Spring Fix-Its and Digs: Metra Midway Viaducts and CTO Building Site

posted by richard gill

Midway Viaduct Repairs

It is spring once again, and in Hyde Park there are some welcome sights and sounds of air compressors, diesel excavators, front end loaders, and the backing-up beep, beep, beep of heavy equipment.

Some things are getting done that needed doing.

For instance, Metra is using Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) funds to repair the viaducts across 59th Street, the Midway, and 60th Street. Much work still needs to be done at this station (we called the staircase from the 59th Street Metra platform the "Stairway to Hell" last spring). But still, it's a good project; no controversy there.

New Chicago Theological Seminary Site Preparation

Also, the U of C has begun the construction of new headquarters for the Chicago Theological Seminary at 60th & Dorchester. Good project; controversy there. Remember the “community” garden on what is now the construction staging site abutting the actual construction? The gardeners insisted on remaining on the University-owned property during and after construction. They said the staging could just as well be done a couple of blocks away. Well, yeah, but at what cost, along with neighborhood disruption and safety problems as material and equipment is moved over the street?

That the Seminary is being built is good news. Even better: For once, a strident clique of Hyde Parkers was sent packing, along with their silly claims of entitlement and righteousness. For the greater good, the garden got moved. The carrots and radishes will grow again, perhaps on less sacred ground. But they will grow.

Nice as these two projects are, it’s too bad that they’re public works or U of C-sponsored. Private sector development in Hyde Park remains stymied by … well, just read some of the past entries on this blog.

Herald's Chicken: Seriously, the Herald is Funny

Posted by Richard Gill

The Herald can’t help itself. There’s this compulsion to preach. Witness the Herald's “editorial” for November 4. It’s a sermon/lecture on self-improvement, aimed (where else) at the University of Chicago. The Herald looks kind of funny, up there on its high horse.

There isn't room here to dissect the entire “editorial,” and it wouldn't be much fun after the first few hours. So, let’s just go to a few choice morsels.

The editorial makes note of “lots of folks bustling to and from institutional buildings [along the Midway],” and then asks, “Where will these people recreate?” The implication is, of course, that the “Community Garden” is the “where.” Well, almost none of “these people” have chosen the garden as a recreational option. People have countless recreational opportunities. We’d all be in one heck of a pickle if that garden counted substantially toward area opportunities for “fun.”

The Herald goes on to say, “The garden connects the university to the community…..” No it doesn't. The garden connects a relative handful of people to the garden, which just happens to be on university property.

Finally, the Herald accuses the university of “imperious, malevolent behavior.” I’ll agree the university has not always shown great judgment, but c'mon, Herald editors, even you don’t believe “imperious and malevolent.” If the U of C is guarded in its approach to “the community,” it is justified, given the purposeful work of certain neighbors to thwart U of C efforts that would benefit the community at large.

Unlike the “editorial,” I won’t go on and on. Suffice it to say the Herald is great comedy, especially when it gets so serious. I guess that makes the Herald a recreational opportunity in competition with the garden.

Jack and the Beanstalk

posted by chicago pop

Forwarded by an Honest and Honorable reader:

From: Jack Spicer
Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Subject: community garden demolition
To:


Dear 61st Street Community Gardeners and Friends --

Most of you now know that the University of Chicago intends to demolish the community garden at 61st Street and Dorchester Avenue shortly after Halloween. Many of you have responded to the news. You have expressed sadness at the potential loss and frustration and disappointment with the University. A number of you also asked questions that I will try to answer.

But first, Jamie Kalven has interviewed many gardeners in their plots at the garden. The video of the interviews, The Garden Conversations, is now being published, a few conversations per day, at www.invisibleinstitute.com. If you would like to be interviewed or have thoughts you want to share with Jamie, please contact him at com>. Please pass this site to as many people as you can. The "conversations" tell the real story about the value of the garden.

And second, in today's Tribune Dawn Trice talks with gardener Deb Hammond about how the community garden has affected her life. Here is a link to the story:
www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-trice-12-oct12,0,557747.column


And now the questions:

Is it really "essential" to use the garden for construction staging?

No, I doubt it's essential. Maybe "convenient" and it would probably save a little money, but the CTS building, a block away, could certainly be built without demolishing the garden. Contractors build skyscrapers in the Loop without even blocking the public sidewalk. Any independent professional construction manager could verify that the garden site is not essential to constructing the CTS building. We would encourage the University to submit the issue to an independent professional.


Is the Chicago Theological Seminary causing the demolition of the garden?

No, they made a verbal agreement with the UofC that no harm would come to the garden as a result of their new building being built. They were looking forward to having the garden as a neighbor for their sustainable building. The University unilaterally withdrew from that agreement. We've spoken to the new CTS dean, Alice Hunt, and found her to be honest and honorable. I think CTS has done what it can do to protect the garden from the UofC's construction project. I plan to attend the CTS groundbreaking on Thursday as a friend and (current) neighbor.


Isn't it UofC's private property, and can't they do anything they want?

The garden site certainly is their property and they have generously let us use it for the past ten years. We had hoped the contribution the garden has made to the community would be apparent, and the University would act as a good neighbor and allow the garden to live on. Good neighbors and good will are valuable things, not to be wasted. But we had also hoped they would see the garden as serving their own best interests by enriching the neighborhood where their students, staff and faculty want to live.


What's the real reason the UofC is demolishing the garden?

I don't know. I doubt it's a practical decision based solely on construction convenience. The social fallout -- unhappy gardeners, neighbors, students, and faculty; skepticism about the UofC's commitment to sustainability and to living convivially with its Woodlawn neighbors; bad press; etc. -- far outweighs the temporary convenience. It's more likely that it's a policy decision from the Office of Civic Engagement and from the President. But I don't know what their real reason is or what message they intend to send. It remains a mystery.


