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.

Greetings all,

We have been in communication with Bob Karr regarding our April 4 request to have a comprehensive community input process for developing new plans for the Park and particularly for reconsidering the Phoenix Pavilion concept. He told us after the April 11 JPAC meeting that he had been in discussion with Park District CEO Michael Kelly about the matter, and he has since reiterated that he and Kelly are reviewing the options and timing for a design process with public engagement. We will continue to push for such an open process.

Also at that same JPAC meeting, questions were asked about the Yoko Ono “Sky Landing” sculpture.  Bob would say only that it will be installed in the fall. This has prompted some recurring questions about how this installation came to be, what financial and maintenance agreements are in place, and more.  We have asked Bob to help shed some light on these issues as well.

In the meantime, we know that there continues to be understandable confusion about the Phoenix Pavilion – both the original Pavilion on Wooded Island and the new proposed Phoenix Pavilion on the parking lot just east of the Darrow Bridge – as well as about the Music Court.  We have developed the “Facts and Questions” piece that follows to help sort these things out.  We hope you will find it useful – please let us know. We will post it on the JPW website as well.

Facts and Questions about Project 120’s “Phoenix Pavilion and Music Court”

• Project 120, on its website and in its presentations, refers to the “Phoenix Pavilion and Music Court” as if these were a single entity rather than two distinct concepts. It describes the proposed new Pavilion’s amenities as including “a new performance venue that incorporates the historic outdoor amphitheater (Music Court) designed by Olmsted” in a way that some might consider misleading. In fact, the two have separate histories.

• The original Music Court was located on the east side of the (now closed) Clarence Darrow Bridge, adjacent to the current parking lot. At present, elements of the original semi-circular design are still in evidence in the remnants of the diagonal walkways, but otherwise the Court is difficult to discern today.

• The Music Court was designed by Frederick Law Olmsted in 1895 to have a bandstand in its center around which people might gather. The walkways were to be lined by formal rows of trees to provide ample shade for concert-goers. No permanent bandstand or other structure was ever erected though there were temporary platform stages at times.

• The original Phoenix Pavilion, located on Wooded Island, has a separate history based in the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition.   In designing the site for the exposition, Olmsted hoped to keep Wooded Island free of buildings, wanting to retain it as a quiet, natural area.  However, exhibitors continued to petition to build there, and Olmsted concluded that the least disruptive plan was a temple and floral display proposed by the Japanese government.  Accordingly, in March 1893 the original Phoenix Pavilion, known as the Ho-o-den, was dedicated.

• At the end of the Exposition, the Phoenix Pavilion was given to the City of Chicago. Restoration work was done on the structure in the 1930s as part of a variety of WPA projects in the Park. Sadly, the Pavilion was destroyed due to arson in 1946.

• Starting in 2012, Project 120 developed plans for a radically different Phoenix Pavilion in a new location, on the parking lot east of the Darrow Bridge. Characterized as a visitors’ center, it would have a vastly expanded range of new functions including a café, exhibition space, a music venue, a multi-purpose room for meetings and (fee-based?) events including parties, lectures, and workshops, and of course restrooms (though, in fact, a restroom exists not far away that just happens to be the oldest extant building in the Park). Thai architect Kulapat Tantrasast of the firm wHY was hired to do the conceptual design that appears on the Project 120 website.

• Questions have been raised as to the impact of this new Phoenix Pavilion on the Osaka Japanese Garden on Wooded Island not far away, since the proposed Pavilion would certainly disturb the tranquil atmosphere for which Japanese gardens are famed.

• Questions have also been raised about the parking area that would be displaced by the new Phoenix Pavilion. Is it truly under-utilized today as some have claimed?   Nearby residents and Park users believe that claim is not merited. Of course, since the Clarence Darrow Bridge has been closed making it impossible to get from one side of the Park to the other, usage has in fact gone down. However, when ready access was available, the parking lot was well used by a variety of park visitors, ranging from birders to visitors to the Japanese Garden to people enjoying group picnics.

• As a second-level consequence of the displacement of parking spaces by the large new pavilion, Project 120 is proposing to institute automobile traffic across the Clarence Darrow Bridge with parking along both sides of the roadway to replace the lost spaces. This would bifurcate the Park at its northern end and would likely turn what had been a safe pedestrian and bicycle path across the Darrow Bridge into a disruptive traffic artery that would also affect the space around the Columbian Basin now used for family picnics.

Questions? Comments? suggestions? Let us know at jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid
Jackson Park Watch

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

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

Greetings all!

We have GOOD NEWS.  Not long after we sent out last week’s JPW Update, we heard from CPD’s Kim du Buclet, who verified that Spring Awakening will NOT be in Jackson Park. She told us that while the event organizer is still selling tickets online, it is doing so without a Park District permit and is looking for another venue for the festival.

Thanks to everyone whose expressions of concern about the destruction that this event would have brought to Jackson Park helped bring about this good ending.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid
Jackson Park Watch

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

(If you decide you do not wish to receive regular emails from Jackson Park Watch, please just send a request to jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com  and your address will be removed from the distribution list.)

