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: 12065

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 3, 2012 at 11:19am

Since the protected lanes on Belmont (and Diversey for that matter) are probably not ever going to happen the bridge over the river at Roscoe was about as done a deal as anything ever gets before shovels hit the dirt here in Chicago before this boathouse plan got fast-tracked and bumped it off the table for good.

Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on May 3, 2012 at 12:34pm
Petition is up to 486, go team!
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 12:43pm

You live east of the river, correct?  Right.  So let's stop the pretense that you actually care about the thousands of us west of the river who could desperately use this bridge.

You have an opinion, I have an opinion.  But opinions are not all equal, they are as good as the factual evidence and logic on which they are based. 

The fact you continue to ignore is there are no plans to install protected bike lanes on either Belmont or Addison (or Diversey, for that matter), and never have been.  So your opinion that the PBLs are a better solution is irrelevant, it has no grounding in reality. 

The bridge, as has now been explained and proven repeatedly without a doubt, most certainly was a part of an approved TIF plan, which as James points out is as close to shovel-ready as it gets in Chicago.

And as for alienating you, well, that's fairly inevitable as we don't see eye to eye and we aren't going to, ever.

I'm not going to pretend I really care about your desire to have some privatized boat house that 99% of the area will never use.  I don't.  I find it elitist and as such completely in violation of the spirit of Clark Park, which is beautiful and fully functional as-is. 

Furthermore, I am not the one dismissing the opinions of the community organization which has specifically addressed why this boathouse is a problem.  These are real people Liz, your very immediate neighbors who don't want this boathouse, and they don't want it for a whole variety of reasons.  Ignore that as you will, but your little sarcastic quip here:

"Wow, CPAC was questioned because member of the organization have come on here making broad statements that have little to do with fact or reality.  Members of CPAC have also stating that a rowing facility is a fine thing on the river, just not where they are, which is exactly what being a NIMBY is."

Displays rampant ignorance of what a NIMBY is.  CPAC didn't say they want a rowing facility for their own use, just somewhere else, they said this specific facility is too large for the space.  Read Joe's post, he seems to actually understand the acronym and why it is in fact those throwing it around here who can't be trusted.

Regarding CPAC - everything their members have been accused of has turned out to be false.  He was blamed for both hiding, manipulating AND straight up fabricating info, all of which was readily available on their website and came from 3rd party, official sources. 

I have lived both east and west of the river between 2800 and 3200 N. for almost 40 years, and I am raising a child in this same vicinity. 

Liz said:

I've stated several times that I live very close to there and have often crossed the river on both Belmont and Addison, and stated previously these are not very good crossings, but my opinion is that protected lanes are a better option than a bridge.  Having a different opinion on the solution to the same problem doesn't make me anti-bike.  

I agree that it is very disconcerting that there have not been any public meetings or disclosure on the plans for this park, but I currently do not object to the plans that I know of.  

This does not make my opinion any less important than yours and your attitude towards others is driving away potential supporters.  


Carter O'Brien said:

With all due respect, people who do not need to regularly cross the river at Belmont or Addison from the west don't understand the gravity of the problem here. 

I've been biking city streets since I was about 10, I'm not afraid of these stretches, but there is no doubt they are dangerous.  It wouldn't surprise me if I wake up some day in a hospital and traveling down one of these two roads is the last thing I remember because I got tagged from behind due to the poor layout and sight lines James has expounded on.

I am sure CDOT would be making Belmont or Addison for bike-friendly if they thought it was possible, there are likely IDOT issues/truck routes at play here. 

I have a 6 year old daughter I would love to bike to school at Marshfield and Cornelia.  If there was a bridge at Roscoe I could safely take Roscoe all the way east from Kedzie to Ravenswood, at which point I could jog a bit south or north and continue on a side street.  Right now, I have no safe option to ride with her (or to eventually teach her to ride on her own), and that doesn't simply suck, that is just wrong. I am quite certain from talking to fellow parents at her school that we have lots of company in this regard.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 3, 2012 at 12:44pm

Bingo.  Thank you.


Joe Schmoe said:

This giant boathouse would impede the construction of much-needed bicycle infrastructure, for the benefit of a very few, who obviously have cash and influence to throw around.  The plan was somehow arrived at even though members of the community were already advocating for parking, bathroom, and other facilities.  Then, all of a sudden, there is a "magical" plan to build a giant boathouse for essentially what is a rowing club, which wasn't shared with any members of the community, which in Chicago means someone got paid off big-time.  There are other places to build it on the riverfront...  Like, maybe anywhere but in the middle of an existing park?  There's a BIG difference between NIMBY, and "Not In My Public Park Which Is a Public Resource Not Just for Rowers". So that would be, NIMPPWIPRNJR, I suppose.  You can reasonably object to an idea, on the basis of location.  Like, I want homeless shelters built, just not next door to day-care centers.

Permalink Reply by Doug Haynes on May 3, 2012 at 12:57pm

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.


Carter O'Brien said:

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. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 3, 2012 at 1:31pm

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 May 3, 2012 at 3:04pm

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 May 3, 2012 at 3:39pm

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 on May 4, 2012 at 2:02am

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 May 4, 2012 at 3:13am

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 May 4, 2012 at 3:15am

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 May 4, 2012 at 3:21am

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.  

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service