In blow to Obama Presidential Center backers, judge allows lawsuit challenging Jackson Park location

[former9thward]

Source: Chicago Tribune

In a major setback to plans to build the Obama Presidential Center on Chicago’s South Side lakefront, a federal judge ruled Tuesday that a lawsuit challenging its location can proceed.

In a written decision, U.S. Judge John Robert Blakey said the environmental group Protect Our Parks has enough legal ground to bring some of their objections before him. Blakey did toss out parts of the lawsuit filed against the city of Chicago and the park district.

The ruling to allow the suit to proceed is significant because it could delay construction for months, if not years, and potentially raise the question of whether the $500 million sprawling presidential campus can be built at all on lakefront property in Jackson Park.

A major point of contention has been whether Chicago has legal standing to build Obama center on public park property to begin with.

Read more: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/obamacenter/ct-met-obama-center-presidential-library-chicago-lawsuit-20190219-story.html

---

Note: This judge was appointed by President Obama.

[mobeau69]

1. How about 401 N Wabash Ave?

Tear down that shitty high rise and put it there.

[jmowreader]

2. I've got a better idea

Kick the current tenant out of 401 N Wabash, change the name on the side to "Obama" and put the Obama library in the first four floors.

[mobeau69]

3. That'd work too.

The Loop is beautiful except for that trashy lettering. I can't stand to look at it. Can't Emanuel do something about it?

[Canoe52]

4. Got my chuckle for the day, thanks guys!

For those wondering wtf they are taking about, do a google search on 401 N. Wabash Chicago

[LeftInTX]

5. ....

[DeminPennswoods]

7. Addr of Trump Hotel in Chicago

ftr

[DeminPennswoods]

6. This sounds like a beautiful, scenic location, but

aren't there other places in Chicago for a presidential library other than taking space in a public park?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

8. Good. A lakeside park should be enjoyable to all the people of Chicago, ...

... not just a few researchers at a presidential library.

I'm sure there are many fine places in and around Chicago.

[frazzled]

10. It's not just a library for researchers.

It's a "presidential center" that will provide all kinds of programs and resources for the community, and is expected to draw hundreds of thousands of people each year. Including:

The Library Building is the third main building of the campus — a portal for visitors to engage with the world beyond the Obama Presidential Center. We are partnering with the Chicago Public Library to bring a new 5,000-square-foot public library branch to Jackson Park. As a Chicago Public Library, it will house a multimedia collection with a focus on civic engagement and conduct programming to engage community members. The initial vision for the library includes spaces for reading and study (including homework help) that can be converted to open seating for programs and events; a dedicated children’s area and space for a program called YOUmedia, which lets teens explore the world and their own creativity using new technologies; and meeting space that will be available for public use.

https://www.obama.org/the-center/

There will also be a space for performances and public gatherings, as well as a year-round athletic center.

[former9thward]

14. The Jackson Park area already has three public libraries.

It doesn't need another in the middle of a park. And 5000 sq. feet (which you bolded) is not big at all. About the size of four small Chicago bungalows. Jackson Park is a beautiful park and this center will destroy the character of the park and the lake front. It will disrupt a major traffic thru fare on the south side.

There is plenty of open land in Chicago for the Center. It does not have to be on the lakefront just so that out of town researchers and donors have a nice view.

[frazzled]

15. It will not stay in Chicago

if that attitude prevails. Fortunately, it is not the prevailing attitude, aside from the small Protect the Park gang and a few activist groups wanting a community benefits package. Those are hurdles, but not insurmountable in the face of loss of the project altogether. And mark my words: the Center will relocate to another city entirely if it doesn't land at that site.

As for the size of the library, your argument makes little sense: it is a specialized library focusing on civic issues, and it takes up little space from the park. That should be good.

Jackson Park contains 500 acres of beautiful parkland. The Center, a nonprofit open to a wide range of the public, would utilize 19 of those acres: or 3% of the park. Still plenty to enjoy, including the Japanese Garden. Indeed, more for residents to enjoy and profit from.

And no, it's not just for a few researchers, so stop saying that.

[frazzled]

9. Not again (sigh)

These park people, just a few years ago, drove a civically important project off a piece of land that could have brought significant cultural impact to the city. Now, I'm all for protecting the parks ... but that piece of land was (and now still is) used solely for two very unsightly things: it's a parking lot that is used in the fall and winter months solely for tailgating before Bears games; and in the summer is rented out to mega-productions that erect large tents for some kind of horse show extravaganza or, recently, some giant ugly Chinese-themed miniature golf-type fantasy land. The Lucas Museum, with its architecturally non-intrustive (and, despite Blair Kamen's assessment) innovative design would have provided free access for thousands of residents to digital, cinematic, and visual arts, along with programs for students. Every cultural institution in the city came to argue to the planning commission for its inclusion here, but the threat of suit finally got Lucas fed up and he pulled it.

Do we want Obama to do the same? I for one, want that presidential library to remain here. It would enhance rather than detract from that park ... which, yes, I have been to.

Me sad. I don't see this ending well.

[Blue_Tires]

11. Fine, just build it elsewhere and be done with it

[Honeycombe8]

12. I usually agree with those concerned about the environment.

Any building blocks the view and prevents general enjoyment of that land for a variety of things. Walking, jogging, the view, whatever else parks in that locale are used for. A respite from buildings and a place to enjoy nature, is how I think of parks.

[Sapient Donkey]

13. So long as it's not politically motivated and there are actual concerns

then I'm not going to be upset with people putting their case about why they don't think it's a good spot.