The Chainlink

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: 11913

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 3, 2012 at 10:36am

I think that a protected bike lane on each side WOULD work if they were to make the road be 1-lane each way like Belmont is East of Western.    Looking at the satellite view I think there would still be enough room for a left-turn lane at Campbell (there is one now with the road being 2-lanes each way) and if they redesigned the bus stop at Western with the rebuild of Western post-overpass and fix that intersection there is no reason why there couldn't be a real protected bike lane on both sides of Belmont from Rockwell all the way to and across Western.   And I'm thinking a REAL protected bike lane with not just bollards, but a 3-foot concrete divider along that entire length due to the fact that cars like to jockey and play bumper-cars when it comes to bridges in this city as the spread out to more lanes and leave ZERO space for bikes to live.  

Then again I'm a bit radical and think most of the bridges over the river and the expressways should have safe passageways for bikes and peds instead of high-speed powered-vehicle traffic  The way this thread is going one wouldn't even think this is a bicycle-related forum but the Alpha Fratta Guy rowing club. 

Carter O'Brien said:

The sidewalk seems like a reasonable option when you're coming off of the riverwalk, but IMO it isn't a good option on a regular basis if you just need to cross river along Belmont. 

The sidewalks are astoundingly/inexplicably narrow, and there are bus stops that are heavily used during rush hour.  Non-rush hour it's really not that bad, but if the goal is to get more people cycling instead of driving to work (which it ought to be), the City has to deal with the crazy that is rush hour, not pretend that cyclists don't need to get work on time like everyone else.

Protected lanes might be a solution here, but I kinda doubt they'd work due to the peculiar dynamic which is the Northbound left turn lane on to Rockwell backing up with DeVry & Lane traffic, and the way the lights/right-turn only & bus lane is set up at Western & Clybourn.  Plus the bus stops. 

All I do know is $9m bucks for a private boathouse nobody asked for and nobody wants in an area with no space to spare is MADNESS.  That's really the bottom line here.  The NIMBY argument doesn't even apply, as it's not like the area is full of rowers, period - it's full of people who want to kayak and canoe.



James BlackHeron said:

I take the sidewalk over Belmont without the slightest bit of guilt.   The bike path dumps onto the sidewalk on the North and East side of the bridge anyhow with a nearly 12" drop-off curb at that point.  I don't know what else a rider coming off the path is supposed to do at this point -dismount, step off the curb, remount and then proceed Westbound?  Cross the bridge at this point 1/3rd of the way over the river and blind because of the crest of the bridge to Eastbound traffic?  I suppose it IS called the "RiverWALK" so that pretty much tells us where bikes fit into the planning of this clusterF@#% of permanent infrastructure.

Just take the sidewalk, and take it slow to be careful of peds and other bikes. 

Crossing again to go South on Rockwell, either through the intersection in vehicular mode and attempting to move to the center of the highway to turn left or utilizing the crosswalk coming off of the non-existent curb-cut  is taking your life into your own hands, because the motorists zooming by at 15-20MPH over the limit sure as hell don't care about it.

Carter O'Brien said:

I don't know what Belmont avenue some of you take, but I will tell you it is as far from a biker's utopian passage as is humanly possible on the north side, it gets a pitiful amount of bike traffic for good reason - the road condition here is terrible, between the jockeying for position thanks to the "rush hour parking controls," bunched up 77 buses and extra lanes over the river a cyclist is the last priority on any driver's mind.  And don't forget the Western overpass is slated for removal.


Liz said:

If the boathouse does hose a regatta it would be an annual event, not a daily hassle and much smaller in scale than you seem to think.  You would encounter more parking and traffic concerns from the soccer field and baseball fields on an almost daily basis, the boathouse would have little impact on the parking by comparison.  


While it does replace the bridge, I honestly don't see spending millions of dollars on a bridge as a good investment either.  That money could be used to install bike lanes on both the Belmont and Addison brides.  Roscoe ends so shortly after the river that a bike lane on the existing bridges would benefit many more people that a little bridge that would benefit only a few houndred people going between roscoe village and hot dougs. 

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 3, 2012 at 11:42am


I know that dropping the bridge doesn't mean lanes would get put in, my opinion is that protected lanes over the bridge and continuing until after 90/94 would be much more valuable in terms of connectivity than a Roscoe bridge.  The Roscoe bridge would be most useful for getting to/from the park, lanes that go on Belmont/Addison from western and continue until at least clear of the highway crossings would be useful for a lot more travel.  If I'm going to the Clark park I hop on the sidewalk, but if I'm going elsewhere I take a lane, but it is not the most pleasant crossing of the river and we all agree on that. 


James BlackHeron said:

I think that a protected bike lane on each side WOULD work if they were to make the road be 1-lane each way like Belmont is East of Western.    Looking at the satellite view I think there would still be enough room for a left-turn lane at Campbell (there is one now with the road being 2-lanes each way) and if they redesigned the bus stop at Western with the rebuild of Western post-overpass and fix that intersection there is no reason why there couldn't be a real protected bike lane on both sides of Belmont from Rockwell all the way to and across Western.   And I'm thinking a REAL protected bike lane with not just bollards, but a 3-foot concrete divider along that entire length due to the fact that cars like to jockey and play bumper-cars when it comes to bridges in this city as the spread out to more lanes and leave ZERO space for bikes to live.  

