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: 8550
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on -
...and did you really say "small group of current users who want to keep their exclusive access to that resource"?
<face palm>
Let's see, we currently have Lane Tech & Devry's populations, as well as the soccer players, the kayakers, the canoers, and the bike-riders and joggers, the bird-watchers, people playing frisbee with their dogs, good grief, this is your idea of a small elitist clique?
And what exactly is exclusive about Clark Park? It's a free public park. Again, the only exclusivity comes with a facility that would be rented out to people with means.
I really have to question whether any of you pro-boathouse people have ever actually stepped foot in the park.
David said:This seems to be the heart of your argument, and I just think its reasoning is wrong. Every project that attempts to expand access to a public resource always comes up against the small group of current users who want to keep their exclusive access to that resource. Trying to get the boathouse moved up the river to a poorer, less politically-connected neighborhood is the very definition of NIMBY-ism.
We constantly hit this same catch-22 argument with the velodrome, PBLs and biking infrastructure in general. For any individual park, it's easy to show that current users aren't requesting the velodrome. Of course that's true, since the prospective velodrome users are spread across the city and aren't yet in that park. A few years ago, it was next to impossible to find a Millennium Park user who was requesting a Bike Station (or a big round reflective sphere for that matter).
As for the idea that this is a bad location for the boathouse compared to others, I think you realize you're out of your area of expertise here. You've got one rower pointing out a possible problem, so of course that's the person you quote as opposed to every other study out there. The Parks District may have significant problems, but they aren't complete idiots. I suspect no location is going to be perfect, and a serious comparison of prospective locations doesn't seem to be something your group has done, at least I haven't seen any evidence of it. "And it's bad for boats, too!" strikes me as throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
-
Permalink Reply by Liz on -
To your first allegation that rowers just "showed up" on this forum, I have been a member of the chainlink for years and know many of the regular very well, having relationships with them for years. I go to many cycling events posted through this website. You are the one who started forcing your negative opinion on this forum's users.
To your second allegation, I live in Roscoe village about 1/4 mile from the park, I use clark park, and I very much enjoy it. I simply do not have enough information on the boathouse to make a decision to fully supporting or opposing it. I do think that another rowing facility in the city is a good idea and that the claims of the facility being more harm than good to the park are false. While a private entity would be running the rowing club, members of the public would be able to join and use the facilities. The same situation that exists with the current canoe/kayak rental.
I also like the idea of having a bike bridge there, and it seems that the boathouse would remove the bridge proposal. I find myself crossing the river on Belmont fairly frequently and it is not a pleasant crossing to say the least. While funding has been allocated to the bridge there doesn't appear to be any discussion of an actualy design. Is it possible that the bridge could be designed in a manner that allows both a boat house and a bridge?
Making wild accusations and assumptions alienating users of this board will not help you win your argument and you are actually swaying me towards supporting the boathouse by insulting me.
Carter O'Brien said:
Get it? It's not complicated. And how ironic that on a bike forum we have rowers showing up and trying to push what is basically an anti-bike agenda as if they represented some large segment of the public. Like Bill I have been familiar with and an occasional user of this park for DECADES.
I'd like to see the evidence that people living in Roscoe Village, Avondale, North Center, etc. want this monstrosity built.
-
Permalink Reply by Cameron 7.5 mi on -
Kevin
Based on my experience with boathouses, your 100'x100' foot print seems to be about right. Size wise the proposed boathouse seems to be between the Milwaukee Rowing Club's Boathouse which houses 50 boats and no other amenities in one 140'x48' (6720 sf) level and UW Madison's Porter Boathouse which at 52,000 sf houses 100 boats, a rowing tank, workout spaces, locker rooms, catering, historic displays, offices, and some other stuff on 3 levels. Based on the Milwaukee example, a 10,000 sf ground level would provide the proposed storage for 50 boats and space for a canoe/kayak vendor, and based on the Madison example a 40,000 sf building would have to house a lot more things than I've seen listed for this building.
Kevin C said:Yup. Over a month of this thread and the facts are as murky as ever. Here are some of the numbers that don't add up for me.
