre sized boat warehouse/crewing facility;" [it's not] and
2. "introduce a 3 story building (into Clark Park)." [it's not]
Don't you?
Kevin T. said:Petition is up to 486, go team!
-
Permalink Reply by Duppie 13.5185km on -
For a thread that had many a false start, I am still supportive of the basic idea behind the campaign for two reasons:
1. The backroom dealing in this project smells a lot like the Latin School soccer field fiasco. CPD does get funded from my taxpayer money. They should listen to what the taxpayers (i.e. the community) want, not bow to corporate interests. While the facts remain somewhat murky, the signs point to that happening.
2 The potential of not building a bridge over the river on Roscoe. This would have been potentially one safe route towards Logan Square for riders living on the Northside.The city needs more safe river and expressway crossings not less.
-
Permalink Reply by lorraine reder on
-
The Chicago Park District Board of Directors are political appointees, they are not elected officials and do not have to listen to what the taxpayers (i.e. the community) want.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on -
Let me clarify this one last time, then
I didn't say anyone who wants to row or doesn't care about this bridge hates cyclists or biking, that's obviously ridiculous.
What I said - and am saying - is supporting a private boathouse instead of a public ped/cycling bridge is anti-bike. It is anti-bike ON THIS ISSUE, it is choosing a project which favors people of means making a land grab on a public area which otherwise could be a multi-purpose win-win for many.
The metric is 8 - 80, that's ATA's, and one which stems spiritually from the Iroquois Federation's 7 generations rule of thumb. A bike/ped bridge wins on every count - kids, teens, adults, families, seniors would all benefit.
This is NOT a complex issue. That's where you are dead wrong. This is cut and dry. The community had existing plans which left a healthy amount of open space yet also improved facilities for the canoers, kayakers and other park users, and which also included the bridge. Now we have 11th hour schemery and a land grab by a small and clearly well-connected group.
I know which side I'm on.
As for what I do? A funny demand coming from an anonymous poster, but what the hell, I don't generally toot my own horn but I'll give it a shot.
So let's see - I taught in CPS, including a special ed class that was largely full of kids from Cabrini Green. I've worked in the non-profit sector at the Field Museum for 15 years, helping my division of some 150+ people do groundbreaking scientific research. I've also been on the green team that entire time, and have chaired it for about the last 7. We were the first museum in the country to have a shared bikes program, something I personally walked through the system from concept to implementation:
http://fieldmuseum.org/about/field-museum-launches-shared-bike-prog...
I co-founded Bike Walk Logan Square last year:
http://bikewalklogansquare.wordpress.com/
Alas, I cannot say I have gotten a bridge built.
I became a member of the old Bike Federation in maybe 98. They will have my support until the day I die just for the North Avenue bike path overhaul. The Navy Pier Flyover is what I recognize as a modern-day miracle.
I Chair the Dill Pickle Co-Op's Finance Committee and we are in final stages of expansion planning, when that's done I'll get back involved more on the cycling front.
Oh, and Chicago Fair Trade invented an award for me:
http://www.chicagofairtrade.org/aboutus/information-about-us/174-cf...
There are now three, it's an amazing community to be a part of.
And I'm a Treekeeper (badge #793, I love saying that).
I have also probably worked in some capacity on about 8 - 10 political campaigns, I am most proud of getting on board and stumping for Scot Waguespack when nobody gave him a snowball's chance in hell of unseating a hack leftover from the Rostenkowski machine - coincidentally, that bozo promised our neighborhood back in the late 90s that he was going to fix the Fullerton, Elston & Damen intersection, making it more friendly for traffic of all types. It's Scott Waguespack that has actually done the work which is going to make that happen.
It is humbling to have been privileged to work with all the people I have to improve the City. I know the difference between an improvement for the people and a land grab.
I really don't care what you think of me, and I don't care if I'm alienating you or anyone else, because as I see it there is no "on the fence" here, this is as close to a 100% good-vs-evil situation as I have ever seen in Chicago, using Epton vs. Washington as my barometer for that.
I believe that answers your questions.
Now, can you tell me why it is you feel that the 40,000 people in Avondale and 74,000 people in Logan Square don't deserve a safe path east across the river? Or why the people who take care of Clark Park and have been striving to make it better for everyone should be subjected to this kind of disrespect from their government?
notoriousDUG said:
Ya know what buddy, go f-yerself and the horse you rode in on and, while I am at it, let it be known that in my book any cause you are a part of needs to be pretty damn worthy or I am going to oppose it just on the general principal of you being involved. Never before have I seen a person not only be horrible at making their case but also excel at damaging it.
Not only do I not post anonymously here (yeah, it's a screen name but if you are active on this board you not only probably know my full name but the bike shop I work at) but I come out to enough events that most folks on here have meet me for real; where have you been? Who do you know? And, most importantly, who in the hell are you to tell me if I am part of the problem or not!? What do you know about me that allows you to declare me 'anti-bike' because I am not siding with you on an complex issue you never seem to be able to give us all the facts on?
