Herald's Chicken: "Save the Point" Longest Running Scam in Neighborhood

posted by chicago pop

Local scam very common to Hyde Park neighborhood

Back in the summer of 2009, we put together a little list of scams you're likely to run into in our cerebral little neighborhood, but we forgot to mention this one: the "Save the Point" campaign.

For reminding us, we thank the the Hyde Park Herald (Wednesday, January 22, 2010) with its wonderfully indignant slam on the Chicago Park District for not wanting to provide matching funds for the "independent third party review": "We would hate to characterize a professionally staffed government agency as petulant, but what other possible explanation could there be?"

How about a professionally staffed government organization that has determined, from past experience, that dealing with Point Savers is not worth their time or the public's money?

They do, after all, have a Point. Watching the Point Savers shepherd their great protest movement from an alternative vision, to an alt-alternative, and then to brute opposition, then further to a period of vague and inchoate inertia, which was then followed by the disappearance of matching funds for reconstruction, which was then followed by the disappearance of funds for a study of how to do a reconstruction, has been like watching panhandler scam greenbacks off students outside Valois.

Whoops! There went my stipend!

Only in this case, it's more like, Whoops! There went my shoreline!

And now the Park District has realized, "Hey! This "Save the Point" thing is a SCAM!"

Hi, I'm "The Point" and I need to be preserved!

According to the Herald, in the latest phase of the mess, engineered by knock-off Che Guevaras, it now appears that there may not even be money for the "independent, third-party study" that was to help lay the groundwork for a new compromise after the Point Savers rejected the first one. And of course, that's not because of any obstruction, it's because the Chicago Park District has double-crossed Hyde Park!

Despite the obvious deterioration of Promontory Point's limestone revetment, there is still a hard-core group of Hyde Park insurgents who, together with the various dry-cleaning proprietors they have cajoled into posting blue "Save the Point" stickers in their windows, continue to believe that the "Save the Point" jihad was a victory against the encroaching forces of wickedness.

The reality is just the opposite: the evaporation of funding and the continuing collapse of the Point is a direct result of the "Save the Point" campaign itself. It has obstructed and delayed and fantasized of limestone castles in the air so long that now it may bring about what it began by opposing in the first place: a quick fix-it job engineered by a City administration that has determined that Hyde Parkers can't be reasoned with.

The back side of those little blue stickers and buttons has a logo in invisible ink, which only becomes legible after the passage of 10 years and millions of dollars of lost federal funds, and it reads:

"KICK ME".

"Stimulate" the Promontory Point Repair!

Posted by Elizabeth Fama

Point Decay as of October, 2009.

I was at a dinner party last weekend with a woman who just happened to be a former Director of Lakefront Operations at the Chicago Park District (she's now the director of a non-profit). Naturally we got to talking about Promontory Point, and she expressed without solicitation the same opinion I've had about the Point for years: Hyde Parkers have bickered and stalled and obstructed so long that the funding has disappeared, and one of these fine days Mayor Daley will shut it down and build whatever the heck he wants there, for our own safety.

Mayor Daley finds Hyde Parkers a nuisance at worst, and may in fact find us amusing. After Meigs got carved up with big, bulldozed X's on my birthday in 2003, it dawned on me that the very same strategy would work at the Point: ignore our silly local controversy until 1. someone is injured or killed at the Point, or 2. enough erosion has occurred to declare it a hazard to people (shhh, that's already happened) and a flood risk to Lake Shore Drive (less of a worry but more important to the Army Corps of Engineers). And after Daley barricades it, it's not likely that the Army Corps will build the Compromise Plan, with its two deep-water swimming access sites, and re-use of the existing limestone. That's an expensive plan that we were darned lucky to be granted (and to help design) the first time, during an economic boom, and my dinner companion said the lakefront funds are gone now.

So I whined to her, "But our hands are tied! We're being forced to wait for 'Senator' Obama's 3rd-party review process." And then she said something absolutely brilliant, that had not occurred to me because I secretly disapprove of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. She said, "Someone should go after stimulus dollars to build the Compromise Plan. It's shovel-ready, isn't it?"

And yes, if we're lucky, it may well be. I believe the engineering plan was one of those "35%-complete" plans (or whatever percentage indicates it can be signed-off for construction).