CPAC proposed boathouse was 4000 sq. ft. That amounts to a building 63' x 63' in size.
CPD Planning Department tells CPAC Clark Park has been "hijacked by outside interests" and presents schematics for a 20,000 sq. ft. building. It is unclear from this thread, or from any of the materials made available by CPAC whether 20,000 sq. ft. is the footprint or the aggregate square footage. If it's aggregate, the 2-story building would be 100' x 100'. (This seems likely to me). If 20,000 really is the footprint dimension, the building would be 141' x 141' and would have aggregate under-roof square footage of 40,000 sq. ft. with an additional (up to) 20,000 sq. ft. of roof space. (This seems unlikely to me). The 2 acre number that keeps getting bandied about as how much of the park this project will occupy is an area of 87,000 square feet. That is a bit less than a football field x a football field. (This also seems unlikely to me.)
There is increasing mention in this thread of the Roscoe Street ped/bike bridge over the river. Who proposed it? CDOT? CPD? Were drawings ever done? Was it funded? Were federal or state funds made available? Or was this simply an idea that someone thought would be cool and it's now being presented as a false choice between the bridge and the boathouse?
I'm a bit surprised that this thread still makes my teeth hurt-but it does.
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C on -
I think I've read every post on this thread at least once. Was there something discourteous or disrespectful in my request which warranted this terse and non-responsive post?
Carter O'Brien said:It's called the "Previous" button, Kevin.
Kevin C said:Please direct me to the documents regarding the bridge which you and Bill have shared.
Carter O'Brien said:Bill and I have both shared documents attesting to the long-ago Addison Corridor TIF planning, which is where the bridge "lives." As in planning documents. As in the budget. [snip]
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
Liz, I am trying to post here and do several things at the same time, so apologies if I'm being too vague, that was directed at the fellow making the argument that a boathouse serves the public but that a bike/ped bridge is somehow elitist. I don't know what else to call that but total lunacy.
The gist of the situation is "Is it possible that the bridge could be designed in a manner that allows both a boat house and a bridge?"
No, it is not. This has been made abundantly clear by everyone familiar with the situation.
I don't doubt your intentions as they sound sincere, but something stinks here. And it is the posters who are now realizing this isn't simply about a boat house but is also about bike infrastructure and are moving the goalposts of the argument.
That argument basically boils down to should people in the larger area have final say in what happens in their park, or should the "rowing community." I admit that community is a large mystery to me. Having grown up in this area and still living nearby, and having canvassed for multiple campaigns, I'd put a demand for a giant boathouse pretty close to the bottom of the list in terms of what I've long heard residents in this area tell me they care about. I don't have a problem with the concept whatsoever, this is just clearly not where that infrastructure is wanted.
I also note I posted a topic on this bridge a year ago - and nobody responded at that time "hey, I'd love a bridge but what I'd really prefer is a large privately-managed boathouse."
What seems to be happening is now that a boathouse some would prefer is on the table, loyalties to the biking (and walking) public have disappeared. And for those of us west of the River, it is this boathouse which smacks of elitism. I and the hordes like me living in Avondale are required to bike on Belmont to get to Clark Park (or Addison). Our safety most definitely should trump someone's desire for personal boat storage on prime public riverfront property.
"While a private entity would be running the rowing club, members of the public would be able to join and use the facilities. The same situation that exists with the current canoe/kayak rental. "
Just because the public is able to rent out storage space at a privately managed boathouse doesn't mean it isn't a private facility.
You are only somewhat correct regarding the canoe/kayak rental analogy, as anyone can show up and rent those boats (and the storage is far from permanent).
The situation being proposed is more closely akin to the yacht club. I can't go and rent somebody else's yacht.
But you live in Roscoe Village - and so I would simply ask, did anyone actually ask your opinion on the boathouse before as the Alderman's rep put it, it became a done deal as it's well into the planning stages?
All anyone wants, expects and (IMO should demand) is a far more transparent process here and to know this is what the area wants and needs.
