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: 12081

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 7, 2012 at 10:08am

Dang! Every time I think this thread is dead it comes back with a vengeance.

Everybody, take a deep breath while I get me some popcorn ;)

Edit:

OK, I'm back. You may continue;)

Permalink Reply by David on May 7, 2012 at 12:15pm

I agree that's a reasonable question and, though I'm not one of the usual suspects, just like Cameron and Tim I wandered into this thread only slightly leaning toward the boathouse on the grounds that I'd like to see more utilization of the river and also because I feel that the city desperately needs more recreational infrastructure, of which I see much of the cycling infrastructure as a subset.   And like them, I mostly wanted more info in order to make a more informed decision and was somewhat stunned at the level of misinformation and personal attacks from the CPAC supporters.

If this were truly a choice between the Roscoe bridge and the boathouse I'd be completely in favor of the bridge for all the reasons you have so well enunciated.  But I haven't seen any real evidence that this is the choice anybody is facing.   There's been some vague insinuations, but nobody seems to know the bridge status, I haven't seen anything specific that says the Parks District boathouse will block it any more than the CPAC plans would block it, and there's no serious claim that blocking the boathouse will result in the building of a bridge.  The idea that this was boathouse-vs-bridge wasn't even in the original link.   And sadly, at this point, for me the CPAC supporters simply have no credibility at all on any of this. 

As for the city streets for sale, battery plants, etc., I'm not sure what all that has to do with the boathouse per se.  For many, the boathouse seems to have become a symbol of all the unwanted development around the Roscoe corridor.   Treating it as a symbol is one of the reasons this thread has dragged so much in the mud.  But neither cancelling or continuing the boathouse isn't going to have any serious direct effect on the level of commercial development in that area. 

James BlackHeron said:

This was pretty obvious from the very start of the whole thing.   Green battery plants and city streets for sale  to the industry darling friends of the machine and other high-rollers...

But the real question is what is the motive behind _the usual suspects_ long-time Chainlink members throwing in with all the machine cronyism and against hard-fought transportation cycling plans? 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 7, 2012 at 12:35pm

Tim, any false information was due to shady practices by various City agencies.  As Bill pointed out, how could CPAC possibly be able to appropriately respond to demands for plans that they weren't the author of or told about?

CPAC has public meetings open to all, and has been 100% transparent in their dealings.  The City has not.



Tim S said:

My support of the boat house was started when there was a slew of false information spread here, Yelp, CMBA, and on the change.org petition. I was against the tactics and jenky flawed petition they are going to present as proof of no ones support for the boat house. This never had anything to do with a proposed bridge that never got beyond the typed in a proposal phase.

You two are almost as bad as the CPAC with loose facts and misrepresentation.

Go boat house.
Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 7, 2012 at 12:40pm

I believe that would be a completely reasonable assessment, were it not for the fact that the bridge - per a post I made here last year and plans Bill shared that are going on a decade old - has long been in the works.

I can understand why people who did not know the bridge was assumed to be a done deal (albeit with an unknown start date) do not understand the emotion here, but I believe it has been demonstrated clearly that yes, the bridge was not just a pipe dream. 

So when said boat house went from just a boat house that CPAC didn't find appropriate to the death knell for the bridge, that's where I came in and restarted this conversation, which again, due to poor info from the City had everyone confused about what and wasn't being impacted in Clark Park.

David said:

I agree that's a reasonable question and, though I'm not one of the usual suspects, just like Cameron and Tim I wandered into this thread only slightly leaning toward the boathouse on the grounds that I'd like to see more utilization of the river and also because I feel that the city desperately needs more recreational infrastructure, of which I see much of the cycling infrastructure as a subset.   And like them, I mostly wanted more info in order to make a more informed decision and was somewhat stunned at the level of misinformation and personal attacks from the CPAC supporters.

If this were truly a choice between the Roscoe bridge and the boathouse I'd be completely in favor of the bridge for all the reasons you have so well enunciated.  But I haven't seen any real evidence that this is the choice anybody is facing.   There's been some vague insinuations, but nobody seems to know the bridge status, I haven't seen anything specific that says the Parks District boathouse will block it any more than the CPAC plans would block it, and there's no serious claim that blocking the boathouse will result in the building of a bridge.  The idea that this was boathouse-vs-bridge wasn't even in the original link.   And sadly, at this point, for me the CPAC supporters simply have no credibility at all on any of this. 