But how could we achieve this? Who could do it? Alderman Hairston? Could she simply say to now-President Obama, "Screw the 3rd-party process that never got off the ground, I'm approving the Compromise Plan"? Could she persuade Daley to aggressively solicit ARRA funds for the Compromise Plan, with her blessing?

It would be a bold move. Too bold for her, I fear.

No, the outcome that seems more and more certain, given the level of decay at the Point, the non-existence of the 3rd-party review, and the lack of decisiveness of our alderman, is that we'll have no say in what gets built there.

FIX THE POINT

posted by Elizabeth Fama

In the late spring a young woman's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of...swimming.

But if you want to swim at the Point, you'll have to do it illegally and at one of these three treacherous swimming access spots.

Now, it may have been a while since you've actually walked the promenade all the way around (and in some places it's physically impossible), so I've prepared this helpful slide show: A Walking Tour of the Point's Deterioration. Click on fama.elizabeth's Public Gallery, and then choose "slideshow." It will take you only 90 seconds to view it, and it will bring you up to snuff on just how bad the Point is getting.

It's time for us to demand The Compromise Plan, and the sanctioned deep-water swimming that goes along with it.

And don't forget to write to me if you want a free FIX THE POINT bumper sticker. They're all the rage.

fama.elizabeth{at}gmail.com

Federal Earmarks Include Promontory Point

posted by Elizabeth Fama

There was an interesting nugget you might have missed in the Tribune last week -- a piece of news that's pertinent to Hyde Park. It was about the earmarks slated for Illinois in the $410 billion Federal spending package approved on Monday, March 16, by the Senate. (There's a detailed breakdown of all the Illinois pork here.)

Apparently, four million dollars will go to the City of Chicago's Shoreline Project "for reconstruction consistent with a Project Cooperation Agreement" (which probably refers to the Memorandum of Agreement between the City, Park District, and Army Corps of Engineers).

The interesting take for me on this bit of news is: what the heck will $4 million cover? It'll fund maybe one study and one community meeting, that's what. Do you think that's what they intended the money for? Is it going to cover Horace Foxall's third-party review?

The erosion of soil under a section of revetment (seen at the top of this post) likely weakened the root structure of this tree at Promontory Point.

To get a better perspective on how insignificant four million dollars is, consider this: the Shoreline Project covers eight miles. Of these eight, 5.8 miles are completed. So far the total bill has been $354 million. Of that total, $192 million were Federal dollars.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the construction costs are the same (meaning no fancy limestone or nothin') to fix the remaining shoreline, the Feds would have to kick in $72.8 million, and the City would have to contribute $61.5 million. With numbers like those, four million is a rounding error.

(I just threw this one in to remind you how sweet it is that it's spring.)

A Conversation about Promontory Point with Horace Foxall

posted by Elizabeth Fama

An excavator adjusts drainage and installs stone toe at 57th Street Beach, 11/13/08.

It's frustrating that the only news we hear about Promontory Point is from the Hyde Park Herald, because the articles are often replete with inaccuracies, and the information in them is doled out to reporters almost exclusively by the "Save the Point" group.

So I sent an e-mail to Horace H. Foxall, Jr. -- the Seattle Army Corps architect who will be in charge of former-Senator Obama's "third-party review" -- to see what the real status of the Point is. I was surprised and delighted that he took the time to phone me on November 17 for a long conversation. From that talk, I can indeed confirm Don Lamb's impression (Herald, June 25, 2008) that Mr. Foxall seems to be a "super, super guy" -- a super guy with a worthy resume who is, for the moment, not as informed as I'd hoped about this project, its history, and what the Army Corps and community have already endured to create the perfectly satisfactory Compromise Plan. I'm sure Mr. Foxall will tool up, but in the meantime we'll waste gobs of time, gobs of money, and we'll risk the safety of anyone who spends time on the revetment -- all before one piece of heavy machinery is delivered to the site.

"Nothing much is happening on the third-party review."

Mr. Foxall said there is no authorization for him to proceed. He was asked by Obama's office to write up a "Scope of Project," describing how his team will come up with a design alternative, which he did. Obama's staff sent this through the proper government channels, where it's stalled, waiting for money. Here's the holdup: "continuing resolutions" have passed in D.C., but not the real budget. This means that only projects that were already funded and in place under the last budget receive money. Once the new budget is passed, Mr. Foxall guesses that the money for his third-party review will be appropriated in the Civil Works Budget, under the Rivers and Harbors Act.

