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 Night Owl on May 9, 2012 at 4:29am

Final price tag for the Clark Park boathouse:  $9.45 million.  Source is here.

Permalink Reply by Davo on May 9, 2012 at 4:41am

From your picture, it looks, to me that a bridge could connect the path (whatever that is) on the West side of the river to the N branch riverwalk on the East side of the river with minimal impact to the north side of the BMX park. This connection seems about 10' south of where roscoe ends on the west side and lines in perfectly with the path on the east side. Or the Boat house moves north.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 9, 2012 at 4:55am

Don't forget that bridges need run-ups approximately as long as the span on both sides of the river -unless you want a 45-degree+ grade to get the required height over the waterline for necessary clearances.  

Permalink Reply by Davo on May 9, 2012 at 5:05am

Could you put the run-up just north or on the existing trail that is just North of the BMX park and maybe connect the western end right up with Roscoe? This still seems out of the way for both parties involved here. Or am I missing something here?

 

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 9, 2012 at 5:08am

Thanks for posting that. I get the impression that this boat house is build by the park district. Does that mean they intend run it like a regular park facility? I.e provide programs that you can sign up for, and rent the facility to 3rd parties who would pay for their use?

I believe that is how the park district does it with their astro-turf soccer fields, no?

Night Owl said:

Final price tag for the Clark Park boathouse:  $9.45 million.  Source is here.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 9, 2012 at 5:34am

i was really hoping that this bridge would be "useful" for transportation cycling -this is a bicycle web forum after all and people actually USING their bicycles to get around instead of driving their cars everywhere is part of what many activists here are trying to achieve.

If there is a sharp 90-degree corner on the bridge ramp, or worse yet a 180-turn or two in order to get the run-up then it is not only going to make it harder for bikes to cross, but it will make it more dangerous for peds to co-exist with bikes.   

God forbid we end up with a sign that says, "BIKES:  PLEASE DISMOUNT AND WALK"  like it says on many other bridges and overpasses in the area -especially near and connecting to the LFP.   A bridge that bikes have to walk across is not going to help the Transportation Cycling issue or make the Roscoe Bike Corridor much of a useful Transportation Route for bicyclists.  

Why must we underbuild necessary infrastructure like these types of bridges by putting sharp 90-degree corners in them when a nice simple straight-away bridge could be run up down Roscoe on the West side and then a nice straight run-up on the other side where the boathouse plans have it sitting?  The bridge needs to be wide enough to allow bikes to ride at 15mph down the middle and peds to walk safely on both sides.  

It's going to be pretty hard to do something like this with the bridge shoe-horned in the area south of the Roscoe straight-line corridor that so many bike advocates were planning on incorporating into the Streets for Cycling and Bike Boulevard routes. 

Nope, this boathouse is a CORK in the plans.  It's been plopped there as a preemptive move in a giant game of monopoly for control of Roscoe on the West of the river.   Collect $200 and pass go -the bankers have won another round.   They get to put up their hotel as well as bump a needed piece of the transportation cycling puzzle off the game board. 

Davo said:

Could you put the run-up just north or on the existing trail that is just North of the BMX park and maybe connect the western end right up with Roscoe? This still seems out of the way for both parties involved here. Or am I missing something here?

 

Permalink Reply by Tim S on May 9, 2012 at 5:39am

FYI - please be careful using the plan overlay on page 1 you all are referencing. It is a creation by me, Tim S. a member of The Chainlink one rainy afternoon not the CPAC, CPD, or anyone associated with the proposed project. Not saying I am looking for credit or asking you not to use it just saying that it is by a non-interested party after asking one specific CPAC supporter for over a month for any information that bolstered their claims and petition. I finally cut and pasted the plans onto a snapshot downloaded from Google Maps (which took me all of 10 minutes to manipulate and create) because I wanted to check the validity and accuracy of their petition and offer others a reasonably accurate visual to help people get a better feel for the project rather than the stories being put fourth on various threads. It is not to be taken as an the end all/be official document.

That said the proposed bridge (which has no designs or even mentions in any City documents I can find beyond 2009) looks like it could fit just south of the boat house easily and to get upset about the possibility that some tree's may be taken down seems silly. After all, in order to build "The Garden" they had to remove tree's. How can you can justify it for one bike project but not another? 

I am an avid biker and supporter of green/outdoor spaces and just can not get as up in arms as some of you are. I am not a crony, rower or a member of the 1%.

Trying to block a project based on truth stretching (CPAC supporters) and old TIF plans that have fallen off the table does not really make for much of a case... does it?

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 9, 2012 at 5:51am

The bridge isn't going to get built now.  History will show that looking back 10-15 years from now. Whether it was going to be built at all -or even if all the plans that had it as a critical crossing for bike boulevards and transportation cycling in the area will survive without it is another discussion. 

The boathouse WILL get built.  It's a done deal.  There will also be a buy-back of Roscoe west of the river and a "green battery plant" built there as well as other industrial pet projects.

We are just talking about stuff here.  There is no debate left.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 9, 2012 at 5:55am

Tim, you saw the size and depth of those TIF plans, right?  That's a 20 year project, it is entirely reasonable for those of us who saw it to expect it would take a while to actually complete in full.

