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
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on
-
Dang, totally missed it. Theoretically it will be available in the archive section... maybe?
Kevin C said:Well sure, there's that.
Thunder Snow said:...or the Park District employee running the stream decided to go home at 5:00 and pulled the plug?
Kevin C said:I was disconnected on Safari; no luck on Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. I just assumed it was the man trying to keep me down.
-
Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on
-
I have been in court all day, so have had no news from the Board of Commissioners meeting. Even though I am assuming the worst, I am hoping for the best.
For those of you who have any doubts about how the gigantic behemoth will take over Clark Park (you know, "rah rah go boathouse", please ride over to the park and see that the proposed rowing facility/boat warehouse has been staked out by the park district. Yes, it will look like a 40,000 SF spaceship on two floors has landed in a two acre landing pad at Clark Park, (what was mistakenly referred to as 3rd floor, in this case rooftop improvements such as the observatory deck, have recently been cancelled according to the Park District).
I really wish that some folks could restrain themselves, there have been no "outright lies" or anything approaching that on our part. I will take the beating for describing a 3rd floor, but does it really matter any more, we can stop talking about it - its still every bit of every other way it has been described. Its huge, it will dwarf the remaining green space, it would be smack in the way of a bridge, and its not the building that we have been asking for to address long standing concerns, not even close. It really is a use that was brought up almost overnight and then dropped on us without warning. It hardly seems fair and it certainly is not the way decisions should be made about community parks. 9.45 Million is being spent in a park where we cannot get a sinkhole fixed in the parking lot that one of your children could fall in, no replacement fence slats, a rusting hulk of athletic equipment sits on the bike/ped way for over 5 years, a dead tree leans precariously above the walkway for 6 months. Nothing is done.
Finally, we have met with Gia Biagi (director of strategy and policy CPD)and had a splendid meeting, and to her credit she apologized for the treatment the PARK has been receiving and promises big changes - and bike racks immediately!! I am not convinced that this would be happening unless we were preparing to swallow the big boathouse??
Also, I wil be posting on our facebook page later on, the presentation made by a respected rowing group who says that Clark Park IS NOT the ideal location for a rowing facility such as this, and he describes and analyzes the alternate locations which still could be chosen.
BTW, the Bloomingdale Trail, another major infrastructure improvement, had years of community involvement, lots of citizen input and committees - even deciding on who the contractors would be.
Why did this boathouse have to be rushed? Also, some of the sleuths on here should ask, where did the money come from? Even if the park district pays up front, they clearly do not have the funds to do this project, why is there no disclosure about funding? Qui Bono?
Please keep in touch with the advisory council at:http://www.facebook.com/ClarkParkAdvisoryCouncil
-
-
Bill, regardless of the outcome, thank you so much for all your efforts. Looking forward to pitching in on Saturday.
-
-
REPORT ON ALTERNATE SITES AND UNSUITABILITY OF CLARK PARK IS COMPLETED:
http://rowinggroup.com/north_branch_river_potential_location_review...
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on
-
At least the Rowing Group understands that it's a 20,000 sq. ft. building and not a 40,000 sq. ft. building. Why you still have a blind spot about this Bill, is beyond me.
The CPD also understands it to be a 20,000 sq. ft. building.
Bill donahue said:REPORT ON ALTERNATE SITES AND UNSUITABILITY OF CLARK PARK IS COMPLETED:
http://rowinggroup.com/north_branch_river_potential_location_review...
-
-
Hello Kevin,
The pad site, or the building footprint plus improvements is approximately 2 acres +-. The footprint of the building itself is 20,000 SF. My understanding is, the final iteration of the building - it will be built as a 2 story building - thats 40,000 SF. There were to be improvements above the 2nd floor, but those were cancelled due to cost considerations, (which would have gone above the approved 9.45M ceiling). I am not trying to confuse anyone or trying to be sanctimonious, I think we are on the right side in this issue -also am not trying for infallibility, and I am sure that we can both agree that its close enough - and for sure its all that they have told us so far.
-
-
Bill, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding you have a background in commercial real estate. Willis Tower at its base is 225 ft x 225 ft (50,625 sq. ft.) Above that footprint is another 4.5 million sq. ft. of floor space. Is Willis Tower in your estimation, a 50,000 sq. ft. building or a 4.5 million sq. ft. building?
I have attached a copy (above) of the resolution the CPD Board was to vote on today. It calls for the construction of an approximately 20,000 sq. ft. building. That's 10,000 sq. ft. per floor.
Bill donahue said:Hello Kevin,
The pad site, or the building footprint plus improvements is approximately 2 acres +-. The footprint of the building itself is 20,000 SF. My understanding is, the final iteration of the building - it will be built as a 2 story building - thats 40,000 SF. There were to be improvements above the 2nd floor, but those were cancelled due to cost considerations, (which would have gone above the approved 9.45M ceiling). I am not trying to confuse anyone or trying to be sanctimonious, I think we are on the right side in this issue -also am not trying for infallibility, and I am sure that we can both agree that its close enough - and for sure its all that they have told us so far.
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
I hope that the park district considers the assessment of the rowing group in making their decision. Seems rather relevant right now, eh?
-
-
Kevin, I know absolutely nothing about the Willis Tower, but I have a vague idea that many high rise commercial buildings have a much larger base. This being a small building, its not at all the same principle.
Let me go at it one more time, and you will hopefully see that you are helping make our case. We have no exact drawing from the park district from which to calculate the size of the building, it was never provided to us, even though we asked. It would take the actual blueprints to determine the exact size. From the rendering, the smallest size we came up with is a pad of something like 18,500, that is on ONE floor. But we believe that it is 20,000 SF. The officials we have met with at the park district continue to discuss it as a 20,000 SF FOOTPRINT. Any way you look at it, its much larger than what we would calculate or GUESS for one floor. Please look at the drawings we have posted for yourself and you can see its clearly a bigger footprint than say 100 X 100, or better yet - go to the park - its so much bigger than 100 feet along the North/South axis, just look at the orange flags posted by the park district and draw your own conclusion please.
-
-
Good correction thank you, I am only talking about the footprint of the building alone, then we would add on the 2nd floor.
-
-
OK, I will be the first to admit that the numbers do not add up, blame laid squarely on the park district. I just returned from a ride to the park, measured the stake out and it comes out to 80' X 108', which makes entirely no sense, (making it smaller than advertised by CPD) If one looks at the drawing produced by Architect Gang and uses 80' as the width, then by using only the scale of the drawing(pls look at it), the first floor is 15,200 SF, (80' X 190' which would make it a 30,400 SF building. I am retiring from the estimating with no real numbers business, perhaps the city did reduce the size down due to the complaints about size or the cost - but the scale in the drawing must be incorrect in any case. The building is still too big, and not wanted by the neighborhood, please go and see it yourself. Keep in mind, it does not stop at the sidewalk, the pad keeps going all the way to the river, wiping out the native garden.
Groups
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
