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.

Mark your calendar:
Community Meeting on Jackson Park
Tuesday, May 31, 6-8 pm, at La Rabida

Greetings all,

Hairston strongly supports community involvement
As Alderman Leslie Hairston announced the May 31 community meeting on Jackson Park issues at this week’s 5^th Ward Meeting, she set the stage by saying “Some people outside of the community have decided it’s best that they make decisions for us… Nothing is going to happen in these parks unless we are a part of it.”  Alderman Hairston’s strong support for community decision-making on the future of Jackson Park makes it vital to have maximum attendance at the meeting. We hope to see you all there!  (For more on Alderman Hairston’s comments at the Ward Meeting, see http://hpherald.com/2016/05/25/hairston-announces-community-meeting-to-clarify-parkland-proposals/ .

***

“No final decisions yet” say key Park District officials
Brenda and Margaret recently met with Park District officials Michael Lange and Heather Gleason at Michael’s invitation to discuss JPW issues and concerns.  Michael, a senior project manager, has been working with Project 120 as it develops its ideas; Heather is the CPD Director of Planning and Development.  The wide-ranging discussion included a focus on three key points:

1. Project 120’s proposed pavilion and the traffic impacts that would result from the loss of the parking lot. We were happy to hear that the Park District is not committed to the pavilion concept and that discussion of alternatives is in order.  We were told that the Park District knows that there are many community concerns about the pavilion concept.  We argued strenuously that having regular vehicular traffic across the Darrow Bridge, as proposed in the Project 120 design, would truncate the park, create traffic hazards, and be bad for the park and for park users as well.  Michael and Heather listened attentively.

2. The rebuilding of the Clarence Darrow Bridge. This is a CDOT project, not under the control of the Park District.  It is now in phase one, feasibility assessment, which may last a full two years.  The good news? Community input will be required.  Michael Lange said he would put us in touch with the right persons at CDOT so that we can insure that the broader community can indeed have input.  The bad news?  The design and construction phases to follow could last two years more, plus or minus.  We are looking at several more years of Darrow Bridge closure, and the attendant impacts. Which brings us to issue three.

3. The proposed installation of Yoko Ono’s “Sky Landing” piece on Wooded Island.  Project 120’s Bob Karr continues to say this artwork will be installed this summer, despite the Bridge closure, which means that adjacent parking spaces and public restrooms will be completely unavailable.  Brenda and Margaret were somewhat surprised to discover that there is no record of any approval or agreement allowing Project 120 to install this permanent piece of privately funded art in the park.  We were even more incredulous to hear that there is no Park District process requiring any public review or input relating to the permanent installation of art in the parks (there is such a process for public art elsewhere in the city, surely there should be one for parks as well!).  However, we have discovered that there does need to be a Park District Agreement on installation logistics, liability, ownership, maintenance, and the like, and an Agreement of that sort related to this piece does not exist as of May 24. [Coincidentally, Project 120 revealed the design for” Sky Landing” at an event at the Art Institute on May 24—it is to be 12 human-sized lotus petals.] We urged the Park District to take a closer look at the logistics and sequencing issues in relationship to this particular Project 120 plan.  Again, Michael and Heather listened attentively to these points.

***

A Note on Wooded Island
The most recent issue of the Southside Weekly has a good and somewhat unhappy article on the current state of Wooded Island and its prospects for the next few years.  While Jackson Park Watch does not focus on issues related to the U.S. Army Corps’ current work, we know that virtually everyone is interested and thus wanted to alert you to the article.   You can access it online at: http://southsideweekly.com/behind-the-fence/ .

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.)

Greetings all,

This week’s Hyde Park Herald covers Alderman Leslie Hairston’s April 26 announcement that she has asked the Park District to convene a community meeting to discuss Project 120’s proposals. (See http://hpherald.com/2016/05/11/hairston-calls-for-clarity-from-park-district-and-project-120/) The Herald quotes Hairston: “There has been very poor communication with the community. Residents have said that the community has been ignored and that there has been little input from the community. I think we need to have a meeting to get clarity and to make sure there are no issues surrounding misinformation.” We will keep you informed as plans for the meeting are set.

In the meantime, we have updates on several things: the Yoko Ono installation on Wooded Island, the South Parks idea, and JPAC procedures.

First, Yoko Ono. As noted a few weeks ago, we had asked Bob Karr for information about this piece, including what it will be, the origins of the idea, and arrangements for its financing and maintenance, none of which is covered in the MOU or any other agreement between Project 120 and the Park District. Bob responded that, to quote, “…it is an art installation by Yoko Ono of the original Phoenix Pavilion. It is being funded by Project 120 Chicago. More information will be publicly shared about the project soon.” Since this doesn’t tell the community much about what is involved, we are continuing to investigate, and will share what we find.