Are you really so simple minded you think you can just get people to blindly follow your cause by accusing them of not being supportive of cycling or trying to make it seem like we have been invaded by rowers? I have bad news for you junior; the folks here are smarter than that.
Let me ask you this: What have YOU done about advocating for cycling beyond bullied people here and been a jerk about the bike bridge? What are YOU doing to get people on bikes? Where are you volunteering your time? What bike organizations are you volunteering or helping at? You want to challenge me on being pro/anti-bike bring it on because I do not think there is a person here who knows me that would tell you I am not, on the whole, very pro-bike and work at helping to make biking better.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
A-men.
And my thanks to Lorraine for furthering the holistic approach and thinking about the role of native landscaping and the importance of butterflies and bees and other pollinators.
Bill donahue said:The footprint of the building is 20,000SF +, clearly delineated by the drawing posted. Then the Pad site of the overall development is about three times the size of the footprint. If you look at the drawing you will see the driveway to the center of the first floor from Rockwell, the sidewalks inside the park connected to the building, and the river - side improvements which constitute a patio and the apron related to boating. This accounts for approximately 2 acres. Keep in mind, we had to figure this out on our own, with no help from anyone at the city, just a cursory presentation and pretty unclear and imprecise drawings of the concept.
We are volunteers and have tried to stay as factual as the information we have has directed us,much of it was not presented to us in an precise or organized fashion. The building has improvements on the roof, which led to the description of 3 stories, which we can correct as we submit our petition.
We are trying to be as positive as possible, to tell the City of Chicago, that this type of structure is not something that is that suitable for our park, and it conflicts directly with the planning that we have done for quite some time on the design of the park, which is not written in stone, but it has dealt with broad concepts which the introduction of this building makes it come from left field completely. Who would have ever thought that a rowing center would take over the "heart" of the park, and by its construction would make a ped/bike bridge impossible to build? It will displace the native gardens, introduce vehicle traffic within the park, and "shrink" the open green space which park users love so much about Clark Park.
NIMBY? There was no disclosure or democratic process whatsoever, no public hearings. There is alot of historical precedent to bring the advisory council in at the planning stages of these major developments. That did not happen. We were presented with a fait accompli, a done deal. There is a lack of respect for the citizenry at work here, the idea that downtown can dictate what happens at a community park should be anathema to all of us, since it will happen again in a different context. Being labeled as NIMBYs implies that we have to show cause why we are not wrong, and this is really an innaccurate description of what we have been doing at Clark Park for years. What we have been doing is right, volunteering in our neighborhood park and crafting a vision for it, in conjunction with the CPD and the City of Chicago. They are the ones who have violated the spirit of the relationship. We have nothing to apologize for.
-
Permalink Reply by lorraine reder on
-
You can argue the exact dimensions of the boat warehouse/crewing facility footprint and the height of the structure; however, I walked around Clark Park with a petition and a picture of the proposed facility. I didn't have to recite any statistics, just show people the picture of the proposal. Everyone I showed the picture to had a VERY STRONG NEGATIVE reaction to the proposal and signed my petition. I obtained over 100 signatures in about 2 hours.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on -
Looking at these two site layouts I do not see where the proposed bridge would be located in either case. It appears both would impeed the installation of the pedestrian bridge. Additionally after 1999 I see no mention of the bridge in any city planning documents I was able to find. There has been no design created for this bridge and no RFPs to an A/E firm for design. Combining this with the letter from the alderman stating that the bridge was reconsidered prior to this project in favor of trail connections between the parks, I have no evidence to suggest that this particular boat house (the park district release) design had impact on the addition of the pedestrian bridge.
While I understand that there are no current plans to install bike lanes on Addison, a well written petition to the alderman would make this addition more of a priority. Aldermen have a great influence on where bike lanes are located and the city has stated a high priority in adding more.
Tim S said:
-
Permalink Reply by Tim S on -
And the picture you showed, see page 1 or 2 of this thread, was an unfair representation of the boat house as it does not show any of the surrounding buildings and is from an odd angle distorting the scale of the building. Not a surprise as it goes with all the other tactics some in your group like to use.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on
-
Tim, we should hire you as a consultant, since you are making our case. The drawing is NOT good - but that is what was provided to us by the park district, its all we have. Putting in the surrounding buildings, including the new 5 story WMS building across the river, Lane Tech, the new nursing school, the prospective ball field etc etc. would show the ridiculous density which is being proposed here. Its what we are having a problem with - density, poor planning, removing features which the community wants and needs in favor of those that it does not want or need.
I think that this was mentioned earlier - the drawing is not real, it is photo-shopped, the background is all virtual.
© 2008-2013 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director
Powered by
