And it's hard to imagine why a politician, who's gone on record to stop encroachment on the public beaches, is allowing someone to change his mind because of a series of $250 dollars campaign contributions.
But what REALLY bothers ME? It's the way Joe Moore presents himself a champion for the people with rhetoric like this on his website. Take a look.
Local Environmental Successes: Joe Moore has worked hard for the environment in many ways. Here are just a few. Joe Moore...
* Holds public meetings on any proposed development affected by the Lakefront Protection Ordinance.
* Demarcated public and private beaches to stop private encroachment on public beaches.
* Will protect our lakefront against any proposed extension of Lake Shore Drive, harbors, marinas or high rise developments.
Blognotes: Joe Moore has a two-faced image problem. Joe's actions are entirely different from those written and spoken words 'we the people' read and hear. And I'd like to help Joe Moore fix that two-faced image problem. But I can't do that when he doesn't return my emails.
Those who've been paying attention know Joe Moore said he's looked for potential help in saving the North Shore School building. I've got a couple suggestions for Joe. If any of you get a chance to chat with him, could you pass these suggestions his way?
* We know Cultural Centers are a dime a dozen these days. How about The 'Joe Moore' Diversity Center? Just think of the possibilities? We could teach people to build camp fires and have Kumbaya sessions. Or a Michael James favorite - peace pipe making classes. Or spinning hand-made bongs on the potters wheel. Or, Michael James and Katy Hogan can hold their Socialist Party meetings there? Now that's diversity training. And it wouldn't be hard to find deep pocket donors for this project. You could look no further than Loyola University and it's diverse agenda.
* I got another idea. The 'Joe Moore' Duck and Geese Sanctuary. It's a perfect location for fowls to migrate. Plus, we know this is near and dear to Joe's heart. That's given Joe actually has one. And again, donors shouldn't be a problem. For big-wig stars like Loretta 'Hot Lips' Swit and Sir Paul McCartney. This should be a drop in the feed bucket, sort of speak.
This is a perfect time to show the residents your words actually mean something. Be transparent. Demarcate yourself, Joe.
37 comments:
Hey Craig,
Why don't you buy it and put your publishing company's world headquarters in the space?
I don't see this as some enormous loss or assault on the lakefront. I see a parcel of land that nobody wants to utilize as is.
This current frenzy running the blogosphere and email circuit is nothing but the latest attempt to discredit Joe and make him look like the grim reaper here.
I assume all of you well informed people knew about it 6-9 months ago when the Alderman made it known that the owners were looking for a new tenant to replace North Shore School. Where was the outcry then?
Somebody PLEASE explain to me why this is such a big deal.........
Everyone is running around acting like Joe has just told the community that he sold the naming rights to Loyola park to Waste Management and that the pier at Pratt beach will be expanded and a Taco Bell built in it's place.
WTF
I don't get it.
Charlie sez...> "This current frenzy running the blogosphere and email circuit is nothing but the latest attempt to discredit Joe and make him look like the grim reaper"
Not true Charlie. He doesn't need our help. Joe does that well enough on his own.
Standing (the right to file suit for a specific cause of action) may be a problem, but a neighbor could always file for a temporary injunction . . . which theoretically could be heard prior to the demolition.
Charlie sez...> "I assume all of you well informed people knew about it 6-9 months ago when the Alderman made it known that the owners were looking for a new tenant to replace North Shore School."
Are you the Alderman's spokesperson now Charlie? If so, please direct us to all official documents regarding this meeting you say happened 6-9 months ago?
There are no public records of such meeting on Joe's website.
Are you the Alderman's spokesperson now Charlie? If so, please direct us to all official documents regarding this meeting you say happened 6-9 months ago?
There are no public records of such meeting on Joe's website.
I said nothing about a public meeting Craig. I got an email regarding this as I am certain many other people in the neighborhood did as well.
Seems to me the owner made a good faith effort to reach out to the community and find a workable solution.
Me the spokesperson for Joe? That is a funny one Craig. In your eyes, is about Joe and in mine it's about a parcel of land not a politician.
I'd have the same opinion on this matter regardless of who the Alderman was.
Again I want to know how this is such an assault on the lakefront or it's Protection Ordinance?
Convince me someone.
Charlie, this piece of property & structure means something to many of us. I guess you just don't get it. I can say for myself that I have no mission to "get Joe."
