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 Carter O'Brien on May 4, 2012 at 9:21am

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.  

Permalink Reply by lorraine reder on May 4, 2012 at 9:31am

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 May 4, 2012 at 9:53am

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 May 4, 2012 at 9:53am
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 May 4, 2012 at 10:24am

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. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin T. on May 4, 2012 at 10:33am
Bill, when is your next meeting? I would like to show up and I can't locate a schedule.
Permalink Reply by Liz on May 4, 2012 at 10:36am

Bill, 

My one concern for the argument of congestion is that CPAC's plan would take up the same amount of the park, simply replacing the larger boat house with a small boat house and a dog park.  

I do believe that the public has been left out of the process and that the opinions of the community should be listened to and included as appropriate in the development of this park.  I would sign a petition asking that the city and park district provide additional public information and asking the planners to consider the interests of the surrounding community.  

Building parks and facilities is often a compromise of many groups and people, and while individuals may all have different opinions, it is the duty of the city to listen and balance those concerns with the services provided by the plan. The key missing component of this project is that the city and park district have not allowed for open public comment.  


Bill donahue said:

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. 

Permalink Reply by Tim S on May 4, 2012 at 10:44am
I am available.
Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 4, 2012 at 10:50am

Thank you Liz for the acknowledgement of the fact that this deal is being rammed through without the input of the  community.  I would point out that we were in the middle of negotiating with the department of planning about the size and location of the smaller boathouse(s), which we were told was up for discussion.  We were suggesting that there be less concrete, and a different location.  Also, the dog run could be placed elsewhere - there is a vacated street south of the woods which is actually part of the park- where the dog run could be placed.  The larger complex is clearly something which cannot be trimmed back or moved in any significant way. 

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 4, 2012 at 10:51am



Bill donahue said:

Thank you Liz for the acknowledgement of the fact that this deal is being rammed through without the input of the  community.  I would point out that we were in the middle of negotiating with the department of planning about the size and location of the smaller boathouse(s), which we were told was up for discussion.  We were suggesting that there be less concrete, and a different location.  Also, the dog run could be placed elsewhere - there is a vacated street south of the woods which is actually part of the park- where the dog run could be placed.  The larger complex is clearly something which cannot be trimmed back or moved in any significant way. 

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 4, 2012 at 10:55am

I want to add that I do not personally oppose your group and I think it is wonderful that there is an organization so dedicated to maintaining the park.  Parks and green spaces are often under appreciated and so many volunteers go thankless and unnoticed when maintaining them without fiscal resources.  I understand why this issue would cause emotional distress to members of your organization.  

I would wish that in your next meeting you consider having a speaker discuss conflict resolution and persuasive argument techniques, these are very important skills to master if a group would like to gain supporters and sympathy. The tone used by several people who have affiliated themselves with CPAC has been down right inappropriate and will drive away potential supporters.  


Bill donahue said:

Thank you Liz for the acknowledgement of the fact that this deal is being rammed through without the input of the  community.  I would point out that we were in the middle of negotiating with the department of planning about the size and location of the smaller boathouse(s), which we were told was up for discussion.  We were suggesting that there be less concrete, and a different location.  Also, the dog run could be placed elsewhere - there is a vacated street south of the woods which is actually part of the park- where the dog run could be placed.  The larger complex is clearly something which cannot be trimmed back or moved in any significant way. 

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 4, 2012 at 11:01am

I would like to point out that we have tried in every conceivable way to make Clark Park bike friendly, including a long time association with the BMX'ers.  One thing which one would think is very easy, would be to have bike racks within the park, but instead most people end up securing the bike to a tree, a fence or a post.  It is unbelievable that with all of the resources available to build 5 million dollar baseball stadiums and 9 milion dollar boathouses, and when we have a car parking emergency at Clark Park, that funds would not be fast tracked to include bike parking. We have tried repeatedly from the City and the park district to get bike racks for the park and have come up empty handed. Also, please not that one of the features of the smaller boat house, it was to include a bike rental, a feature crowded out by the rowing complex.

Bill donahue said:

Thank you Liz for the acknowledgement of the fact that this deal is being rammed through without the input of the  community.  I would point out that we were in the middle of negotiating with the department of planning about the size and location of the smaller boathouse(s), which we were told was up for discussion.  We were suggesting that there be less concrete, and a different location.  Also, the dog run could be placed elsewhere - there is a vacated street south of the woods which is actually part of the park- where the dog run could be placed.  The larger complex is clearly something which cannot be trimmed back or moved in any significant way. 

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service