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: 12072

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on April 5, 2012 at 7:31am

Put me down for finding the post misleading. Whatever impact the construction of this proposed facility may or may not have, "The Garden" has apparently already been "saved."


Tim S said:

I have to add Casey that I find the title of this thread very misleading as it claims something that it completely false. Using false titles and statements to bolster a cause undermines the quality of the argument.

Permalink Reply by David on April 5, 2012 at 7:48am

James BlackHeron said:

Maybe I'm anti-elitist

I get that, but at least for me, it's not immediately evident which side is more elitist here. 

 

I think without a doubt the river is our most under-utilized natural resource.  Personally, I've never been on the river away from the loop, and I bet that's true of most people here.  There just aren't that many opportunities unless you own your own boat and can transport it or store it on the river, pretty expensive propositions.  "Let's spend the afternoon on the river" isn't something that occurs to most us as a possibility (not to me, at least).

The boat houses (there's four of them planned from 28th. South up to Argyle North) were touted as a step towards providing more river access to the general public, both local and tourist.  All of them are planned to have concession, kayak rentals, etc.  Public boathouses also provide the opportunity of doing things like expanding the water taxi route, so you could take a boat from the Loop to Argyle at the end of the day for a couple of bucks or just spend the afternoon riding around the river branches.   And as much as those 4-person bikes may bug me on the LFP, there's a lot of people who would enjoy paddling around the north branch for a few hours on a floating equivalent.

I'm the first to admit that I don't know the details of any of these plans very well, but I think the goals of the project are pretty laudable. Maybe those goals have changed in the planning stages or maybe this project isn't well thought out, I don't know. OTOH, the fact that the opponents aren't recognizing these goals at all and the fact that the OP apparently has openly lied about plans for the bike park makes me a bit less likely to trust their word on what's going on here.

Permalink Reply by Casey Carnes on April 5, 2012 at 7:51am

Posting title has been updated to reflect other's opinions. :)

Permalink Reply by Tim S on April 5, 2012 at 8:01am

lol, nice!

Casey Carnes said:

Posting title has been updated to reflect other's opinions. :)

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on April 5, 2012 at 8:04am

I've got nothing against elites who want to pay their own way and build infrastructure for their elite activities on private land. 

But this is a park for the people, and a locked boat warehouse for a select few (with maybe an indoor rowing pool? am I reading that wrong?) doesn't seem like the best of things for a park.  

If it is going to be an access point to the river that is great -but it looks to me like so much more than that.  I love watersports and boating.  I also like to row (that's why I own a concept 2 rower) and would love to be able to somehow get better access to the river.  I'm sure a small boat wouldn't be impossible for me to buy or even keep in my small garage and pull behind my bike on a small trailer to the river.  It sounds like fun.  Is this boathouse designed for someone like me?  Would I even get access to the river and the pier without a special pass and key?

These are the kinds of questions.  Is public infrastructure for the public or is it for the few?  Anyone can bike on Chicago's bike and shared-use paths without a special permit or paying extra -which is more than I can say for paths in Wi like the one between Madison and Dodgeville where you do have to pay for the privilege of using the "public" infrastructure.    

Anyone can afford a low-cost bike as it is much less expensive as a car which most people seem to be able to afford these days (many, if not most anyhow) even with the extremely high cost of gas these days (despite the high cost of living it remains popular.)   So I wouldn't call bicycling an elitist sport -there is an elitist subset of the sport/activity like there is with anything.    Most people have a bed -but most don't own a $6000 Stearns & Foster mattress.  Does the existence of $6k mattresses make bed-ownership elitist?  I don't think so. 

Now I need to go look at craigslist and see if I can find a small boat that I can pull behind my bike.  Maybe I can find a tiny catamaran that is bike-towable while I'm at it :-D

Permalink Reply by Michael J Blane on April 5, 2012 at 8:15am

I've canoed the Chicago River from the south loop to north of Foster (and portions of the Des Plaines too). Not my canoe.

The launch at the canoe rental place near Roscoe, is open to the public for launching.

The private mooring/launch south of North Avenue is just that, private. You can't get on it to use the pier to get to the water.

My main objection to the proposed construction is, if the launch isn't open to the public, don't build it on public property.

Just my $0.02.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on April 5, 2012 at 8:24am

Articles linked by others make this sounds like the Chicago Park District Latin School soccer field fiasco. Sounds like they haven't learned much.

I think that more recreational activity on River would be a big plus for the city, but not at all costs.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on April 5, 2012 at 8:51am

This Tribune article from last September states that the Clark Park boathouse is only one of four planned boathouses, the others being: River Park, Ping Tom Park and 2800 South Eleanor.  The fact that Mayor Emanuel was "flanked by aldermen and U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson" at the announcement press conference; and that Jeanne Gang, the lead architect, is arguably the most important female architect in Chicago, if not the world (her Aqua building north of the Loop is magnificent): I'm thinking this is pretty much a done deal.  Strategically, I think the effort should be to force the three parkland boathouses to be open and free to the public, and make the private gold-plated indoor rowing facility the one down on Eleanor Street, which appears to be the only one of the four not located in city parks.

And, if REI donated $10,000 to build a fence around the prairie garden, which will be underneath the planned boathouse in Clark Park, they should demand the Park District refund their gift.

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on April 5, 2012 at 9:23am

I'm somewhat in the know about this park and I can say a couple of things:  anyone can use the jetties.  The boat storage you have to pay for, but people will also be able to rent boats from here - eventually at least, doesn't seem like it will happen right out of the gate.  Also, this particular park is being built with no less than $2 million in corporate funds in exchange for a private company taking ownership of Roscoe St. between California and the river.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on April 5, 2012 at 9:36am

Who knew that the streets were up for sale?  The only two local companies that I can see would have a stake in owning Roscoe are WMS Gaming (an international manufacturer of casino equipment) or Hot Doug's (fancy encased meat purveyor).  I'm betting it's Hot Doug's that's increasing its empire.  Damn you, Sausage King!!!
 
tj said:

Also, this particular park is being built with no less than $2 million in corporate funds in exchange for a private company taking ownership of Roscoe St. between California and the river.

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on April 5, 2012 at 9:43am

I'll reply by first saying that I am very much against a city selling infrastructure to private interests.  That said, that stretch of Roscoe goes basically unused except by WMS and people parking at Hot Doug's - but CDOT still has to maintain it, plow it every winter, repatch it for WMS use, etc.  Why not turn it over to WMS and make it their problem - especially when they are paying, at minimum, $2 million for it?

Thunder Snow said:

Who knew that the streets were up for sale?  The only two local companies that I can see would have a stake in owning Roscoe are WMS Gaming (an international manufacturer of casino equipment) or Hot Doug's (fancy encased meat purveyor).  I'm betting it's Hot Doug's that's increasing its empire.  Damn you, Sausage King!!!
 
tj said:

Also, this particular park is being built with no less than $2 million in corporate funds in exchange for a private company taking ownership of Roscoe St. between California and the river.

Permalink Reply by Duppie on April 5, 2012 at 9:52am

Because it would kill any future plans for a bike/pedestrian bridge over the river at Roscoe?

Because it is a public access point to the river?

Because it is the northernmost exit point for a river trail?



tj said:

Why not turn it over to WMS and make it their problem - especially when they are paying, at minimum, $2 million for it?

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service