|
|
FRIENDS OF THE PARKS AND DANIEL BURNHAM PLAN
A PLAN WHOSE LAKEFRONT OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN SATISFIED YEARS AGO
What is the genesis of the plan for lakefront extension that the Friends of the Parks so zealously supports? It is the 1909 Plan of Chicago, which among its many components, did address lakefront planning. But is Friends of the Parks honestly portraying Burnham’s vision and overarching objective? We don’t think so.
In fact, as Professor Carl Smith of Northwestern University says in his book about Burnham’s Plan, developers, public officials journalists and others may cite the plan “not as part of a close analysis….but in order to make their own point about Chicago”. That is precisely what Friends of the Parks is doing. Here’s why:
Daniel “Make no Little Plans” Burnham, the author of the 1909 Plan of Chicago, was a near lifetime resident of the Chicago area. But apparently, he did not feel it necessary to experience first hand what he was advocating for others.
The man who advocated the Plan moved his family to Evanston after becoming wealthy, saying: “I can no longer bear to have my children run in the streets of Chicago”.
The Plan of Chicago was prepared with no government funding or oversight at any level.
In order to sell it to the masses, Burnham raised implementation of The Plan to a sacred level – on a Sunday in January 1919, his colleagues and supporters persuaded 80 Chicago churches to join in “Nehemiah Day Services” in which their sermons tied advocacy of the implementation of The Plan to the words of the prophet, Nehemiah.
Major recommendations of Daniel Burnham’s 1909 Plan of Chicago include:
1. The improvement of the Lake Front (notably the building of a shoreline parkway and development of Grant Park, as Burnham had advocated since the mid-1890’s, and expansion of the lake front park system from Winnetka to the Indiana state line).
2. The creation of a system of highways outside the city (extending from Southeast Wisconsin to NW Indiana).
3. The improvement of railway terminals, and the development of a complete traction system for both freight and passengers.
4. The acquisition of an outer park system and of parkway circuits.
5. The systematic arrangement of the streets and avenues within the city in order to facilitate the movement to and from the business district.
6. The development of centers of intellectual life and of civic administration so related as to give coherence and unity to the city
Regarding the Lake Front park system, including a complete shoreline parkway – much of this has been developed within the city of Chicago (but not the complete system from Winnetka to Indiana that Burnham advocated. In fact, Evanston, Wilmette, Kenilworth, Winnetka, Glencoe, Highland Park and so on maintain public access only for their citizens, and then within a decidedly limited area. Most shoreline property in these communities is privately owned).
The lakefront park system was proposed to address the limited access that at the time prevailed. The Plan stated: “If the Plan of Chicago’s proposals are realized, the Lake Front will be opened to those who are now shut away from it by lack of adequate approaches:”. This then was the real goal of the Burnham plan: increased access, and nothing more.
Friends of the Parks would have you believe that currently, the Edgewater and Rogers Park neighborhoods only afford very limited access to Lake Michigan. However, reality shows otherwise. Thus the objective of Burnham’s plan already been realized.
With its 24 miles of Lake Front parks, myriads of streets leading to and into the system, thousands of parking spaces within and adjacent to the park system, and many bus and “L” lines leading directly to the Lake Front parks, no one with a car or the ability to ride a bus, or even walk, is denied easy access to any part of the Lake Front park system. The system is never overcrowded, although a few popular locations may occasionally become crowded during a few select days per year. (For example Hollywood Beach, Sunday, May 25, temperature 74 degrees, 3 PM: approximately 60 persons on the beach; Thorndale Beach, same date, time and temperature: 8 persons on the beach. Monday, May 26, 80 degrees, 3:30 PM: approximately 52 persons on the beach; Thorndale Beach, same date, time and temperature: 25 persons on the beach). Given the size of those beaches, this is less than 1% of capacity.
Contrary to what Friends of the Parks asserts, the parks are not at capacity, or even close to it. There is no need to create additional park along Lake Michigan to satisfy pent up demand. Friends of the Parks cannot provide one scintilla of quantitative evidence to support their assertion.
In previous months, Friends of the Parks had an aerial photo of the Edgewater/Rogers Park neighborhoods on their site, with 2 continuous red lines captioned as “No Public Access”. This is their “Last 4 Miles”. A causal observer would surmise that from Evanston to Hollywood, with the exception of Loyola park, the public had zero access to public shoreline. This is a total lie! Interestingly, this photo has been pulled off the FOTP site, but its false conclusion still forms the basis for the FOTP position.