There was an outcry back then also, maybe you missed it. In fact, there has been a group of people circulating a petition for some time.
Did you read my blog posts, because I think I explained myself fairly well. Why don't you look up the old website for the NS school and see the significance. These lesser historic buildings will seem alot more special when none are left! Not to mention the lack of green-ness apparrent in a tear down making room for cars!
I'm not saying our lives will "be ruined" if this building is gone, but using lakefront property for parking would have Daniel Burnham rolling in his grave. It's because of Burnham that we have a public lakefront, not one for private and wealthy citizens.
It's true alot of people still don't like Joe, but I think it's more that they don't like what he is doing on this issue (not enough). Are you saying that people shouldn't voice objections to things like this? Here is Joe's chance to be a big hero and win some favor with a big group of people-maybe he should take it?
I suspect that this property also represents better times for Rogers Park to some people (I don't know this for a fact). We can never go back of course, but can't we bring back things that were good- ala the Leone Beach program and such?
Despite the sarcasm in Craig's post this morning, I like the idea of Loyola doing something here. The way I see it, they owe us alot(TIF=big money for them).
When it comes to preservation, I am always going to pipe up and say something because it's a major issue for me. I believe old buildings give us a sense of history. Why does everyone ove going to Europe? Because there is a sense of stability and permanence that adds meaning to people's lives. Here, we just tear down a man's lifes work without batting an eyelash. There is little respect for the past and therefore the present and future.
Yes, Jocelyn, we tear down valuable, usable, attractive buildings that have many life-cycles left in order to build housing for cars, that highest form of life.
We also tear down buildings of great beauty and historicity to build cookie-cutter places that will barely last a depreciation schedule. For 60 years past we have torn up entire neighborhoods and towns and finally, cities, to build the Interstate Highway system, justified on grounds of national defense, the better to destroy our cities.
American business culture is founded on waste, waste, waste (often referred to as "growth" or "progress"), and we sorely miss the beauty of the stately late nineteenth century and early 20th century structures that used to grace most northern cities.
The tragedy is that these places were not outdated, but the modernist crap and strip malls and evermore parking lots that went in their place are outdated after 30 years and are eyesores in any time and place.
We will miss them much, much more when the drawdown in essential resources becomes visible and undeniable, and we no longer have the wherewithal to replace them in any manner.
We will miss them most of all when a big portion of the population is consigned, by severe resource shortages that are ongoing and permanent, to living in their rusting, immobilised cars on all the parking lots we've built, instead of in the fine old buildings built to last centuries.
How sad and ugly- Europe has managed to keep its beautiful,comfortable cities going through five hundred, eight hundred, even two thousand years, through countless wars and revolutions and saturation bombing and Nazi occupation, but we can't keep our cities intact for 80 years.
Our American "throw away" culture has caused us to throw away the very resources we will need the most for survival, including the ample stock of well-built, beautiful old buildings we once had so many of.
Jocelyn and North Coast,
I don't disagree that we tear down important/significant structures all too often and for the sake of making a $$$
Europe by the way does not save every last building that 40 people think should stand forever.
So the North Shore school building has a special place in peoples hearts that have lived here longer than me? Why because it was an orphanage and or part of a County Club (My memory is not perfect on that one)??? We can't preserve everyones memory and we can't save every building because a few people "like it" and worry that we are swirling our culture and heritage down the toilet with every lost building.
The real question here is whether or not this "Structure" as an architectural entity has significance due to it's style, methods of construction or historical significance due to the Architect or Architects who built it and for what purpose.
Can someone educate me and convince me that this place that very few residents even know exists is really all that historical by any standard, and why it should be saved?
If you simply like old buildings and don't like parking lot's, great but it's no reason to force some private land owner who tried to get an interested party to do something here to keep it standing.
If you think the Park District "should" buy it then great as well but it's not like we are talking about some plot of land in a neighborhood that does not have any green space. You can walk from it's back door for about a mile down a lakefront, unobstructed. How many other wards can you do that in?
The building is not "On the lakefront" and Craig's attempt to show access to the lake or some sort of "view" that will be lost is laughable.
The big worry here is that some developer will swoop in with deep pockets and wine and dine Joe into letting them build a high rise here. After all that is what the LPO was designed to prevent right?
As for it being a parking lot........sure there is much better uses for this property, but it is privately owned property and I don't have the $$$ to buy it and make it some sort of Community Art's center or home for a non for profit.