What I do know is open space is extremely rare and valuable in Chicago, much less on the North Side along the River. This park is a wonderful retreat from the chaos of the larger area, and should be preserved. Furthermore, yes, the people like Bill and those with CPAC run an organization open to the public, and one which does river cleanups and all kinds of good works. Can the rowing community say this about Clark Park? If you want to talk about alienation, let's talk about people who started attacking Bill and the CPAC who clearly had absolutely no clue how involved in the park they've been.
Liz said:
To your first allegation that rowers just "showed up" on this forum, I have been a member of the chainlink for years and know many of the regular very well, having relationships with them for years. I go to many cycling events posted through this website. You are the one who started forcing your negative opinion on this forum's users.
To your second allegation, I live in Roscoe village about 1/4 mile from the park, I use clark park, and I very much enjoy it. I simply do not have enough information on the boathouse to make a decision to fully supporting or opposing it. I do think that another rowing facility in the city is a good idea and that the claims of the facility being more harm than good to the park are false. While a private entity would be running the rowing club, members of the public would be able to join and use the facilities. The same situation that exists with the current canoe/kayak rental.
I also like the idea of having a bike bridge there, and it seems that the boathouse would remove the bridge proposal. I find myself crossing the river on Belmont fairly frequently and it is not a pleasant crossing to say the least. While funding has been allocated to the bridge there doesn't appear to be any discussion of an actualy design. Is it possible that the bridge could be designed in a manner that allows both a boat house and a bridge?
Making wild accusations and assumptions alienating users of this board will not help you win your argument and you are actually swaying me towards supporting the boathouse by insulting me.
-
Permalink Reply by Cameron 7.5 mi on
-
This has to be the first time in my life that I have ever been accused of being antibike, and I believe my comment history will show me to be anything but some guy who just showed up. The personal attacks are doing nothing to further your cause.
Carter O'Brien said:Get it? It's not complicated. And how ironic that on a bike forum we have rowers showing up and trying to push what is basically an anti-bike agenda as if they represented some large segment of the public. Like Bill I have been familiar with and an occasional user of this park for DECADES.
The velodrome is an excellent comparison to the boathouse. Both are large specialized facilities with scattered interest throughout the city, but no single park where a majority of current users are interested.
Your velodrome comparison is not on target. You don't need anything to make use out of a pedestrian bridge except your feet. Your Millennium Park quip is also off, there were calls for secured bike parking (and showers) for years predating the park, so that need was long-established, I sure don't recall any Loop businesses saying it was unwelcome.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
Apologies for bad tone, I really am out of time here & all you needed to do was go back a few pages in the conversation to find the info. But in the interest of staying on topic, here we go:
First, the official word from the 47th ward office clearly acknowledging the bridge has been removed from plans. What is not clear to me (or anyone, it seems) is whether anyone from the public was ever brought into these conversations about "reevaluating the bridge."
>While I know they (*he's referring to CPAC) have many concerns about the boat house, prior to it being proposed, the bike bridge plan was being reevaluated to connect the parks (Clark to California and Horner Park) and maintain a riverfront bike path rather than a connection to Roscoe. We expect CDOT to call a community meeting about the bike/ped bridge once more of the initial planning for it is done; keep an eye on our newsletter for more information.
Best regards,
Bill Higgins
47th Ward Program Analyst & Coordinator/p>
Second, from Bill Donahue:
>In the early 2000’s the Clark Park Advisory Council proposed that a pedway/bikeway bridge be made a part of Clark Park. It would serve several ends and enjoyed up an enthusiastic response from the Alderman of the 47th Ward, amongst other elected officials. The plan was endorsed by Friends of the Chicago River and the Friends of the Parks. It would be an integral part of the river trail;,our vision is that it would bring many people from the residences west of the river to Clark Park , especially for the enhanced playground we hope to install.; and it should serve as a safe alternative for miles along Roscoe Street for bikes and pedestrians. The bridge would bring the many employees from west of the River to the park during the day. The bridge was included in all of the City of Chicago planning documents for the underbridge connections being funded now by the City of Chicago. The drawings were in the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission report and detailed plans for the river trail. I have attached the TIF plan LINK for the area as funded by the TIF commission ($65M available within this TIF), seen below:
http://www.ginkgoplanning.com/project%20pages/Addison%20Master%20Pl... /p>
Third, not all TIF projects end up being funded. But the link below demonstrates that the TIF is most definitely an example of planning long underway, that is the official page on the City's website:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/tif/addiso...
