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 Tim S on May 9, 2012 at 5:45pm
Groan, more overestimations proven wrong. All for the sake of scaring folks into opposistion?
Permalink Reply by Bill donahue on May 10, 2012 at 12:44am

The City should have provided everything to us in detail 4 or 5 months ago. The "get your facts together group" seems to think that we are supposed to tell them what they are going to build, based on inconsistent and erroneous information they have provided.  Here we go again, blaming the victims, the taxpayer citizens.  The CPD elects to make a major infrastructure improvement, provides little or no detailed information, holds all hearings in private, shuts out those who have differing views - including the stakeholders - 1) local community groups   2) the rowing community, (that is that part of the rowing community with no financial stake in the new boathouse) 3) the advisory council   4) the biking and cycling community.  So, again, you  blame the victims here, for not having detailed information, and not having hearings etc. so the decisions would be made in a transparent fashion?  

So you know, we just met Mr. Carroll recently, as he explained to us that the City was not listening to HIM either.  Then, we had a common bond.  Mr. Carroll, (the Rowing Group) went to work immediately to show what he had discussed with us, the unsuitability of Clark Park for this type of facility.  We are still hoping that the project will be re - started based upon the poor way this was handled by the City and CPD. 

Please assist us.  Ask the CPD to restart the the process. 

Thank You. 

Permalink Reply by Thunder Snow on May 10, 2012 at 2:22am

Not to muddy the boat house waters any further (heheheh!), but do the final bidding specifications seem to describe something very different from the monolithic two-storey glass box we've seen in drawings so far?  Here's the construction bid, taken from the Park District web site pdf:

"The work includes, but is not limited to construction of a combination

rowing and kayak facility approximately 20,000 SF. The building consists

of a 2 story mechanically heated and cooled building, a 1 story tempered

boat storage building and a floating boat launch dock in the Chicago

River. The 2 story building will have a row tank space, ergometer work

out space that accommodates approximately 36 ‘erg’ machines, a

community room, main office and restrooms with shower facilities. The 1

story boat storage building will have kayak and canoe vendor storage, a

vendor office and restroom, and a clear span boat storage space to store

approximately 50 rowing shells and support equipment. The new facility

LEED goal is a silver rating."

This seems to suggest 3 separate structures for a total of 20,000 feet: a heated/cooled 2-storey building containing a row tank, 36 ergometer workout machines, community room, restrooms/showers, office, etc.  Then there's a 1-storey building, presumably unheated, to store 50 rowboats plus kayaks, canoes and the canoe rental office with bathroom.  Finally, the third structure is the floating pier.  No description here as to whether the 2-storey and 1-storey buildings are connected or how much space might be between them. Hmmmmm.......  Just one more mystery.  I wonder if the pier footage is included in the 20,000 square foot total?

Permalink Reply by Duppie on May 10, 2012 at 2:35am

I don't think anyone is blaming "the victims" for CPD's lack of transparency. But there are established laws how to deal with that lack of transparency. As Kevin pointed out, FOIA is one of them.

Here are instructions on how to file a FIOA request with CPD.

http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/departments/administration/commu...

It was linked to on the front page of CPD's website.

On a related note: What did happen during the meeting? Did the agenda item get approved?

Bill donahue said:

The City should have provided everything to us in detail 4 or 5 months ago. The "get your facts together group" seems to think that we are supposed to tell them what they are going to build, based on inconsistent and erroneous information they have provided.  Here we go again, blaming the victims, the taxpayer citizens.  The CPD elects to make a major infrastructure improvement, provides little or no detailed information, holds all hearings in private, shuts out those who have differing views - including the stakeholders - 1) local community groups   2) the rowing community, (that is that part of the rowing community with no financial stake in the new boathouse) 3) the advisory council   4) the biking and cycling community.  So, again, you  blame the victims here, for not having detailed information, and not having hearings etc. so the decisions would be made in a transparent fashion?  

So you know, we just met Mr. Carroll recently, as he explained to us that the City was not listening to HIM either.  Then, we had a common bond.  Mr. Carroll, (the Rowing Group) went to work immediately to show what he had discussed with us, the unsuitability of Clark Park for this type of facility.  We are still hoping that the project will be re - started based upon the poor way this was handled by the City and CPD. 

Please assist us.  Ask the CPD to restart the the process. 

Thank You. 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 2:55am

But that would assume the timing hadn't been moved to "fast track," and would also assume everyone there is on the level.  It seems pretty clear to me that CPAC has been operating under good faith with CPD.  They had a plan, it had been approved by the required departments.  So why would anyone think they needed to go the lengths of filing a FOIA request to get the straight dope?  If CPD was going to change plans that been vetted by the community, they should been doing that in collaboration with the community, not presenting a brand new proposal as a done deal.

I filed a FOIA request on my own house many years ago (it is actually suggested in some literature the architectural/historical societies produce) in the hopes of acquiring old building permits, blueprints, etc.  When I went to the office to pick up my bounty of info, they gave me a single document - a copy of the permit I had gotten a few months earlier to build a deck.  That was it.  For a 100 year old house!  The guy looked at me like I was crazy when I told him I wanted all the plans, but what he was basically saying was he couldn't be bothered to find them.

And then there's this:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2012/05/07/rahm-on-fo...

So what I'm saying is that sounds nice in theory, but in actuality rarely works as expected.


Duppie said:

I don't think anyone is blaming "the victims" for CPD's lack of transparency. But there are established laws how to deal with that lack of transparency. As Kevin pointed out, FOIA is one of them.

Here are instructions on how to file a FIOA request with CPD.

http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/departments/administration/commu...