If you do or know of anybody who does have them get in touch with the owner and attempt to buy the property. It would be a very tough situation to rent that property and make a go of anything.
Maybe the city government should force all the property owners east of Sheridan to sell the land to them so we can keep it from ever being anything than it is now or was 50 years ago.
How "progressive" is that?????
Charlie sez...> "The building is not "On the lakefront" and Craig's attempt to show access to the lake or some sort of "view" that will be lost is laughable."
You're right, that lake is no where near the building. Thanks for noticing my trick photography.
The laughable part you can't see in the photo is, I locked Mannis in the port-o-potty and he couldn't get out. ROTFL.
You're right, that lake is no where near the building. Thanks for noticing my trick photography.
Bah
That view is not even possible form the building, and all it is is a bunch of old concrete rocks and a bunch of weeds. It ain't exactly access!
You shoulda left Mannis in the can for a few hours.
;-)
Charlie,
Obviously we are not in agreement on this issue. Europe doesn't need "40 people" to do anything because they don't operate the same way. They save MOST of their buildings. In Paris, for example, the facades cannot be touched in many areas and the owners must go to great lengths to maintain them.
How do you know it's only 40 people? Let's have a vote in November then and see what happens.
I've already said my peace about why the building should be saved and it's not "just because I like it." You say you want to be convinced, but then you discount all the reasons. You also seem to discount the Lakefront Protection Ordinance. I do not know how hard this owner tried to find someone and save the building. But I'd like to hear about that from Joe Moore's office. The thing is, too many times everyone is in such a hurry and the community pays the price.
Charlie, with all due respect, the owner knew, or should have known, of the Lakefront Protection Ordinance before she acquired the property.
If she did not want to be subject to the ordinance and its requirements, why did she acquire this property to begin with?
What if I acquired a house on a suburban street zoned for residences and proposed to demolish it to put a fast food emporium in its place? Or a 12-family apt building? Would I really have the right to whine about the violation of my property rights when the local authorities blocked me?
I have genuine sympathy for a property owner who gets a surprise downzone, or other unjustified obstruction to the perfectly legitimate use of his or her property.
I tire of owners who whine about "overly restrictive" land use convenents that they damn well knew had been standing for years before they bought their property. I also tire of owners who feel free to trash our neighborhood because they don't live here, but instead dwell in leafy suburbs with every kind of restriction on land use you can imagine. I'm sure these people don't want a acre of asphalt or some other such eyesore across the street from their large, expensive homes, and you had better believe that when their own views or quality of life is threatend, that they will move swiftly and forcefully to obstruct the threat.
Obviously, Jocelyn and Don Gordon and I and other disgruntled neighbors cannot step in and buy every property that's threatened, and neither can most people.
However, that does not, and should not, stop a municipalilty from developing and enforcing appropriate land use rules and preventing a nuisance or eyesore from being put into place on a protected site.
Places that permit any and every use of the land and make no effort to preserve attractive and useful old structures usually are places nobody cares about, and that aren't worth anyone's caring about.
If the city, county and state can find money to give seniors a free ride on the CTA, it damn well can find money to build The Joe Moore Magic Pen Museum.
Charlie, this piece of property & structure means something to many of us. I guess you just don't get it. I can say for myself that I have no mission to "get Joe."
I know you said it does but "what" exactly does it mean to you? Seriously, I'm not picking fights, I want to know.
They save MOST of their buildings. In Paris, for example, the facades cannot be touched in many areas and the owners must go to great lengths to maintain them.
We save "most" of our buildings too. Funny thing is......that most of the people in America that are tearing down buildings are likely from "Europe" so what does that say about Europeans?
Look it....... I'd love to see something better there and I don't relish the idea that it might be torn down and turned into a parking lot. I just don't know if the City should tell this person they can't. I'm not convinced it is in violation of anything. I'm also not convinced that loads of people in Rogers PArk are gonna bet all torn to pieces because of it.
It's not a 40 story high rise and it's not "On" the lakefront.
Again I am asking......what exactly does the City of Chicago stand to loose and Rogers Park specifically if this place becomes a parking lot?
Tell me why this place is so important.
Maybe if we change the name of the building to the Pilgrim Church the governor can give us a million dollars to build a Joe Moore Lab School?
What will we lose, indeed, if this building is demolished to lay a parking lot.