Fourth, my own posting of the topic last summer. I bring this up simply to show that for the City to claim that the boathouse planning has somehow been more comprehensive than planning for the bridge is bs.
http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/new-proposed-chicago-river...
And the bridge is just one reason why the boathouse is a bad idea. As Bill D. and others have described in great length, the current usage of Clark Park, which represents a unique harmony of natural/open space and amenities like soccer fields and a kayak launch (both of which are still essentially open space) is nothing short of amazing.
Kevin C said:
I think I've read every post on this thread at least once. Was there something discourteous or disrespectful in my request which warranted this terse and non-responsive post?
Carter O'Brien said:It's called the "Previous" button, Kevin.
Kevin C said:Please direct me to the documents regarding the bridge which you and Bill have shared.
Carter O'Brien said:Bill and I have both shared documents attesting to the long-ago Addison Corridor TIF planning, which is where the bridge "lives." As in planning documents. As in the budget. [snip]
-
Permalink Reply by notoriousDUG on -
Wow, the exact opposite of helpingmake your case...
Carter O'Brien said:It's called the "Previous" button, Kevin.
Kevin C said:Please direct me to the documents regarding the bridge which you and Bill have shared.
Carter O'Brien said:Bill and I have both shared documents attesting to the long-ago Addison Corridor TIF planning, which is where the bridge "lives." As in planning documents. As in the budget. [snip]
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
Cameron, the debate is no longer just "should there be a boathouse."
The debate is, "should there be a boathouse knowing that means we don't get a bike/pedestrian bridge."
So yes - you choose the boathouse, you are being anti-cyclist.
End of story.
Cameron Puetz said:This has to be the first time in my life that I have ever been accused of being antibike, and I believe my comment history will show me to be anything but some guy who just showed up. The personal attacks are doing nothing to further your cause.
Carter O'Brien said:Get it? It's not complicated. And how ironic that on a bike forum we have rowers showing up and trying to push what is basically an anti-bike agenda as if they represented some large segment of the public. Like Bill I have been familiar with and an occasional user of this park for DECADES.
The velodrome is an excellent comparison to the boathouse. Both are large specialized facilities with scattered interest throughout the city, but no single park where a majority of current users are interested.
Your velodrome comparison is not on target. You don't need anything to make use out of a pedestrian bridge except your feet. Your Millennium Park quip is also off, there were calls for secured bike parking (and showers) for years predating the park, so that need was long-established, I sure don't recall any Loop businesses saying it was unwelcome.
-
Permalink Reply by notoriousDUG on
-
This has to be one of the most short sighted and ignorant statements I have read in recent times on this board.
The idea that choosing the 'non-bike' option in one situation makes a person 'anti-bike' is one of the dumbest leaps of logic I could imagine. You would probably do better for your cause by not talking at this point because you are coming off as an ignorant jerk and bully. If you do not have the time to properly answer questions maybe you should not do it at all...
Carter O'Brien said:Cameron, the debate is no longer just "should there be a boathouse."
The debate is, "should there be a boathouse knowing that means we don't get a bike/pedestrian bridge."
So yes - you choose the boathouse, you are being anti-cyclist.
End of story.
Cameron Puetz said:This has to be the first time in my life that I have ever been accused of being antibike, and I believe my comment history will show me to be anything but some guy who just showed up. The personal attacks are doing nothing to further your cause.
Carter O'Brien said:Get it? It's not complicated. And how ironic that on a bike forum we have rowers showing up and trying to push what is basically an anti-bike agenda as if they represented some large segment of the public. Like Bill I have been familiar with and an occasional user of this park for DECADES.
The velodrome is an excellent comparison to the boathouse. Both are large specialized facilities with scattered interest throughout the city, but no single park where a majority of current users are interested.
Your velodrome comparison is not on target. You don't need anything to make use out of a pedestrian bridge except your feet. Your Millennium Park quip is also off, there were calls for secured bike parking (and showers) for years predating the park, so that need was long-established, I sure don't recall any Loop businesses saying it was unwelcome.
