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: 12074

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 9, 2012 at 1:17pm

Bill, regardless of the outcome, thank you so much for all your efforts.  Looking forward to pitching in on Saturday.

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 9, 2012 at 1:17pm

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 May 9, 2012 at 1:38pm

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...

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 9, 2012 at 1:52pm

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 Kevin C Dormant on May 9, 2012 at 2:00pm

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 May 9, 2012 at 2:17pm

I hope that the park district considers the assessment of the rowing group in making their decision.  Seems rather relevant right now, eh?

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 9, 2012 at 2:52pm

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. 

Permalink Reply by Tim S on May 9, 2012 at 3:04pm
So is your calculation off of the pad or the structure?
Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 9, 2012 at 3:10pm

Good correction thank you, I am only talking about the footprint of the building alone, then we would add on the 2nd floor. 

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 9, 2012 at 4:09pm

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. 

Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 9, 2012 at 4:11pm

Yes Ann, it would have been nice for the city to include analysis and testimony of the rowing group, but they did not. This analysis was shut out of the process. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 9, 2012 at 4:59pm

About a week ago, I spent an hour or so with the drawing you posted and my architect's scale. I have a large monitor at work, I printed the drawing, and was unable to determine a scale or an overall dimension for the building from either. I assume this was the same drawing which you have stated frequently in this thread is proof of the 40,000 sq. ft. (20,000 sq. ft. footprint) figure CPAC has used. So can we now agree that the 20,000 sq. ft. footprint is actually only 8640 sq. ft.? (43% of your figure) And how many months have you had this inadequate drawing? And is this the same drawing CPAC has used to "compute" the 2+ acre figure for the whole project? CPAC had a lot of time (4-5 months) to get its facts straight. If you can't get a scale drawing from CPD, your Alderman or the architect, file a FOIA request. Any advocacy effort where the advocate does not have the facts isn't much of an advocacy effort.

I agree that the report from the Rowing Group is the most factually accurate and compelling argument against the location of this boathouse. CPAC should have commissioned it 3 months ago.



Bill donahue said:

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. 

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service