"Figure out the players and get together in one room."

We've heard from the "Save the Point" group that Mr. Foxall plans to have an unusually inclusive charette (a collaborative design session), and he confirmed this. He intends to "invite all the players to roll up their sleeves, and ask each other what we're trying to achieve." He wants to divide the area into smaller square-foot sections and ask at each location, "What activities would we like to see there?" When I asked him to clarify whether he meant recreational activities or construction activities he said, "Both." Among the players he mentioned: the City, the Illinois Historic Agency, local historic agencies, preservationists, and community members." I said, "Can someone from our blog come?" and he said, "Everyone who has a stake in this can come."

"The Army Corps proposed an engineering design, not a cultural or historical one."

Mr. Foxall said he had walked the area of the Point and had taken pictures. He summed up the history of the Point's shoreline controversy this way: "The Army Corps proposed an engineering design without taking the space into account, the uses of the area, and the history. It was an engineering answer, not a cultural or historical one." He said the plan proposed by the Army Corps had "neglected Burnham's original intent." I thought he must have been mistakenly referring to the oldest design proposal of 2000 (i.e. the section built between 51st Street and 54th Street) because the Compromise Plan does take the existing recreation, scale, and materials into account, and it was approved by the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. He seemed unfamiliar with the term "Compromise Plan," but said he had seen a plan from the City "as of two years ago." He went on to argue that his photos -- especially of the new construction along the 57th Street Beach (see image above), which, he said, "demonstrates the idea of concrete decorated with limestone"-- proved to him that Burnham's vision had been neglected. It seemed that he was allowing himself to be influenced by the two new sections north and south of the Point...neither of which was built with community input, and neither of which resembles the Compromise Plan.

"I'd like to make it a wonderful place to be."

Mr. Foxall's goal is to think of what activities the Point could have, and implement them in the design. For instance, he said that the beautiful views of downtown were inaccessible to handicapped people under the current design. I wanted to point out, but didn't, that the Compromise Plan does allow wheelchairs on the entire promenade level (although it's true that the entry ramp is on the south side). What I did say is that swimming access at the Point was not built into the 1930s revetment, and that by agreeing we want to arrange for all recreational uses and include handicapped access, we're already conceding that we have to give up some of Burnham's original design.

"Like putting Cadillac parts on a Ford."

He said the concrete was the wrong color for the shoreline. "Nothing is gray on the shore, it's all natural browns. The concrete will turn black." He wants the colors of the materials used to match what's already at the Point, and to match "the building [the field house] that's there."

"Two or three alternative designs."

His process, after the money comes through, will be:

(1) arrange the charette

• look into options for materials
  
• look at uses for the space, keeping the historic and cultural qualities in place

(2) send the resulting list of desired design features to the Buffalo District Army Corps, where engineers will design "two or three alternative plans that also take into account the science -- the hydraulics, the wave action, the weather, etc."

(3) price the alternatives and choose one.

"A multi-disciplined team."

His team will include:

(1) him (he is an architect by training, with a strong historic preservation background)

(2) a landscape architect -- "to preserve the viewshed"

(3) an architectural historian

(4) a hydraulic engineer.

"45 to 60 days, depending on how fast the Buffalo team is."

I made him guess at a timetable from the moment the money comes through:

(1) one week for the charette and design list

(2) 30-45 days for Buffalo to come up with two or three "60-65%" design alternatives

(3) 2-3 days of meetings to choose between them

Total: 45-60 days.

Conclusion

I came away from the conversation with this overall impression: Mr. Foxall is a bright guy who is proud of his experience working with communities (e.g. New Orleans after Katrina), and self-assured about his role in this project. He sees his job as starting from scratch; that is, to push aside all previous plans and start over completely: to look at what recreational activities and viewsheds the space can offer, and design something "culturally and historically appropriate."