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
The case was made and is bulletproof.
One can either support making Clark Park staying open and enjoyable to all, as well as keeping alive the possibility of making it more accessible via a pedestrian and cyclist bridge, or one can support a facility that is at best quasi-private.
Choosing option B above means you are keeping a very dangerous status quo in place for your fellow bikers on two of the busiest streets on the North Side.
Take your pick.
Better yet, come out and join me for the river clean up at Clark Park next weekend (May 12), we can look at the site in 3D and everyone interested can see exactly what is at stake.
http://www.eventbrite.com/event/3113152523?ref=ebtn
Event Details
20th anniversary
CHICAGO RIVER DAY 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012 from 9 a.m. - 12 p.m.
Clark Park (Chicago)
SITE CAPTAIN: Bill Donahue
Join us for an exciting morning along the banks of the Chicago River.
Volunteers will work side-by-side to collect garbage and sort for recycling, remove invasive vegetation, spruce up river-edge trails, plant native seedlings and more. If you have any questions about this site and what activities will be happening, you can put your questions in the box labeled "ask my site captains."
LIABILITY WAIVERS
All volunteers must print out and bring with them the appropriate waiver to their Chicago River Day location to participate. If you do not have a signed waiver, you will not be able to participate. For this location, please print one of the following waivers:
Adults (18 and over) – Download adult waiver here.
Minors (under 18) - Download child waiver here.
***Minors must be accompanied by their parent or legal guardian while participating on Chicago River Day. Children without parents/guardians will NOT be allowed to participate. Students participating through their school will need to turn in signed waivers from parents and with their teachers to participate.
notoriousDUG said:
Wow, the exact opposite of helpingmake your case...
Carter O'Brien said:It's called the "Previous" button, Kevin.
Kevin C said:Please direct me to the documents regarding the bridge which you and Bill have shared.
Carter O'Brien said:Bill and I have both shared documents attesting to the long-ago Addison Corridor TIF planning, which is where the bridge "lives." As in planning documents. As in the budget. [snip]
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
Oh, please. In the past week I've seen the CPAC derided as a fake organization spreading lies and full of NIMBYs, and my comments are what get you motivated to chime in?
I don't post anonymously here, and I'm quite happy verbally jousting with people who are obstacles to improving cycling in my neighborhood. Because if you are one of the people who ruin this opportunity for actual bike-friendly infrastructure you are part of the problem, not the solution.
notoriousDUG said:This has to be one of the most short sighted and ignorant statements I have read in recent times on this board.
The idea that choosing the 'non-bike' option in one situation makes a person 'anti-bike' is one of the dumbest leaps of logic I could imagine. You would probably do better for your cause by not talking at this point because you are coming off as an ignorant jerk and bully. If you do not have the time to properly answer questions maybe you should not do it at all...
Carter O'Brien said:Cameron, the debate is no longer just "should there be a boathouse."
The debate is, "should there be a boathouse knowing that means we don't get a bike/pedestrian bridge."
So yes - you choose the boathouse, you are being anti-cyclist.
End of story.
Cameron Puetz said:This has to be the first time in my life that I have ever been accused of being antibike, and I believe my comment history will show me to be anything but some guy who just showed up. The personal attacks are doing nothing to further your cause.
Carter O'Brien said:Get it? It's not complicated. And how ironic that on a bike forum we have rowers showing up and trying to push what is basically an anti-bike agenda as if they represented some large segment of the public. Like Bill I have been familiar with and an occasional user of this park for DECADES.
The velodrome is an excellent comparison to the boathouse. Both are large specialized facilities with scattered interest throughout the city, but no single park where a majority of current users are interested.
Your velodrome comparison is not on target. You don't need anything to make use out of a pedestrian bridge except your feet. Your Millennium Park quip is also off, there were calls for secured bike parking (and showers) for years predating the park, so that need was long-established, I sure don't recall any Loop businesses saying it was unwelcome.
© 2008-2013 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C. Julie Hochstadter, Director
Powered by