Second, South Parks. We continue to do research into the historical accuracy of the picture that Project 120 puts out in relationship to its plans and projects. Because many have noted Project 120’s recent embrace of the “South Parks” idea, we turned our attention to that concept and found the information below. We would appreciate feedback as to whether this summary is helpful.

Why “South Parks”?

Those who have been following Project 120’s ever-expanding proposals will have noted that in September 2015 Project 120’s website suddenly shifted from referring to its plans for Jackson Park to claiming it is “developing plans to revitalize Chicago’s South Parks designed by Frederick Law Olmsted.”   Many have wondered: What was “South Parks”? What exactly did Olmsted design? And most especially, what relevance does the “South Parks” concept have today?

In fact, there once was an historical, single South Park, but only in concept, never in actuality. In 1869, the areas now known as Jackson and Washington Parks and the Midway Plaisance were designated as “South Park.” Olmsted and his partner Calvert Vaux were retained by the South Park Commission (one of three such geographically defined park commissions) to develop a plan to turn the large site, then uncultivated and with no more than a dozen small dwellings, into parkland.

Olmsted and Vaux presented their plan in 1871. Focusing on Lake Michigan as the most important feature of a flat, marshy site, they designed an interconnected series of lagoons linking the lake on the east with the prairie of Washington Park on the west via a long canal through the middle of Midway Plaisance.

Five months after their design was submitted, however, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 rewrote the plans for South Park. While the actual parkland itself was untouched by the fire, all work was suspended for a year, and Olmsted and Vaux’s ambitious vision was scaled back. By the late 1880s, Washington and Jackson Parks had been given their separate names and identities. Most of Washington Park had been improved, and it was a popular destination for city dwellers. Work on Jackson Park had proceeded more slowly — a promenade along the lakeshore had been developed, but only the northernmost end of the area had been converted into parkland.

When Chicago was selected as the site for what became the World’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, Olmsted was asked to help select the fair’s location. Stressing the importance of views of Lake Michigan as the fairground’s backdrop and noting the unfinished state of Jackson Park, he suggested this as the site for the World’s Columbian Exposition. Despite the earlier idea of a large, unified “South Park,” he ruled out using Washington Park for parts of the fairground, not wanting a disjointed site. Because of space constraints, the Midway Plaisance was utilized for some popular events.

After the fair, a series of fires destroyed many of the buildings, and most of the other structures were soon razed. In 1895, Olmsted’s firm began transforming the site of the fair back into parkland. Remaining true to Olmsted’s original ideas, the Jackson Park re-design included a system of lagoons, many of which exist today.

Given this history, what is the relevance today of the South Park concept (now adapted as South Parks)? What is Project 120 attempting to achieve by trying to revive it? What does the Chicago Park District have to say about this? What are the views of the community members in the many diverse neighborhoods adjoining the three distinct parks? All good questions. We need to keep asking.

And now, JPAC. At the Jackson Park Advisory Council meeting on May 9 we were surprised by President Louise McCurry’s proposed change to JPAC by-laws. It would require that a JPAC member attend at least four meetings (rather than two) before being eligible to vote. Given the support by some of the stalwart JPAC members in attendance, the amendment seems likely to pass at next month’s meeting. We believe the proposed change, which will limit participation, only underscores the extent to which JPAC is not fully representative of the community.   However, we will continue to attend JPAC meetings and share information about what transpires (and we are definitely entitled to vote!).

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid
Jackson Park Watch

http://jackasonparkwatch.org
Like us on our Facebook page.

Greetings all,

GOOD NEWS!  At last night’s Fifth Ward meeting Alderman Leslie Hairston announced that she has asked the Chicago Park District to convene a community process to review Project 120’s proposals for Jackson Park.  Hairston noted that Project 120’s varied proposals have not, as yet,  come to fruition, and said that the meeting she has requested could establish a timeline and sort out what is fact and what is fiction.

JPW coordinators Brenda and Margaret will keep track of these plans and keep everyone informed.  In the meantime, please THANK ALDERMAN HAIRSTON for stepping forward to ensure community review of Project 120’s proposals!  She can be reached by e-mail via her website http://hairston.squarespace.com/contact-us/, at ward05@cityofchicago.org or by regular mail at 5th Ward Service Office, 2325 East 71st Street (60649) .

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid
Jackson Park Watch

http://jackasonparkwatch.org
Like us on our Facebook page.