Greetings all!

Project 120 and Community Input

We met earlier this week with Bob Karr, president of Project 120, to explore whether his stated commitment to community input on Project 120 plans extended to a thorough review and possible revision of the  current Phoenix Pavilion plans posted on that website (and also on the website of the Garden of the Phoenix Foundation).

We observed that the pavilion plan as presented now on the website is a lightning rod for major negative reactions for reasons ranging from its size, design and location to noise, its impact on parking, its potential to harm birds, and the absence of any viable business plan for its operation.  We noted that while many support the idea of a pavilion, we have encountered no discernible support for the particular pavilion concept as portrayed on the Project 120 website.  We said that if Project 120 made clear its intention to include the pavilion plans in an effective community review process – such as, for example, by a public statement from Bob to that effect and by modifying the website to clearly indicate that the pavilion as presented there is not a final plan but is a “concept” that is subject to thorough-going community review and potential revision – we believe that there could be good opportunities for productive collaboration on plans for improving the Park going forward.

Considerable discussion ensued, including about the role of the Park District and possible elements of an effective community review process.  Bob reiterated his support for community input as stated at the March 14 JPAC meeting. We restated the need for a clear and public sign that the pavilion concept presented on the website is not final, but rather is subject to review and revision.  The meeting ended with Bob saying he would get back to us on possible next steps.  We await his response.

FOTP’s Listening Tour

We had learned that Friends of the Park was planning “listening tours” in selected parks this spring, and that one would take place in Jackson Park at the request of Alderman Leslie Hairston.  Thus, we met with FOTP Board President Lauren Moltz, Executive Director Juanita Irizarry, and Nicole Machucha, Director of Environmental Education and Neighborhood Parks, to learn more about what such an event would look like and whether it might be of interest to JPW participants.  We think it will.

The Jackson Park event will likely take place in May, and we will let you know when the specific date and place are set.  FOTP’s goals are to find out the major questions and concerns on people’s minds and to create a space for discussion of park-related issues already known to exist. To allow that to happen, the event will feature facilitated round-table discussions of open-ended questions.  Depending on what transpires, FOTP, which has a major focus on assuring community input on park-related issues, may then be in a position to foster community discussions and actions to address the issues that surface.

Spring Awakening

Many on the JPW list continue to inquire  about Spring Awakening.  Despite the Park District’s Kim du Buclet saying at the March 14  JPAC meeting that the event would not take place in the Park, the event sponsor continues to sell online tickets for June 10-12 in Jackson Park.   Recently we heard that a key CPD official gave very ambiguous response when asked whether that electronic dance festival would be held in our Park. We have contacted Du Buclet directly to ask for confirmation of the cancellation, and will report her response to you.

Jackson Park Advisory Council

The next JPAC meeting is Monday evening, April 11.  JPW has not asked to have anything on the agenda.  JPW coordinators Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid will be in attendance and will report on anything of note.

In the meantime…

Let us know your top five!  In our March 18 JPW Update we suggested that JPW can begin to develop a list of three to five key elements in Project 120 plans that are top priorities for community review and input.  We have received some useful responses, and urge others of you to also send us your thoughts.

Share the news of our website and Facebook page! As some of you have observed, the Jackson Park Watch website and Facebook page are in fact up and available at http://jacksonparkwatch.org  and  https://www.facebook.com/jacksonparkwatch .  We urge you to share these links with your friends and neighbors and organizations that are or should be interested.  Publicizing our questions and concerns is an essential step in ensuring that the community voice is heard and effective.  If you have suggestions about the JPW website, please let us know at jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com .    We are greatly indebted to Eric Allix Rogers and Susannah Ribstein for establishing these additional lines of communication for JPW.  Thank you, Eric and Susannah!!

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid
Jackson Park Watch

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

Greetings All!

We don’t want to clutter your inbox, but do want to let you know we’re still working to gather information.  Things have been delayed a bit by the recent holidays and busy schedules, but we have several meetings with stakeholders scheduled for the coming days, so should have news to share sometime next week.

Brenda Nelms and Margaret Schmid

Jackson Park Watch

jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com

Thanks to everyone who attended the Jackson Park Advisory Council meeting Monday evening. About 45 people were there, many JPW supporters.

We presented for discussion a proposed process to enable community review of the specific proposals being advanced by Project 120. The first step would be to convene representatives from key organizations and groups to plan the best method of getting inclusive community input from a wide range of sources.

The need for such broad community review has become even more pressing now that we have a copy of the July 2014 MOU between the Park District and Project 120. This MOU envisions replacing the 1999 Jackson Park Framework Plan that was developed through a multi-step, inclusive process involving a wide range of organizations and individuals with a Revised Framework Plan that incorporates Project 120’s plans. For this Revised Framework Plan and the Project 120 plans it includes to have any legitimacy, its key components clearly must be submitted to the same sort of inclusive community review.