Then again I'm a bit radical and think most of the bridges over the river and the expressways should have safe passageways for bikes and peds instead of high-speed powered-vehicle traffic  The way this thread is going one wouldn't even think this is a bicycle-related forum but the Alpha Fratta Guy rowing club. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 3, 2012 at 12:25pm

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.



Cameron Puetz said:

This has been the problem with this discussion all along. Claims keep getting submitted as facts without any backing, or only a vague sources tell me. This discussion has been a series of exaggerations, out of context pictures, and unbacked claims that keep getting retracted when questioned. The amount of misinformation that has been spread has seriously undermined the Clark Park Advisory Council's case. Facts matter, and playing fast and loose with them is a poor way to persuade people.

 



lorraine reder said:

 

My sources tell me that the proposal to build the boat warehouse/crewing facility at Clark Park is being driven by a politically connected rowing club, and that the mayor's children are rowers. 

 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 12:35pm

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.  The thread may be "making your teeth hurt" as you are grinding them instead of reading posts.

I personally think the actual size of the boathouse is just the most obvious reason why it's a bad idea. 

Because if the local residents don't want it, they don't want it.   Besides, if a private boat house is such a fabulous thing, surely there are loads of other neighborhood groups along the River which would die for it, right?

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.



Cameron Puetz said:

This has been the problem with this discussion all along. Claims keep getting submitted as facts without any backing, or only a vague sources tell me. This discussion has been a series of exaggerations, out of context pictures, and unbacked claims that keep getting retracted when questioned. The amount of misinformation that has been spread has seriously undermined the Clark Park Advisory Council's case. Facts matter, and playing fast and loose with them is a poor way to persuade people.

 



lorraine reder said:

 

My sources tell me that the proposal to build the boat warehouse/crewing facility at Clark Park is being driven by a politically connected rowing club, and that the mayor's children are rowers. 

 

Permalink Reply by David on May 3, 2012 at 12:40pm

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.


Bill donahue said:

Now, considering that this building is not what anyone we can find who has used the park recently has asked for or requested, we are suggesting that it be built elsewhere. I think that it is a very reasonable position, since there are numerous other locations which would work. Also, I will point out again, that a professional rower pointed out to me that this location is not ideal, since there is a blind corner south of the park, making this a dangerous starting point for boats.  Also, this narrow channel is a busy boating channel for power boats.

 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 3, 2012 at 12:40pm

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 lorraine reder on May 3, 2012 at 12:46pm

The following is a direct quote from Zhanna Yermakov of the Chicago Park District "A Bird and Butterfly Sanctuary is a designated Natural Area of a park whose main ecological function or purpose is to provide native habitat for migratory birds". 

 

Per the Cornell Lab of Orinthology, each year 1.5 - 2 billion migratory birds are killed across North America as a direct result of human activity.  "Bird-building collision fatalities are second only to the impacts of habitat destruction brought about by changes in forestry, agriculture, urban development, climate change, and invasive species.  We can only expect that the numbers of migratory bird deaths will continue to increase as our urban environment continues to grow, unless we all work together to minimize our human footprint".

 

If the impact of the boat warehouse/crewing facility is only 2% of the park as Rob Rejman of the Chicago Park District claims, or if its a "once in a lifetime opportunity" as Alderman Pawar claims, why can't there be meetings conducted for public comment?  What do the citizens and tax payers of Chicago want? 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 12:49pm

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 May 3, 2012 at 12:56pm

Is this Opposite Day or are we suddenly on Bizarro's planet?

Building a PRIVATE boat house isn't expanding access to a public resource to the PUBLIC.

Building a PUBLIC bridge is expanding access to the public.

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. 

And hell, yes a bridge over Roscoe would be a huge improvement for a segment of the population which dwarfs the segment which owns giant row boats.

And not funny but just flat-out ludicrous is the idea that this boathouse is a great thing while simultaneously claiming NIMBY locals want to force it on some "less politically-connected neighborhood".  It's allegedly a $9,000,000 gift, why not put it somewhere it will be welcomed? 

Make up your mind - is the boathouse good, or bad?  You can't have it both ways. 

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.

I'd like to see the evidence that people living in Roscoe Village, Avondale, North Center, etc. want this monstrosity built.

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.


Bill donahue said:

Now, considering that this building is not what anyone we can find who has used the park recently has asked for or requested, we are suggesting that it be built elsewhere. I think that it is a very reasonable position, since there are numerous other locations which would work. Also, I will point out again, that a professional rower pointed out to me that this location is not ideal, since there is a blind corner south of the park, making this a dangerous starting point for boats.  Also, this narrow channel is a busy boating channel for power boats.

 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 1:16pm

...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 May 3, 2012 at 1:28pm

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 Kevin C Dormant on May 3, 2012 at 2:10pm

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]

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service