We will lose a nice, well-built, attractive, serviceable building that fits in at its location and that could be apartments, another school, condos, or could be used in other appropriate ways, and we will gain another PARKING LOT.
Nothing defaces a street like a parking lot, except for a strip mall or fast food place.
Actually, you shouldn't need the Lakefront Protection Ordinance to prevent your neighborhood from being defaced with something like that.
We will lose a nice, well-built, attractive, serviceable building that fits in at its location and that could be apartments, another school, condos, or could be used in other appropriate ways, and we will gain another PARKING LOT.
Fair enough........
I agree that all those options are better than a parking lot.
So it comes down to use of space. What if the parking lot were to be constructed in a way that it in fact did not resemble a parking lot? Say an underground parking lot.
What say you?
i agree with charlie on this. does anyone have any reason to believe that the lakefront protection ordinance applies to private property? i can't imagine it would.
i gotta wonder how you people ended up opposed to more parking.
Totally concealed, underground parking would not bother me.
As for being opposed to parking lots, well, I'm not the most pro-auto person you ever met. Amerika has too many parking lots and way too many cars.
Every parking lot built from here forward should be concealed, and never front on the street.
If they put the parking underground and a park for kids on top, that would be a fair compromise in my opinion.
So it comes down to use of space. What if the parking lot were to be constructed in a way that it in fact did not resemble a parking lot? Say an underground parking lot.
An underground parking lot with a park and/or community garden on top - that could be a suitable compromise if no legal means can be found to save the building.
Charlie said...> "So it comes down to use of space. What if the parking lot were to be constructed in a way that it in fact did not resemble a parking lot? Say an underground parking lot.
What say you?"
Joe Moore benched Tommy Wee-Wee and Kevin O'Neel. Charlie is Moore's blog-negotiator now.
Joe's bringing up the farm team lately. Letting them get some experience.
Oh please! Just because Charlie has a different opinion he's some kind of Joe Moore mouth piece? This is where the wheels come offf this board and it degenerates from discussion to nonsensical ranting.
Charlie's opinion is no less valid than anyone else's opinion.
Seriously, Craig, if you don't want differing opinions, you might consider turning off the comments.
Then you and Tom can sit and read your own copy.
who is going to pay for this "concealed parking"? you are talking in the hundreds of thousands to build, plus utilities to run, a whole new set of liabilities, just because a few whiners don't like the idea of a parking lot?
get real.
I'm not a mouthpiece for anybody's mouth but my own. I was just hoping to drive the conversation away from Joe is a Monster and Don Gordon is pissed because the sky is falling and someone.......likely Joe Moore, is selling away the lake and my favorite shortcut.
This is private property zoned to allow for a parking lot, which may or may not be a really great idea. I understand people's worry that Rogers Park is gonna become Edgewater, chock full of high rises and lakeshore drive extended right on through to Evanston.
Just because someone knocks down a building and gives their tenants a parking lot does not mean this is happening.
And just because some people including Friends Of the Park want to extend (or finish) the parkland with pedestrian paths and access also does NOT mean that we are gonna have fifteen 25 story condos AND LSD in front of the beaches.
The fact is that the city is planning to extend LSD by building a tunnel from Hollywood to Evanston, reducing the amount of congestion and traffic by magnitudes. This, allowing Rogers Park to become the most amazing pedestrian based friendly lakefront community in the known world.
How cool would that be? Sheridan rd could have nothing but buses, bikes and taxi cabs on it. All the buildings would be mixed use and nobody will be allowed to build higher than 7 stories and it will be illegal to build anything that resembles the uninspired faux/retro "vintage" dreck that people think is so bloody great.
It's 2008 people......quit being so damned afraid of the future and start envisioning just how cool the world is and just how amazing this neighborhood can and will be.
I know we have a lot of sand here in Rogers Park but it does not mean everyone needs to live forever with their heads stuck in it.
Wake up!
PS Craig,
Guess who I voted vore last time around for Alderman?
Peace
" ... the city is planning to extend LSD by building a tunnel from Hollywood to Evanston,"
what?
may i ask your source on this?
this is ridiculous
the engineering problems of keeping Lake Michigan out of such a tunnel would put this project in the many hundreds of millions of dollars if not more
our City and State has no capital plan
the political problems are the real show stopper - all we would be doing is moving the Hollywood congestion north, to - where? South Blvd? Evanston will never agree
Charlie claims....> "The fact is that the city is planning to extend LSD by building a tunnel from Hollywood to Evanston, reducing the amount of congestion and traffic by magnitudes. This, allowing Rogers Park to become the most amazing pedestrian based friendly lakefront community in the known world."