I also came away with this prediction: Mr. Foxall will create his wish list for the Point. The Buffalo engineers, constrained by a (possibly dwindling) shoreline budget and by structural considerations, won't be able to do any better than the Compromise Plan -- a concrete-and-steel base with limestone blocks as revetment steps and decoration. Nonetheless, the "Save the Point" group will heroically accept Mr. Foxall's plan as a "preservation" plan. It will get built, but a decade will have passed since the Compromise Plan was presented, and millions of dollars will have been poured down the usual Hyde Park Obstructionist Hole.


Let's just hope that no one is seriously hurt at the Point between now and then. If that happens, the cost of this heroic obstructionism by the "Save the Point" group will be immeasurable.

Let's Go Spelunking at Promontory Point!

posted by Elizabeth Fama

I mentioned in my previous post that the Promontory Point revetment is becoming dangerous in many sections, and it's my guess that the City gives a few tickets to swimmers every year just to protect itself against future liability lawsuits if (or when) someone is seriously hurt or killed.

If you haven't walked along the promenade and examined the erosion of the revetment from top to bottom, as I've suggested in the past, you might be surprised to see how far it has deteriorated in many sections. Let's explore one of those sections in detail...

There are currently two (accidental, unsanctioned) water access sites on the north side of Promontory Point, and this is one of them:

You can just make out a cave in the revetment steps in the background of this photo (look for the black hole, surrounded by shrub-like weeds, just above and left of center).

This is a view of that caved-in section, from the water:


The promenade is completely gone. And can you see the two side-by-side limestone blocks in the stepped revetment behind it that are seemingly balanced on nothing (again, above and left of center)? Well, here's the view just to the right of those two "suspended" blocks:



Now here's a photo of the cave under the two blocks, to the left:

A small child could fit in here. But I don't recommend taking your kids along this section of the Point. To tell you the truth, my own kids were annoyed (in that lovingly protective way they have) that I was teetering on the lack-of-promenade, taking these photos.

Doesn't anyone want a free Fix the Point bumper sticker?

Hyde Park Herald Gets Uppity Over Promontory Point Swimming Ban

posted by Elizabeth Fama

Rogue swimmer, scofflaw, repeat offender

The Herald's fiery, retro-anti-establishment editorial was, to quote the very frank C-Pop, "A doozy." The editor's tirade over the City of Chicago enforcing the no-swimming ban at the Point is laughable, given that the Herald was instrumental in rejecting the Compromise Plan, which included sanctioned deep-water swimming. As the mouthpiece for the Save the Point group, the Herald has helped to stall the re-building of the Point for seven years. I'm sorry, but it was the original (2001) Task Force for Promontory Point that won swimming rights in the Compromise Plan, not the Holy Point Savers, who have been heard to say they'd sacrifice swimming for aesthetics if the Preservation Gods required it.

And don't get me started on Crystal Fencke's Page One story about Fabio Grego's ticket from the police. She didn't learn a thing from HPP's blow-by-blow dismantling of her previous, inaccurate Point article: she's still dutifully calling the Compromise Plan a "demolition," "concrete-and-steel" plan, even though it reuses all of the existing limestone blocks, and even though any plan will require the revetment to be completely dismantled before it's re-built. But given that her own editor is misleading his readers by pointing to the "monstrosity" between 51st and 54th Street as the design the Point Savers are fighting against, I shouldn't be surprised.

Now on to the Letters-to-the-Editor section, and the strange notion prevalent there that "We've always swum here" somehow means the City shouldn't enforce the law. If only these folks would campaign instead for the Compromise Plan. If people who are passionate about swimming at the Point had been involved all along, we might even have been able to modify the Compromise Plan to include sanctioned swimming on both the north and the south side (currently it's only slated for the south side, although both sides will have the same water-access design).

Finally, I have to just say it outright: the Point has become dangerous. Most of you know I love the place with every cell in my body. But I totally understand the City's quandary: it needs to give out a few tickets every year, just so that when someone is killed or seriously injured, Mara Georges, the City's top lawyer, can say, "Whoa! We've never allowed swimming there! Look at these tickets!"

In that sense, Mr. Grego can consider himself to be the most recent sacrifice to the Point Savers' Gods of Preservation.

Who are the Real Preservationists?

posted by Peter Rossi

"Preservation" is a much used and much abused term. To my way of thinking, preservation of man-made objects such as buildings or engineering structures requires repair and/or restoration. One can preserve a river or forest simply by leaving it alone, but to abandon a man-made structure is not to preserve it.

