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: 11916

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 9, 2012 at 2:42pm

I don't practice santaria, I ain't got no crystal ball.  All opinions that come off of these keyboard fingers are mine and mine alone.  

Time will tell.  Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.  But I don't think so...

I'd love for there to be a nice boathouse that is beautifully and artistically integrated with the architecture of this boathouse and the two of them could live in harmony on the riverfront -but I don't think so.

     There is trouble in River City -Trouble with a capitol T and that rhymes with B and that stands for Boathouse!

Sing it with me brothers!


Kevin C said:

I thought you had already thoroughly considered all of the hearsay evidence presented in this thread, and rendered your final prognostication.

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 9, 2012 at 2:49pm

Davo's assessment isn't too far off, the bridge may need a little bit more width than shown for proper footing and it may disturb a small amount of the woods, but if Tim's placement is correct, there is adequate space for a pedestrian bridge since the footing requirements for a small bridge are fairly compact and the ramp length required is based on the elevation that the bridge is raised above the ground elevation, not the river span.  

This doesn't change the fact that there are no city documents available discussing the bridge since 1999, and there has never been an RFP (request for proposal) issued for this bridge (I used a search that is generally only accessible to A/E, contractors, cities, etc to look). No engineering has been completed for any possible bridge.  Drawing a schematic on a general area usage plan is not equivalent to having a design. While it may have a 20 year life on the tif, the fact that 13 have already passed without follow up and there is potential industrial development on the over side of the river, and the alderman has stated it was re-evaluated leads me to believe this has long been off the table.  

Permalink Reply by Tim S on May 9, 2012 at 3:00pm

Hmm, Night Owl I have no answer for you as to when the plans I have were dated as they are from the CPD by way of the CPAC directly. Would like to see what your seeing!

Night Owl said:

Hmmm...well, I guess I'd just ask when those schematics are dated.  These permit reviews are from April 12th, 2012 and the crude map accompanying it shows it directly across from DeVry on the other side of Rockwell .  Things might have changed?  As I said earlier though, the contract for construction is being signed in about two hours so it is all but tied up for the Park District at this point.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 9, 2012 at 3:25pm

I am sure you are correct as of right now, I'm actually the one who pointed their omission out, remember?

But pages showing the bridge were absolutely in the TIF documents on the City's website as of last July, 2011.  It's been almost a year so I won't pretend I remember a ton of specifics, but at the very least I vividly recall maps and a description.  What is now missing is not only documentation of the bridge over Roscoe, but the one over George as well.  Why would I start a whole conversation on that, including linking to files that, when opened, would disprove what I was highlighting?  

But let's run with the notion that someone in Planning, the CPD, etc (the prior alderman supported the bridge plan, per CPAC, and Pawar is brand new) decided to remove or "re-evaluate" the bridge from the plans.  Perhaps that was done and then later they updated the files on the City website. 

I should not have had to email an alderman in 2012 to know about this.  A change that substantial should have warranted a public meeting.  I'm not a TIF attorney, but from what I've read it seems quite possible/probable that such a meeting is actually legally required.   What we know for a fact is that the public was never told this was happening, so it shouldn't be surprising that people haven't been able to clamor for this. 

It really comes down to who is more trustworthy here.  Unpaid volunteers with the Clark Park Advisory Council who hold monthly public meetings, or nameless & unidentifiable bureaucrats working for the City.


Liz said:

Davo's assessment isn't too far off, the bridge may need a little bit more width than shown for proper footing and it may disturb a small amount of the woods, but if Tim's placement is correct, there is adequate space for a pedestrian bridge since the footing requirements for a small bridge are fairly compact and the ramp length required is based on the elevation that the bridge is raised above the ground elevation, not the river span.  

This doesn't change the fact that there are no city documents available discussing the bridge since 1999, and there has never been an RFP (request for proposal) issued for this bridge (I used a search that is generally only accessible to A/E, contractors, cities, etc to look). No engineering has been completed for any possible bridge.  Drawing a schematic on a general area usage plan is not equivalent to having a design. While it may have a 20 year life on the tif, the fact that 13 have already passed without follow up and there is potential industrial development on the over side of the river, and the alderman has stated it was re-evaluated leads me to believe this has long been off the table.  

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 9, 2012 at 4:20pm

http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/departments/board-of-commissione...

The commissioners meeting just started, streaming live.  Clark Park is item #20, they're on item #6 right now (4:19 PM).

http://www.cpdit01.com/resources/pdf-library/board.agenda/Board%20A...

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 9, 2012 at 4:44pm

A fellow from CPAC (Howard Lucke?) just made a good reasoned plea to hold off the vote today, and presented their petition.  But Mr. Lucke followed a young Logan Square Latina who hopes to get a rowing scholarship to Yale after refining her rowing skills at the new Clark Park boat house. Then a mother of an autistic boy hopes her son can get the opportunity to learn rowing at Clark.  Finally, a group of breast cancer survivor rowers are supporting the boat house.  So it will be interesting in about half an hour to see if the vote gets tabled or not. 

 

4:45-my connection to the meeting just dumped, with a British voice saying "the URL to this link is invalid.  Please contact your content provider...."  Is it just my connection or did everyone just get booted off the live stream of the meeting?

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 9, 2012 at 4:45pm

Crap, my chromebook won't run the plug-in for watching.

Permalink Reply by Tim S on May 9, 2012 at 4:53pm

Hope they didn't hand in the original petition from Change.org as it was flawed with bad talking points and outright lies... then again I hope they did especially if the wording was changed as that negates any signatures as they would then have been collected under false pretense. 

I watched the 3 groups/people who came out in support and the one group against. Interesting to see over the web. 

Woah that is a creepy voice telling me I am unable to connect too.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 9, 2012 at 4:57pm

Either the Park Commissioners are having streaming problems, or they've decided to cut us all off the stream.  I had a solid connection from 4:05-4:45, then just the British voice.  Tried Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Aurora--no connection.  If anyone is connected to the meeting stream, please update us here as to whether the contracts for Clark & Ping Tom get approved.

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 9, 2012 at 5:00pm

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.

Thunder Snow said:

Either the Park Commissioners are having streaming problems, or they've decided to cut us all off the stream.  I had a solid connection from 4:05-4:45, then just the British voice.  Tried Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Aurora--no connection.  If anyone is connected to the meeting stream, please update us here as to whether the contracts for Clark & Ping Tom get approved.

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 9, 2012 at 5:03pm

...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 Kevin C Dormant on May 9, 2012 at 5:05pm

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.

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service