As for the city streets for sale, battery plants, etc., I'm not sure what all that has to do with the boathouse per se.  For many, the boathouse seems to have become a symbol of all the unwanted development around the Roscoe corridor.   Treating it as a symbol is one of the reasons this thread has dragged so much in the mud.  But neither cancelling or continuing the boathouse isn't going to have any serious direct effect on the level of commercial development in that area. 

James BlackHeron said:

This was pretty obvious from the very start of the whole thing.   Green battery plants and city streets for sale  to the industry darling friends of the machine and other high-rollers...

But the real question is what is the motive behind _the usual suspects_ long-time Chainlink members throwing in with all the machine cronyism and against hard-fought transportation cycling plans? 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 7, 2012 at 12:57pm

Cameron, I re-read this entire thread at lunch.  There is no human way possible someone can have been following this thread and still not see that the primary culprits are the City staffers/agencies who kept the neighborhood in the dark about what was going on.  So while some of us were (and are) getting ready to make some noise about this, others have chosen to be obstructionist and to fiddle while Rome burns.

For anyone to be claiming this is some sort of neutral discussion where we're all pleasantly discussing two possible outcomes is just crazy.  This has never been an open debate in that sense any more than Fox News is "Fair and Balanced," the boat house WAS A DONE DEAL and only after we all finally got to put the pieces together did it become apparent that the bridge is a casualty.  The opinions of actual users of this park got dumped on, period.

As for insults, go read the thread again - your take that the boat house supporters have been paragons of virtue isn't supported by the comments.  Besides the sad potty mouth of Dug, I believe I've also been compared to Rick Santorum among other insults.

But even the bike safety aspect aside, the this boat house will increase usage of the river is still based on a flawed and at this point intellectually unacceptable assessment of the situation.  Kayakers and canoers use the river all the time. 

People are getting shafted here, Cameron.  People that aren't even old enough to know they're getting shafted like my 6 year old are getting shafted. 

The fact the "shaftees" are speaking up as they aren't happy about it is 100% to have been expected.

And if being told straight up that favoring a private boat house *instead of* a bike bridge is to be taking an anti-bike position, then all I can say is "If the shoe fits, wear it," because that is exactly the case.

In fact, I can say this is the most blatant case of 1%er logic I've seen since the Latin School/Lincoln Park issue.

Cameron Puetz said:

I don't know how this thread keeps getting worse, but it does. Are you seriously blaming someone that you know know nothing about other than a conversation on an internet form for the way city hall has wronged you?



Carter O'Brien said:

When you're able to apologize for the backroom dealings of the agencies & the disrespect to the larger community I'll be happy to extend one. 

I'm sure you are a very nice person, but what's been lacking from your posts is any sense of the magnitude of wrongdoing here. 

We're not debating shades of paint here.  This is a permanent and epic backstabbing which is at best unethical, and may in fact be criminal. 

We have lost a golden opportunity for bicycling infrastructure in a truly unsafe and underserved part of the North Side.  A golden opportunity many people in this neighborhood put a lot of hard work into.

 

Permalink Reply by S on May 7, 2012 at 3:37pm

Can someone please mention Nazis or Hitler so that we can put this thread out of it's misery? The discussion has progressed so far beyond it's original post and taken so many twists and turns along the way that it's not doing anyone any good.  Whether you're for or against the boathouse and development in clark park, letting it sink out of sight is probably the best way thing that you can do.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 7, 2012 at 3:40pm

Sink out of sight...like the bridge, that 8-10 transportation cyclists in this area will now never get, was torpedoed and sank out of sight.

Nope, won't be forgetting this one any time soon.

Permalink Reply by David on May 7, 2012 at 3:53pm

I know the bridge has been long in the works.  I also assumed, as did you, that it was already funded and a done deal.

What I don't know is (a) if it has actually been cancelled or (b) if so, whether that cancellation has anything to do with the boathouse. 

I've seen two preliminary plans for the bridge, one directly at Roscoe and another further south towards Belmont.  It's been claimed in this thread that construction of the boathouse will block the Roscoe bridge, but that isn't obvious from the provided plans (not to me, at least), nor have I seen anything from an official source or study that confirms this conjecture, nor does that say anything about any other possible site.  

Of course, I've also seen it claimed in this thread that the east side of Roscoe has been sold to a private developer (thus canceling the bridge, presumably), that the boathouse is being built over The Garden bike park, and that (most stunningly, perhaps) the "dimwits" at Studio Gang haven't really thought through the architectural issues very well.  So you'll forgive me if I start desiring the citation of more solid sources before we light the torches and storm the castle. 