Now, in the interest of truth, let’s examine “the last 4 miles” that Friends of the Parks claims are inaccessible to residents of Chicago:
In the Rogers Park neighborhood, from the northern boundary of Chicago to the northern boundary of Loyola University, characterized by FOTP as without public access, here’s the inventory of lakefront parks and beaches, extracted directly from Chicago Park District records, as found on their website: (MOVING NORTH TO SOUTH)
• Juneway Terrace Beach and Park 7800 North
• Fargo Beach 7751 North
• Rogers Beach 7600 North
• Columbia Beach 7519 North
• Loyola Park and Beach 7200 North (which is contiguous from 7200 North to 800 North)
• Greenleaf Beach 7048 North
• Pratt Beach 6800 North
• Columbia Beach 6726 North
• North Shore Beach 6700 North
LOYOLA UNIVERSITY BOUNDARIES ARE NORTH SHORE (6700 NORTH) AND DEVON (6400 NORTH)
In the Edgewater neighborhood, spanning 7 blocks from Hollywood to Devon, which has been characterized as without public access by Friends of the Parks, the following access points / beaches / parks are available:
• Berger Park 6200 – 6300 North
• New Park (owned by the Park District, but as yet unnamed) 6171 North
• George Lane Park 5900 North
• Thorndale Beach 5900 North
• Shalman Park 5900 North
• Osterman Beach and Park 5800 North – 5700 North (Hollywood)
Here are the summary statistics for the area that Friends of the Parks characterizes as without public access to Lake Michigan:
• Distance of 21 blocks
• Of that 4 blocks are within the boundaries of Loyola University
• In the remaining 17 blocks, there are a grand total of 15 beaches and parks at or east of Sheridan Road
• The greatest distance anyone would have to walk to get to the beach or park would be slightly over 2 blocks
• The vast majority of the beaches and parks are accessible within one block of each other
How does the existing park layout and inventory NOT satisfy the overarching objective of Daniel Burnham that “If the Plan of Chicago’s proposals are realized, the Lake Front will be opened to those who are now shut away from it by lack of adequate approaches:” ?
It is evident that Friends of the Parks, in their zeal, has clearly perverted the real intent of the Burnham plan. This activist organization has deliberately mischaracterized the objectives of the Chicago plan and has failed to acknowledge that the key objective of lakefront access in the Rogers Park and Edgewater communities has already been met, arguably more so than in any major city in the United States.
Friends of the Parks has, as Professor Smith correctly notes, interpreted Burnham in an orthodox, literal, non-thinking manner, in pursuit of their own objectives, which are narrow and elitist at best. They want lakefront expansion, when no one from the community is asking for this. What the community is asking for is cleaning up the existing parks, maintaining the existing infrastructure and enhancing existing programs in those parks. But when these needs are articulated at Friends of the Parks pseudo planning meetings, they are dismissed as irrelevant.
Friends of the Parks are deliberately misleading their few supporters (yes, few supporters) by engaging in pseudo scientific public meetings, where conclusions are known before the meeting starts. Ask a participant at those meetings: the PLAN is the starting point; only the PLAN FEATURES are open for discussion, and even then, there is little room for real community input as to their wishes.
For further verification of this point, here is a list of “Planning Principles” that were on the FOTP website which formed the basis of their “last 4 miles” “planning”. :
• Public Access to Lake Michigan
• More Parkland and Beaches
• Completion of Lakefront Path
• Greenway Corridors to the Lake
They have attempted to divide and pit the citizens of Chicago and indeed the community against themselves-a virtual class warfare- to achieve their specious ends. Read what Erma Tranter is quoted as saying in response to the results of multiple referenda that overwhelmingly rejected her “vision”. It is found on the website stopthelandfill.org.
Friends of the Parks is an organization that must be discredited and called to account.
___________________________________________
Contrary to what expansion advocates would have you believe, the plan was not without its critics.
The Public, a Chicago periodical, stated: “The working masses of Chicago . . . have little use for the Commercial Club (the plan sponsor) or any of its recommendations.”, and that The Plan did not deal with any issues that affected people below the privileged class.
Lewis Mumphord (20th century historian & social critic) calls Daniel Burnham a “colossal merchandiser” who (with the Commercial Club) was primarily interested in pumping up land values, and that his Plan had “no concern for the neighborhood as an integral unit, no regard for family housing, no sufficient conception of the ordering of business and industry themselves as a necessary part of any larger achievement of urban order.”
|
|