Greetings All!

This Update includes information about the status of the Darrow Bridge restoration and answers some questions about the dimensions of Project 120’s proposed pavilion as described at the May 31 meeting. We report on Monday night’s JPAC meeting, and to recommend a few things you might find of interest.

Next Steps on Darrow Bridge Restoration

We met on June 9 with Luis Benitez and Tanera Adams, the Chicago Department of Transportation staff who are managing the restoration of the Clarence Darrow Bridge (known to CDOT as the Columbia Bridge). They confirmed that the restored bridge will be open only for pedestrians, bicyclists and emergency vehicles. Interestingly, they told us that now all new pedestrian bridges are designed to accommodate emergency vehicles.

They explained the scheduled for the restoration as follows:

1. As was announced in November 2015, CDOT has secured funding for the engineering study and design phases of the project, and has selected a consulting firm, Stanley Consultants. However, the work cannot actually begin until the legal department gives an okay with a “Notice To Proceed,” which has yet to happen.
2. Once the NTP is given, Phase I (the engineering study phase) will begin. It will take 1 to 2 years with at least one opportunity for community input. The CDOT staff will notify JPW of the opportunities for community input, and we will publicize them widely.
3. Phase II, the design phase, will follow, with additional opportunities for community input.
4. Then of course, at long last, will come Phase III, the actual construction, which CDOT anticipates would begin, at the earliest, in spring 2019.

The good news is that there will be opportunities for community input, which JPW will know about and will publicize. The bad news is that we are talking about multiple years. This prompts questions about the wisdom of proceeding with other initiatives as long as the Darrow Bridge is closed.

How big was that?

At the May 31 meeting, Park District staff said that the footprint of the pavilion proposed by Project 120, said to be 15,000 square feet, was only as big as 2.5 tennis courts. This prompted some expressions of disbelief and a variety of calculations. We asked the Park District for clarification, and were told that the tennis court analogy was based on these assumptions:

• Project 120’s proposed pavilion would be two levels, with 8,500 sq. ft. on the top level and 6,500 sq. ft. in a below-grade basement.
• The tennis court measurement included open space surrounding the court in addition to the playing area proper.
• The estimate of the size of the footprint excluded the area under the proposed wide eaves and the redone “music court,” with trees removed, where there would be seating for the outdoor music performances.

All in all, this way of describing the size of the proposed pavilion grossly underestimates the scale of the facility and its impact on the park. Clearly, a downsized, relocated pavilion is in order.

JPAC June 13 meeting

The JPAC meeting began with a lengthy power-point presentation of what JPAC has done and plans to do. Brenda and Margaret hope that they accomplish all they have described, past and present! Thanks to the other JPW stalwarts who were there as well. It was a looooong meeting.

Eventually the agenda moved to the proposal to amend the bylaws regarding the requirements for voting. Questions were raised as to the exact meaning of the proposed amendment. Various concerns and alternatives were presented. In the end, JPAC officials decided to bring a revised proposal to the next meeting, without clarity as to what that proposal might be.

You may be interested

We’ve updated our website to reflect the May 31 meeting, the fact that Project 120’s proposal for traffic across the Darrow Bridge has been taken off the table, and to reflect concerns about Yoko Ono’s “Skylanding” piece. You can take a look at http://jacksonparkwatch.org.

You may also want to read the presentation JPW made to the June 8 meeting of the Park District Board of Commissioners. It is available on our website on the newly revised “documents” page.

Finally, a report: the JPW open letter to Alderman Hairston was published in the Hyde Park Herald. You can read it at http://hpherald.com/2016/06/15/thanks-to-alderman-hairston/.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid
Jackson Park Watch
http://jacksonparkwatch.org
Like us on our Facebook page.

Greetings all!

This Update is devoted in the main to follow-up on the very successful May 31 meeting that so many of you participated in. Thanks to all of you who were there along with so many others from the community.

On behalf of JPW, we have sent an open letter to Alderman Hairston with a copy to the Hyde Park Herald Letters to the Editors, thanking her for convening and leading the meeting (see below). We encourage any of you who want to share your own comments about the meeting to communicate directly with Alderman Hairston (ward05@cityofchicago.org) and/or with the Herald (Letters@hpherald.com ).