Carter O'Brien said:

I believe that would be a completely reasonable assessment, were it not for the fact that the bridge - per a post I made here last year and plans Bill shared that are going on a decade old - has long been in the works.

I can understand why people who did not know the bridge was assumed to be a done deal (albeit with an unknown start date) do not understand the emotion here, but I believe it has been demonstrated clearly that yes, the bridge was not just a pipe dream. 

So when said boat house went from just a boat house that CPAC didn't find appropriate to the death knell for the bridge, that's where I came in and restarted this conversation, which again, due to poor info from the City had everyone confused about what and wasn't being impacted in Clark Park.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 9, 2012 at 12:52am

If one WANTED to purposely block any bridge plans the place they put this facility couldn't have been better located:

The proposed site (and they paid for the plans and the architect so I doubt they are going to "move" it from where it is sited now) is conviently blocking the approach from the Roscoe lead-in at the West side.  

They had a lot of free space in this park to play with without infringing on the BMX park or other areas already being utilized but instead chose to "plug the hole" of any future bridge being built.  Conviently this allows for the unimpeded "sale" of the public street and right-of-way of the west bank of the river for of this block of Roscoe to private interest crony friends of those in power.

Coincidence? 

I think not.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 9, 2012 at 3:51am

David, I completely agree with you in principle, but after re-reading the whole thread, and the Yelp conversation, and all of the stories in the Roscoe Village paper, what jumps out is that it is the City which hasn't been upfront. 

Yes, it looks like some of the original statements by CPAC folks may have been incorrect, and I can understand why people who came into this with no prior knowledge have been confused and irritated by the competing information, but what else could CPAC have done when the Park District waited until the 11th hour to present incomplete plans and then isn't forthcoming with requests for exactly the documents you described?  Believe me, I have spent a long time trying to find this stuff, it's not on Clark Park volunteers to provide it, it should be easily accessible - and I do point out that someone with the City most definitely removed the schematics for the bridge(s) from the TIF documents, I know what I saw, and I know what I linked to last July.

What I see is CPAC having done the best they could to answer questions, while they were also doing the investigative work to figure out what the City was actually proposing and what the timeline was.  

And what has clearly not happened is a public meeting, advertised widely and well in advance of any decision-making, to get input on removing the Roscoe Ave bridge from plans for redeveloping the area, much less for dropping this behemoth of a storage facility along the river.

There is a right way and a wrong way for the City to make permanent changes to public assets like a multi-user park and the Chicago River. 

From where I stand, supporting the boat house - after knowing the actual timeline of events, including the prior plans and geographical/landscaping facts right now - is supporting a crooked, corrupt process. 

It is insulting to everyone who uses Clark Park, and insulting to everyone, 8 - 80, who would benefit from a real and substantial public infrastructure improvement.

I don't blame the architect here, I don't blame rowers for wanting a facility that serves their needs.  But this is not a velodrome, which would be actively used space and usable by anyone who has a bicycle.  This is a storage facility for people who have other options, which would be unused by 99%+ of Clark Park's user base. 

And that just ain't right.  And since we now all now how this went down, it really is completely unjustifiable to support this boat house, at least in the sense that one also wants to claim that they are being sympathetic to the needs of the biking community who uses this area. 

S's comment above perfectly illustrates my annoyance with some of the posters here.  if you don't use this park or area regularly, don't be a topic cop and tell the community we don't have a right (or RESPONSIBILITY) to stand up for the greater good, just don't participate in this conversation.  The boat house contingency here isn't doing any actual work to get protected bike lanes on Belmont or Addison, so that's been a strawman argument all along.  This is a do-ocracy.

No, this won't be forgotten, ever. 



David said:

  So you'll forgive me if I start desiring the citation of more solid sources before we light the torches and storm the castle. 
Permalink Reply by Davo on May 9, 2012 at 4:04am

Looks like they could have a bridge just south of the boathouse.

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 9, 2012 at 4:23am

You mean right though the BMX park?

And/or chopping down all the trees too?

Sure, the bridge could be moved further south off of path of Roscoe, and then those traveling East/West would have to detour South and then Back north again.  It would mean cutting down quite a few trees on the East bank where the bridge would land, and then cutting down more for the ramp coming back down to grade level.   

This would probably significantly increase the cost of the project, ruin or at least seriously impeach on the BMX jumps area, and cost a few hundred trees over a couple acres of land which would need to be clear-cut.

Or the Boathouse could be moved 200' North...

Davo said:

Looks like they could have a bridge just south of the boathouse.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service