Where's the study? State your source.
Sheesh.......
You guys are sooooooo easy.
I was not serious, I was merely thinking about the larger possibilities.
But what if we could do that?
Would that not be an excellent proposition? Forget the cost and engineers for a moment and just consider it.
I'm all for it.
A 'Fact' and a 'Vision' have two entirely different meanings. So please clarify. It's got to be one way or the other.
Just what we need.. another infrastructure boondogle, like a tunnel extension of LSD.
Can you imagine the cost of the thing?
If this is really in the works we need to stop it while it's still on the boards.
We're already helping to pay for the disastrous Big Dig in Boston, among many other highway and bridge boondogles.and we're going to be for a long time.
If there's anything that this city and this country do not need it's more ultra-costly road infrastructure to build and maintain. As it is, we can't afford to take care of what we have in this country. The interstate bridge in Minneapolis is only one of thousands of unsafe bridges in the U.S. that continuie to be hazards because we simply aren't as rich as we once thought we were.
Our task ought to be to see how much highway infrastructure we can "triage" - close down as it starts to fall apart- so that we can have fewer roads and bridges in better condition.
and once again north coast shows the folly of libertarianism. she doesn't even want the federal government to build and maintain interstate highways. amazing.
The intertate highway system was referred to by one economist as "The Country's Biggest Welfare Queen".
It has also functioned as our biggest destroyer of our cities. Smaller midwestern and eastern cities have been DESTROYED to build these roads. Entire neighborhoods were ripped out and tens of thousands of homeowners forcibly displaced to build these high-cost corridors to new auto suburbs, the easier to decant the populations of our cities into new autocentric burbs where you have to drive 3 miles to buy a gallon of milk.
It is also a MASSIVE subsidy for private car ownership,not to mention the trucking industry, while at the same time it has caused our population and commercial centers to decentralize to the point where car ownership is now almost mandatory for first-class citizenship.
If we hadn't been subsidizing auto ownership for the past 80 years by diverting massive amounts of money to roads, and then, in the 50s. interstates and evermore 6-lane suburban collecter roads, we would not have to subsidize public transit.
We also would not be so excessively car dependent, and 90% of the country would not be non-negotiable without an auto.
I'm personally for defunding all the transportation, and letting the user pay for it all. That means monster tolls on western highways, and possibly outstate roads here in Illinois. It also means higher bus fares, except that between the new tolls and higher gasoline, more people will take the public transit from necessity. Before long, we would have lower bus and train fares with the transit operating profitably, as it did until WW2, and fewer people on the road in cars.
Under Laura's plan, the country surely lose millions and millions of jobs if we lost the auto industry and everything that it's intertwined with.
Glad you're not in charge. The entire country would shut down.
laura, the roads were not built for the car companies. they were built for the military. does the common defense rate in your list of things the invisible hand cannot take care of?
Uh, been there, we've already lost millions of jobs related to the car industry, in case you have'nt been looking. And we will lose our auto industry to foriegn competition completely, soon, and to depleting oil supplies, not much later.
Just think of the jobs building rail cars and buses we could have.
Better yet, think of the tens of thousands of RAILROAD JOBS, local jobs at every skill level that CANNOT BE EXPORTED to a low wage haven, we could have.
Think of how much less imported oil we could be consuming, and how much longer our domestic oil supply might have lasted, much to our economic gain.
Think how much better off our cities would be now, had the bulk of their middle class populations not fled to auto suburbs 50 years ago.
Regarding the defense function of the interstate system, purely for the purposes of defense it would not have needed to be nearly so extensive as it is, were it not for the excessive car dependence, and planning our cities and towns to be auto dependent.
somehow, laura, i do not find your analysis of the economic and political history of the car in america to be particularly fact based. you are picking and choosing factoids to support your twisted world view.
seriously, i think that republicans have a more reality based philosophy than libertarians. you should just not waste your time following politics, since you don't seem to think government has any place in human affairs. you can sum up all your comments with a simple- why bother, it won't work. no matter the facts to the contrary.
Bend over people. The lake front is going to change up here whether you like it or not, and to those of you who have BLOCKED it off, using whatever means, we can thank you for now having to use landfill to get the job done.
Post a Comment