Thanks,
-- Jack Spicer


Please check the garden website, www.61streetgarden.com for updates. You can make comments or ask questions there at "info."

I hope you enjoy "The Garden Conversations" at: www.invisibleinstitute.com.

I'm told there is a Facebook group at: "bulldozers versus 61st Street Community Garden"

Tempest in a Compost Pile: The Garden at 61st Street

posted by chicago pop

Short Version of Post

For those of you pressed for time, the short version of this post, dealing with the diplomatic kerfuffle over the destiny of the community garden at the northeast corner of 61st and Dorchester, can be reduced to the following three statements:

1. The University of Chicago owns the land.
2. The people currently using the land as a garden do not own it.
3. Anyone other than the University making use of the land in question is a squatter, tolerated by the good graces of the true owner, and unless they have had the foresight to prepare for the day when the true owner would assert rights over the land (by either bidding to buy the land themselves, or seeking to buy property elsewhere), these folks are SOL, no matter how well-intentioned they are, nor how much you or I might like the vegetables they produce and the ideas behind what they're doing.
   

Long Version of Post

To reprise the story in its bare essentials: for about 10 years, people have grown accustomed to gardening on a plot of land, owned by the University of Chicago, directly to the north of the local institution known as the Experimental Station.

The Experimental Station, it will be noted, owns its land, a parcel on the southeast corner of Dorchester and 61st Street.

About the same time (1999), the University began the planning for what would emerge between 2002-2005 as its ambitious South Campus Plan, intended to satisfy the need for facilities expansion, but also to create a more welcoming and porous border between the University and the Woodlawn neighborhood south of the Midway.

In materials presented at community meetings in 2004, the land currently used as the community garden was clearly identified to be University property, and included within the boundaries of the South Campus project.

These are the kinds of signs in the wind that suggest what is likely to happen in the near future. There should have been no surprise, then, when in the spring of 2008, the University informed 61st Street gardeners that the University's consent to allow gardening was temporary; nor should there have been further surprise when, a year later, the University announced that the 2009 growing season would be the last one for gardening on the property.

What makes this story more interesting is the fact that it has not, and does not fit easily into the archetypal narrative of town-gown, little people-Big Institution conflict that grew up in the 1960s and has flourished ever since, liberally watered by the editorials of the Hyde Park Herald and richly cultivated by outspoken neighborhood activists.

The University's decision to reclaim the garden is driven by its plans to relocate the Chicago Theological Seminary from its historic location at 58th and University to land adjacent to the garden. According to a statement on the CTS's website, the University is performing a massive act of philanthropy by not only preserving and refurbishing the old and much-loved CTS building, but by erecting a new home for the seminary -- furniture included -- for free.

The new facility was made possible through a multifaceted agreement with the University of Chicago. Under the agreement, the university will purchase the existing CTS buildings and construct and furnish new facilities to the seminary's specifications. The total cost of the purchase and construction, including contingencies, moving costs, furniture and incidentals will be as much as $44 million. CTS will hold a 100-year lease on the new building at a rental rate of $1 annually.

If the University had not "saved" the Chicago Theological Seminary, the 61st Street garden might not need to be shut down. It would be nice if this were not the case, but even among the most worthwhile elements of the most progressive agenda, there are occasionally trade-offs, and this appears to be one of them.

Yet this outcome is rather curious, in light of certain garden advocates' self-understanding of just what it is they're up to. In a recent post on Huffington Post Chicago, Jamie Kalven makes a 2,000 word case for why the planning for relocating CTS to South Campus should accommodate the garden. There he argues that:

the constellation of community garden, farmers' market, wood-fired bread oven, and cafe has established the conditions for an active inquiry into the practical requirements of sustainable local food systems. [italics added]

And further:

In this time of economic distress and uncertainty, of massive dislocations and strenuous adaptations, this ongoing investigation will yield knowledge with direct implications for public policy. [italics added]

One wonders if one of the basic requirements of sustainable local food systems is not having the experiment aborted as soon as the landlord kicks you off. That's not very practical, it's certainly not sustainable, nor does it appear to recommend itself as a good policy precedent.

A lot of us like to garden, and buy organics and locally produced food. A lot of us are already convinced that industrialized agriculture in the United States is a deeply flawed and unsustainable system. It is petroleum, water, and chemical-input intensive and has a high carbon footprint; it is genetically disadvantageous for the local ecosystems in which monocultures are cultivated, the nutritional content of the food supply, and ever more scarce supplies of fresh water; and it is part of a system of food manufacture and distribution that is partially responsible for exploding health problems such as obesity and diabetes.

A lot of people already recognize these problems, and have some sense of what partial solutions might be. Local food production is one of them. And as with a lot of alternatives, whether they be technologies like battery or fuel cell powered automobiles, organic farming, or solar power, the trick is to get replicability and scalability -- that is to say, to make the trick you pull off on a plot of land in Hyde Park something that can be done in neighborhoods across the country to potentially feed millions of people, thereby scaling it up to the point where it will have real-world impact.

It would seem a major piece of this effort, if it is to have real-world implications at all, is taking seriously the idea that the first thing you need to do is to buy the land you cultivate. Then no one can boot you off, you don't have to persuade landowners with essays on spiritualistic metaphysics or attempt to guilt-trip the University. Then you can get on with the practical business of replicating and scaling up your "investigations."

That kind of experiment, it seems to me, would be truly putting your money where your mouth is.