The Faux Preservationists

Hyde Park is home to self-anointed "preservationists" who believe that it is only necessary to stop the bulldozers. After spooking local officials into halting change, these folks walk away to leave the structures abandoned and decaying. Examples of this breed include members of the preservation committees of the Hyde Park Historical Society and the Hyde Park-Kenwood Community Conference.

Here are some prime examples of what these folks have "achieved."

Doctor's Hospital is an eyesore created by those who don't have any criteria as to constitutes a worthwhile building and who lack the perseverance and wherewithal to preserve the structure by finding another use for it.

Abandoned Doctor's Hospital

Shuttered Out Patient Entrance

Over several years, a major effort was made by a small group, the "Community Task Force," to stop all proposals for fixing the Point and restoring the Caldwell Landscaping. They boast of having raised more than $90,000 but have nothing to show for it.

Crumbling South Side of Point (photo by Beth Fama)

Local "preservationists" lobbied for the "preservation" of St. Stephens Church on Blackstone near 57th. They succeeded (with some help from an incompetent developer and intrusive neighbors) in creating another abandoned eyesore. Once a month or so, the dome gets daubed with a new coat of graffiti.

New Graffiti on St. Stephens

The First Unitarian Church of Hyde Park at 57th and University faced the problem of preserving the spire extending above its Gothic tower. Strapped for funds, the church was forced to tear it down which was cheaper than repairing it. Less than one half of the $90,000 raised to keep the Point from being fixed could have preserved a Hyde Park landmark.

Where's My Hat? Missing Spire on First Unitarian

The Accidental Preservationist

Hyde Park is home to one of the largest collection of theological seminaries in the nation. Seminary training is not a growth industry and many seminaries are struggling to maintain their historic quarters. Chicago Theological Seminary (CTS) is one such institution. In 2006, a storm blew off limestone blocks from atop its beautiful brick and limestone tower. As luck would have it, this afforded the strapped institution the opportunity to fix their tower, thanks, in part, to an obliging insurance company.

CTS Tower Renovations

The Real Preservationist

The real preservationists in Hyde Park cannot be found in the empty street car station on Lake Park Avenue or in the back rooms of Cosimo's restaurant. The real preservationists are ensconced in the administration building at the University of Chicago.

We may all be aware of the major building program under way at the U, but few know about the huge set of preservation projects.

I provide a partial listing and some illustrations.

Rockefeller Chapel is undergoing a $21 million restoration. This sum does not include the new organ and restoration of the carillion.

Rockefeller Chapel Restoration

One of the oldest and most beautiful buildings at U of C is Ida Noyes Hall. The roof and tudor-like wooden details of this building had fallen into severe disrepair. The university is in the midst of a major effort to restore the building facade and roof.

Ida Noyes Roofing Restoration Detail

Construction of the Caesar Pelli-designed Ratner athletic center rendered the women's swimming pool at Ida Noyes obsolete. The Graduate School of Business just completed at $2.5 million reworking of this space to a study center. Preservation of buildings requires making changes in the use of the buildings without changing their character.

GSB Study Space in Old Ida Noyes Women's Swimming Pool

NIMBYs in our neighborhood frequently accuse the U of having designs on the old houses it owns along Woodlawn Avenue. Some would like to declare this an historical corridor, further frustrating any attempt to preserve these buildings.

The University has taken over 5710 S. Woodlawn and put on an addition to house the office of diversity. The NIMBYs would make this sort of change impossible and doom these houses to neglect.

Addition to 5710 S. Woodlawn Ave.

To compete against other top institutions, the Law School needed to upgrade student facilities. The Eero Saarinen Library tower posed a difficult problem - how to renovate in a manner consistent with the needs of the law school and the style of architecture? $25 million later, the Law School has created a gorgeous new space.

Law School Library Staircase

The fountain in front of the school is a distinctive landmark but also a barrier to pedestrians and contributes to a isolated feeling. The School is spending approximately $2 million to create a new zero-depth fountain that will convert into a pedestrian plaza in the winter months. In front of the fountain, a new winter garden is under construction on the Midway. Along with the new dorms at 61st and Ellis, this will go a long way to making a real South campus.