There was broad support for the community input process we presented. Importantly, Project 120 president Bob Karr was at the meeting. He reiterated his support for an inclusive community input process. He further said that he would not move forward with the pavilion plan if there was not community support for it.

We will continue working to get an effective community input process in place, reaching out to the Park District and Project 120 and others, and will keep you posted. At the same time, with your help, we can begin to develop a list of the key elements of Project 120 plans that need community review and input. We would welcome your thoughts about the top three to five items that should be on such a list. Please send your ideas to jacksonparkwatch@gmail.com .

Another piece of JPAC business: The minutes of the January 11 JPAC meeting were corrected to accurately reflect that motion that was made and adopted at that meeting: “Moved that JPAC should reconsider its vote in support the Project 120 concept of a pavilion east of the Darrow Bridge and should provide a forum for more open discussion and community input on the pavilion concept and other aspects of the Project 120 proposals.”

Communication problems: We are aware that there transmission difficulties with the March 11 Update due to the size of the attachments. If you were unable to receive or access the attachments, you can download the MOU or the 1999 Jackson Park Framework Plan here.

MOU: We now have the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the Park District and Project 120. Signed on July 15, 2014, it runs through August 2017, and gives Project 120 surprising latitude over Jackson Park in several ways:

• It creates a Revised Jackson Park Framework Plan to replace the framework plan that was developed in 1999 through an inclusive process (see below).
• It authorizes Project 120’s development of the “New Phoenix Pavilion and Cultural Zone.”
• It authorizes Project 120’s development of “The Garden of the Phoenix,” defined as the area extending from the south side of the Museum of Science and Industry, around the Columbian Basin, to the north end of Wooded Island, and including the site of the original Phoenix Pavilion, the Osaka Japanese Garden, and over 120 cherry trees.

The MOU also approves Project 120’s development of plans for the “Great Lawn Project,” and specifies that CPD and Project 120 will continue to work on the development of the Revised Jackson Park Framework Plan. (You can access the MOU here; the first 12 pages contain the formal agreement.)

The MOU details only the arrangements for the US Army Corps of Engineers GLFER Project that is now underway; specifications for other projects will be defined in additional agreements. While the MOU requires Park District approval of any actual work on subsequent projects, it does not explicitly require any community input beyond normal Park District requirements for such approval, if such exist. (We are investigating just what those are).

1999 Jackson Park Framework Plan: The prior framework plan for Jackson Park was developed in 1999 through an inclusive process involving a large number of community organizations and institutions and a wide range of individuals. (You can download a 12mb copy of the framework plan here. Pages 16-18 list defined priorities; pages 36-37 and 41-43 describe the community input process and the participants. Note some pages are out of order.)

The fact that such an open and inclusive process was used in developing the 1999 plan is a key precedent. While there is some continuity between the 1999 plan and some elements of the revised plan outlined by Project 120 in the MOU, it is significant that proposals for major new projects have not been submitted for community review and approval, and that the new plan is, in essence, a top-down invention. Together the MOU and the example of the 1999 plan underscore the importance of our continuing to work to ensure community input and participation in decision-making about the plans that Project 120 has been advancing.

Coming up at this Monday’s JPAC meeting
March 14, 7:00 pm, Jackson Park Fieldhouse, 64th and Stony Island. Street parking is available

Meeting minutes: Approval of the minutes of the prior meeting will be the first order of business, and we want to ensure that the meeting minutes from January 11 accurately reflect the resolution that was passed. The motion made by Margaret Schmid and seconded by Brenda Nelms stated:

“Moved that JPAC should reconsider its vote in support of the Project 120 concept of a pavilion east of the Darrow Bridge and should provide a forum for more open discussion and community input on the pavilion concept and other aspects of the Project 120 proposals.” (moved by Margaret Schmid, seconded by Brenda Nelms.)

The draft minutes of the meeting read, however:

“As adjusted from the floor and stated from the chair: JPAC will continue to evaluate, and hold open discussions regarding Project 120 or other pavilion concepts or proposals for east of the Darrow bridge and whether to support these. JPAC also supports there being well advertised public meetings with robust input on the same.”

We simply want to ensure that the minutes are accurate.

Community input process: As indicated in our resolution, we have hoped to come to an agreement with JPAC leaders that JPAC and JPW would work with other community partners to create an inclusive community-based process to review Project 120 plans and had asked JPAC president Louise McCurry to add a relevant agenda item. Thus we were glad to see this item in a JPAC meeting reminder sent 3/10/16:

Next, Representatives from a new group, Jackson Park Watch, will introduce their organization and present ideas for robust public input in park planning, particularly Project 120 and concepts of facilities such as a visitors’ center/pavilion etc. (Persons from the Park District and Project 120 will be present but there will not be presentations or an extended q and a. An overall time will be agreed upon.)

We look forward to this discussion, and trust that you all will join in! After the meeting, we will assess next steps and will be in touch.