Thanks to Alderman Hairston!
An open letter to Alderman Leslie Hairston from Jackson Park Watch

Dear Alderman Hairston,

Jackson Park Watch wants to thank you for convening and leading the May 31 community meeting on the future of Jackson Park. The fact that over 170 residents from communities surrounding the park came out on a very wet and stormy night to listen to and question Park District CEO Michael Kelly and others indicates the depth and breadth of interest in and concern about the proposals for the future of our park that have been promoted by Project 120.

We congratulate you especially on a well-run meeting that, in spite of the overflow crowd, allowed participants to give voice to questions on a variety of issues representing many points of view — the history of Project 120, the role of the Park District, the scale and location of the proposed Phoenix Pavilion (including whether any new structure is needed at all), concern about loss of trees, green space and parking, as well as about the fates of the golf course and driving range, basketball court, and tennis courts, among them.

We are particularly pleased that the meeting provided the community with clarifications on some key concerns:

• Contrary to Project 120’s recent presentations, traffic over the restored Darrow Bridge will be limited to pedestrians, bicycles, and emergency vehicles only. There will not be a road for regular automobile traffic leading over the Bridge with parking along both sides.
• The pavilion proposal is a concept, not a done deal.   Because the idea of a road across the Bridge is off the table, there is a great opportunity to revisit not only the proposed location of this pavilion (on the current parking lot), but also its size and scope. A relocated, down-sized, simplified pavilion could far better align with community views.

We are grateful that you are committed to working with Mr. Kelly to develop a procedure and process for community input that will fully represent the Jackson Park community in all its diversity. The May 31 meeting was a great step toward that goal, and, once again we thank you.

Thanks to the Park District as well

As a second follow-up to the May 31 meeting, Margaret appeared at the monthly meeting of the Chicago Park District Board of Commissioners to give a two- minute statement in the “People in the Parks” part of the meeting (and yes, it was timed!). The Park District generally videos these meetings, so the statement may eventually appear on video at https://chicagoparkdistrict.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx – scroll down to find the 6/8/16 meeting. Note that Brenda was out of town.

Here’s a summary of the JPW presentation. We also gave a hard copy of a longer version with more detail and relevant attachments to the individual commissioners and CEO Kelly.

1. We thanked CEO Mike Kelly and other staff for participating, for taking off the table the Project 120 proposal for a one-way road for regular automobile traffic across the Darrow Bridge with parking along each side, and for committing to further dialogue with the community in conjunction with Alderman Hairston.
2. We reported significant community concerns with Project 120’s proposed pavilion, including the loss of picnic and parking space, loss of trees, threats to birds, and noise. We observed that since the idea of a road across the Bridge with parking along both sides had been taken off the table, there was an excellent opportunity for a revised design of a downsized, relocated, simplified pavilion more in keeping with the wooded nature of the park and community concerns.
3. We noted that another opportunity to preserve trees and green space would be to redesign Project 120’s proposals for the Music Court and “Great Lawn” to limit the loss natural area.
4. We noted that it is very surprising that the Yoko Ono “SkyLanding” piece would be installed on Wooded Island at a time when, due to the closure of the Darrow Bridge, there would be no access to adequate parking or public restrooms. (In the expanded version, we also pointed to potential problems with the piece attracting graffiti and climbers, and questioned whether it would need to be fenced. A rendering of the piece is included in the Hyde Park Herald’s original online coverage of the May 31 meeting, see http://hpherald.com/2016/06/01/proposed-music-pavilion-the-focus-of-discussion-at-jackson-park-planning-meeting/.)

Finally, in conclusion we made two requests:

“We ask that the Park District work with Alderman Hairston to ensure a transparent and inclusive process for community review of a revised Project 120 proposal aligned with community concerns; and that the Park District delay the installation of the Sky Landing sculpture until the Darrow Bridge is reopened.”

JPAC meeting Monday 6/13
7 p.m., Jackson Park Field House, 6401 S. Stony Island Ave.