Law School Fountain Repair

This is only a partial list of the projects completed or planned by the University. The Mies van der Rohe designed SSA building will get all new windows in the summer of 2008. A $51 million gut rehab of the Searle (Chemistry) building will retain gothic symmetry on the quads but with a new interior. The University has poured over $27 million into renovations of International House. Burton-Judson is undergoing a multi-year facade and roof restoration at a cost of over $13 million.

Miesian SSA Facade

"You are being unfair, yet again," I can hear the NIMBYs chanting while carefully reading this post. The U of C is a wealthy institution, we can't possibly match the resources of a major university with a 6 billion+ endowment. The only thing we can do is scream "no."

You are wrong. First off, many local NIMBYs have the view that the University's interests are not aligned with the community, particularly on preservation. I think the facts speak otherwise. It is in the University's interest, perhaps more than any other institution in our neighborhood, to preserve their historical buildings and find ways of blending the new with the old.

Secondly, many NIMBYs actively discourage the University's preservation efforts by opposing all change and failing to recognize that there has to be a balance between preservation and change. We must be able to build great buildings, if only to have something that future generations fight to preserve.

Finally, some of our local NIMBYs have shown a remarkable commitment to the political process of opposing change. They are not much for the harder work of raising money and designing new structures to complement the old, though. Is this because they are naive and misguided or because the later is hard work that doesn't put you in the limelight?

The Preservation Con Game and the Point

posted by Peter Rossi

Are you in favor of preservation? "You bet."

Do you want to preserve the Point? "Of course, I do; this is a beautiful and absolutely unique place on Chicago's lakefront."

Does it follow then that you want to preserve the Point revetment? A few self-appointed community "activists" want you to jump to this conclusion and blindly follow their lead.

For seven years, this group has done everything in their power to table all plans to fix the Point revetment. There is no end in sight.

It is possible to preserve our beloved Point. We can also preserve and even improve our access to the lake. We can restore the Caldwell landscaping. We cannot preserve the Point revetment. It must be rebuilt.

The revetment has been irreparably damaged along its entire 6000 foot length. In some places, the original revetment has become nothing but a jumbled pile of limestone blocks. In others, the original revetment has been replaced with a hideous "pill box" or coffin stretch of concrete. In still others, the substructure of crushed stone is gone and the blocks are hanging, unsupported, waiting to fall in. These photos tell the tale of woe (check out Beth Fama's excellent post for more details and pics):

Collapse of Revetment "Steps"

Failed Promenade
(photos by E. Fama)

In order to fix the Point revetment, you have to remove the existing limestone blocks and build a new substructure. Extensive Army Corp of Engineers studies have shown that the only substructure that can work is a steel piling wall backed by a concrete base. The limestone blocks can then be returned and added both above and below a concrete base promenade.

The Save the Pointers and their fellow travelers would have you believe that they want a "preservation plan" for the revetment. They cannot define what they mean by "preservation." To define preservation would expose the basic fallacy and open up the possibility that some plan might actually be acceptable. "I know it when I see it" seems to be the definition of preservation that applies here.

Those who argue for the excellent Compromise Plan can be conveniently labelled as anti-preservation while those whose real agenda is to do nothing can disguise themselves as "preservation" advocates.

While all of this obfuscation goes on, the revetment crumbles into the lake and the land behind the revetment is ignored. The beautiful landscaping that this revetment once protected has been allowed to decline to little more than a patch of grass and some spindly trees.

Behind this preservation con game is the cyncial belief that the users of the Point can be tricked into supporting vague proposals for "preservation." No progress can be portrayed as a "success." "Success" is achieved simply by rejecting plans to fix the revetment.

The stark truth is that the outcome of the preservation con game will be no progress for more than ten years.*

It is time enough to demand progress. FIX THE POINT!

*It has already been seven years since the first proposal was advanced to fix the Point. The Save the Pointers are waiting on a review by an Army Corps official that by their own estimate will take at least 1.5 more years. We still don't know what this review will achieve. Will a new plan be developed that is acceptable to all parties? Is there any grounds for optimism? I think not. In the end, final plans must be drawn, bids let, and construction must start. There is no way this could happen any sooner than four years from now even assuming that the Save the Pointers execute a complete about-face.