The City's plan most definitely had the bridge included as of *last year,* where do you think I saw the plans for the bridge initially?  I'm not a mind-reader, Tim - I stumbled on to the TIF while doing research on a totally unrelated topic, and was so overjoyed by the bridge schematics I immediately came here and shared the links to share the good news.

I've clarified that in this conversation multiple times.  Continuing to claim the bridge has long been off the table/is unrelated to the addition of this boathouse is simply not true.

The project being blocked is the original plan for Clark Park, which was clearly done in a collaborative fashion with the CPAC and was vetted during meetings open to the public.

If you know of a public meeting where our community was invited to give feedback on this boathouse, please share that info.

As that is a private rental facility for long row boats, it is by definition going exclude anyone who either doesn't own one of these boats, and/or have the ability to pay to rent it.  I am guessing that is at least 99% of the population.

In fact, if any private storage should have put there, it should have been for kayaks and canoes, which have been launched at that site for ages.

Honestly, the original plan was awesome.  Improved facilities for the existing/demonstrated users of the river, this is no dead stretch of parkland.

I appreciate that you've tried to add some clarity to the conversation, but the mere fact that it was you, a private citizen trying to sort out the facts, just proves the point that the City has been up to no good here. 

If the Park District had been planning this and doing so with public input, official documents would be there for all of us to see, a long time ago.  This isn't quite Meigs Field dead-of-night demolition country, but it's close.


Tim S said:

FYI - please be careful using the plan overlay on page 1 you all are referencing. It is a creation by me, Tim S. a member of The Chainlink one rainy afternoon not the CPAC, CPD, or anyone associated with the proposed project. Not saying I am looking for credit or asking you not to use it just saying that it is by a non-interested party after asking one specific CPAC supporter for over a month for any information that bolstered their claims and petition. I finally cut and pasted the plans onto a snapshot downloaded from Google Maps (which took me all of 10 minutes to manipulate and create) because I wanted to check the validity and accuracy of their petition and offer others a reasonably accurate visual to help people get a better feel for the project rather than the stories being put fourth on various threads. It is not to be taken as an the end all/be official document.

That said the proposed bridge (which has no designs or even mentions in any City documents I can find beyond 2009) looks like it could fit just south of the boat house easily and to get upset about the possibility that some tree's may be knocked down seems silly after all in order to build "The Garden" they had to remove tree's. You can justify it for one bike project but not another? 

I am an avid biker and supporter of green/outdoor spaces and just can not get as up in arms as some of you are. I am not a crony, rower or a member of the 1%.

Trying to block a project based on truth stretching (CPAC supporters) and old TIF plans that have fallen off the table does not really make for much of a case... does it?

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on May 9, 2012 at 6:57am

Tim:  

I've been looking over some literature on this, and it seems that the location of that overlay is incorrect.  According to the IDNR permits for the jetties, the site is "located at approximately School Street" - a block further south than Roscoe.  This would seem to put the BMX jumps in serious danger depending on the building's footprint.


Tim S said:

FYI - please be careful using the plan overlay on page 1 you all are referencing. It is a creation by me, Tim S. a member of The Chainlink one rainy afternoon not the CPAC, CPD, or anyone associated with the proposed project. Not saying I am looking for credit or asking you not to use it just saying that it is by a non-interested party after asking one specific CPAC supporter for over a month for any information that bolstered their claims and petition. I finally cut and pasted the plans onto a snapshot downloaded from Google Maps (which took me all of 10 minutes to manipulate and create) because I wanted to check the validity and accuracy of their petition and offer others a reasonably accurate visual to help people get a better feel for the project rather than the stories being put fourth on various threads. It is not to be taken as an the end all/be official document.

That said the proposed bridge (which has no designs or even mentions in any City documents I can find beyond 2009) looks like it could fit just south of the boat house easily and to get upset about the possibility that some tree's may be taken down seems silly. After all, in order to build "The Garden" they had to remove tree's. How can you can justify it for one bike project but not another? 

I am an avid biker and supporter of green/outdoor spaces and just can not get as up in arms as some of you are. I am not a crony, rower or a member of the 1%.

Trying to block a project based on truth stretching (CPAC supporters) and old TIF plans that have fallen off the table does not really make for much of a case... does it?

Permalink Reply by Tim S on May 9, 2012 at 7:28am

Please provide a link to literature you are reading. My image is "correct" per any information that has been shared here... that I have seen.

Night Owl said:

Tim:  

I've been looking over some literature on this, and it seems that the location of that overlay is incorrect.  According to the IDNR permits for the jetties, the site is "located at approximately School Street" - a block further south than Roscoe.  This would seem to put the BMX jumps in serious danger depending on the building's footprint.

Permalink Reply by Night Owl on May 9, 2012 at 7:41am

Can't, sorry...I've only seen the hardcopies and don't have digital forms, but the exact text from the IDNR permit review states that the Parks District has applied for permits to "construct two floating docks and perform shoreline stabilization in the North Branch of the Chicago River at Clark and River Parks.  The Clark Park project site is located on the east bank of the North Branch of the Chicago River at approximately School Street..."  No other information is given and the schematics don't give a great sense of geography within the park itself; they are just cross sections of how the river will be impacted.  

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service