As you may recall, at its June meeting JPAC will consider a proposal to change its by-laws concerning the requirements for voting. Currently one can vote when attending a second meeting within the span of 12 months; the proposed revision would increase the attendance requirement to four meetings. If this proposed change is an issue on which you wish to weigh in and you are qualified under the current two-meeting rule, please come to meeting so that your vote for or against can be counted. We will be there.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid
Jackson Park Watch
http://jacksonparkwatch.org
Like us on our Facebook page.

(To unsubscribe from this g-list, simply send “unsubscribe” to jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com.)

The Community Meeting on Jackson Park was a major success on many fronts. Thanks to Alderman Hairston for convening it!

Turnout. The La Rabida meeting room was packed, with 45 people standing along the sides and in the back – well over 170 in all, despite the rain. If there were any doubts that there is huge interest and concern in the community about what Project 120 has been proposing, they were totally dispelled. Thanks to all JPW participants who were able to attend – and we know there were many others who were there in spirit. Our community effort is having results (read on).

Park District officials in attendance. Underscoring the importance of the meeting, Park District Superintendent and CEO Mike Kelly was there, Park District COO Pat Levar was there, Park District Director of Planning and Development Heather Gleason was there, Park District Chief Programming Officer Alonzo Williams was there, Park District Director of Legislative and Community Affairs Kim du Buclet was there, along with several others. Project 120 president Bob Karr was there as well.

Commitments on two key issues.

• (NO) Traffic over the Darrow Bridge: The Park District reported that, contrary to reports and to the Project 120 presentations, the Chicago Department of Transportation is evaluating the Bridge restoration plan with the idea that the uses will be pedestrian, bicycling, and emergency vehicles only, not regular automobile traffic. Alderman Hairston repeated the point for emphasis: there will be no traffic over the Darrow Bridge!       There was applause.
• Pavilion on the parking lot: The question was raised as to whether the pavilion could be smaller and/or located elsewhere so as to save the parking lot for parking.       Alderman Hairston said that the design of the pavilion should be revisited to ensure that it does not occupy the parking lot space.

Two clarifications.

Those who have seen Project 120’s gauzy renderings of its proposals know that it has been hard to discern some of the important detail. These clarifications were welcome:

• Basketball courts: Some of Project 120 graphics appear to indicate that the basketball courts just north of Hayes Drive close to the lake would be relocated or perhaps removed as part of Project 120 plans for the “Great Lawn.” While there was confusion among Park District officials as to just what Project 120 was proposing, Alderman Hairston stepped in to indicate that the basketball courts are not being removed or relocated.
• Golf driving range and golf course: The Park District clarified that the proposal under consideration, similar to that in the 1999 Framework Plan, is to move the golf driving range to be adjacent to the golf course while leaving the 18 hole golf course intact.

Major discussion themes. With that many people from Hyde Park, South Shore, and the other neighborhoods interested in the future of Jackson Park, there were inevitably many points of view expressed in the discussion following the Park District’s initial brief presentation. However, some key themes that came up repeatedly included many that we think most likely resonated with many JPW participants:

• Why a pavilion? A number of speakers argued that it is important to preserve open space and trees, that Olmsted advocated open space, and that the importance of the natural beauty and quiet of the area should take precedence over the existing pavilion concept. Alderman Hairston stated that the concept of a pavilion was approved at a community meeting in November, 2013. Jackson Park PW notes that reports of that meeting showed that Park District officials pointed out at the time that the concept needed to be vetted and refined through a community process.       That community process is now belatedly beginning to occur.
• Why not instead put resources into bringing our existing Jackson Park facilities up to a standard we could be proud of? Numerous speakers touched on this point.
• How can we insure community input into final Park District decisions? This critical point came up repeatedly in various ways.

At the conclusion of the meeting, Alderman Hairston repeated that the community should drive decisions about Jackson Park. She stated that she will get together with Park District CEO Mike Kelly to develop a procedure and process for community input, which they would then discuss with Project 120’s Bob Karr. Another meeting or meetings would follow. Brenda and Margaret had a chance after the meeting to assure the Alderman that Jackson Park Watch wants to work with her to ensure that community input is decisive.