It was linked to on the front page.

Bill donahue said:

The City should have provided everything to us in detail 4 or 5 months ago. The "get your facts together group" seems to think that we are supposed to tell them what they are going to build, based on inconsistent and erroneous information they have provided.  Here we go again, blaming the victims, the taxpayer citizens.  The CPD elects to make a major infrastructure improvement, provides little or no detailed information, holds all hearings in private, shuts out those who have differing views - including the stakeholders - 1) local community groups   2) the rowing community, (that is that part of the rowing community with no financial stake in the new boathouse) 3) the advisory council   4) the biking and cycling community.  So, again, you  blame the victims here, for not having detailed information, and not having hearings etc. so the decisions would be made in a transparent fashion?  

So you know, we just met Mr. Carroll recently, as he explained to us that the City was not listening to HIM either.  Then, we had a common bond.  Mr. Carroll, (the Rowing Group) went to work immediately to show what he had discussed with us, the unsuitability of Clark Park for this type of facility.  We are still hoping that the project will be re - started based upon the poor way this was handled by the City and CPD. 

Please assist us.  Ask the CPD to restart the the process. 

Thank You. 

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 2:59am

Hey, I totally agree.  You're actually proving my point, though.  If the bridge had been removed from the project at the very least the documents should have been updated, otherwise, how would anyone know and thus be able to mount an effective plan to engage the community?  It is the City's responsibility to be keeping the community in the know, not the other way around!

Asking CPAC/the community to be solving all of these mysteries is like being given half of the pieces to a puzzle - without the box - and being told after-the-fact that you should have pieced it all together.

Cameron Puetz said:

Carter

While the documents were still on the city's website in 2011 (and in fact are still there today), that doesn't mean that the bridge was an active project in 2011. The two documents that you linked to were dated 2006 and 1997. That fact the documents were still available, doesn't make their content anymore up to date then the date they were written. If anyone is curious, here is the 2011 thread in question:

http://www.thechainlink.org/forum/topics/new-proposed-chicago-river



Carter O'Brien said:

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?  

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 3:04am

Thank you Bill - if you have specific names at the Park District, can you please provide the contact information or a link, etc.? 

Bill donahue said:

The City should have provided everything to us in detail 4 or 5 months ago. The "get your facts together group" seems to think that we are supposed to tell them what they are going to build, based on inconsistent and erroneous information they have provided.  Here we go again, blaming the victims, the taxpayer citizens.  The CPD elects to make a major infrastructure improvement, provides little or no detailed information, holds all hearings in private, shuts out those who have differing views - including the stakeholders - 1) local community groups   2) the rowing community, (that is that part of the rowing community with no financial stake in the new boathouse) 3) the advisory council   4) the biking and cycling community.  So, again, you  blame the victims here, for not having detailed information, and not having hearings etc. so the decisions would be made in a transparent fashion?  

So you know, we just met Mr. Carroll recently, as he explained to us that the City was not listening to HIM either.  Then, we had a common bond.  Mr. Carroll, (the Rowing Group) went to work immediately to show what he had discussed with us, the unsuitability of Clark Park for this type of facility.  We are still hoping that the project will be re - started based upon the poor way this was handled by the City and CPD. 

Please assist us.  Ask the CPD to restart the the process. 

Thank You. 

Permalink Reply by Kevin C Dormant on May 10, 2012 at 3:19am

Very shrewd. The justification for not doing something that could have/should have been done is that it might not have or probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Well played.

Carter O'Brien said:

[snip]

I filed a FOIA request on my own house many years ago (it is actually suggested in some literature the architectural/historical societies produce) in the hopes of acquiring old building permits, blueprints, etc.  When I went to the office to pick up my bounty of info, they gave me a single document - a copy of the permit I had gotten a few months earlier to build a deck.  That was it.  For a 100 year old house!  The guy looked at me like I was crazy when I told him I wanted all the plans, but what he was basically saying was he couldn't be bothered to find them.

And then there's this:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2012/05/07/rahm-on-fo...

So what I'm saying is that sounds nice in theory, but in actuality rarely works as expected.


Duppie said:

[snip]

Permalink Reply by Liz on May 10, 2012 at 3:24am

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 3:33am

Why would a citizen group actively engaged in a conversation with the Park District think they were being misled?  Do you realize how absurd this sounds? 



Kevin C said:

Very shrewd. The justification for not doing something that could have/should have been done is that it might not have or probably wouldn't have made a difference anyway. Well played.

Carter O'Brien said:

[snip]

I filed a FOIA request on my own house many years ago (it is actually suggested in some literature the architectural/historical societies produce) in the hopes of acquiring old building permits, blueprints, etc.  When I went to the office to pick up my bounty of info, they gave me a single document - a copy of the permit I had gotten a few months earlier to build a deck.  That was it.  For a 100 year old house!  The guy looked at me like I was crazy when I told him I wanted all the plans, but what he was basically saying was he couldn't be bothered to find them.

And then there's this:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2012/05/07/rahm-on-fo...

So what I'm saying is that sounds nice in theory, but in actuality rarely works as expected.


Duppie said:

[snip]

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on May 10, 2012 at 3:35am

The character assassination against certain actors in this debate has been very interesting to observe, and to note.

Permalink Reply by Carter O'Brien on May 10, 2012 at 3:39am

Of course, why couldn't I see this earlier?

Being outraged at the Park District pulling a bait-and-switch is EXACTLY like being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist! 

I'll see your cartoon and raise you the Watergate audio tapes. 


Liz said:

RSS

Groups

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

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service